# Cheap but good recurve or longbow?



## rdneckhntr (Oct 23, 2005)

Im really wanting to give hunting with a recurve or longbow a shot. I really like the fact that its all you...theres nothing else that plays into it(sight/rest malfunction..) like on a compound...

I have 2 recurves but I cant pull them back. Ones a 45# and the other is 55#. Im wanting something about 35#(would that work? I pull 58# huntin with my compound.) thats cheaper but still worth the money.


----------



## 45-70cannon (Feb 10, 2004)

I'm stumped. How does one pull a 58# compound bow and can't pull a 45# recurve? You know I haven't shot any of my longbows all year long, but last night I stung my 67#er and it is strung behind me and I tried like the dickens to pull it back too, and I couldn't. But alas, I'm stubborn and each time I walk into this room I pick it up and give it a tug. I'm getting better at it, but I haven't shot it yet. That should be interesting!


----------



## MrBadExample (Nov 28, 2006)

I think it is recommended that you drop about 15 to 20#'s in draw weight when jumping from a compound to a recurve or longbow, so it's not unusual for you to have a difficult time drawing the same weight as your compound. In regards to a good recurve, my only experience has been with a Martin X-200, which is their "beginner/intermediate" bow. It shoots well, although I do notice a little handshock, but for about $250.00 is a well made bow from a well known manufacturer. I know there are many great bowyers out there, but you generally get what you pay for so beware and look for reviews of a bowyers work on this and other forums before spending your hard earned cash as I have read many horror stories about some inexpensive bows. I have also read good things about the Daala, which is now carried by Three Rivers Archery, but it is expensive. I'm sure others will chime in with their opinions and I hope you will find something to suit you.

Martin:
http://www.shopatron.com/index/189.0.23393.0.0.0.0
3 Rivers Archery:
http://www.3riversarchery.com/Thumb.asp?c=44&s=144&p=0
Das Kinetic:
http://www.kineticbows.com/


Good Luck! :teeth:


----------



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

Cheap but good spells ebay, if you know what to buy, why don't you just try working up to what you already have, if you are gonna hunt what you already own sounds about right


----------



## alanraw (Feb 18, 2005)

45-70cannon said:


> I'm stumped. How does one pull a 58# compound bow and can't pull a 45# recurve? You know I haven't shot any of my longbows all year long, but last night I stung my 67#er and it is strung behind me and I tried like the dickens to pull it back too, and I couldn't. But alas, I'm stubborn and each time I walk into this room I pick it up and give it a tug. I'm getting better at it, but I haven't shot it yet. That should be interesting!



I think the issue at hand is the *let-off*, 45-70cannon. Remember, traditional longbows and recurves have no let-off, so you're pulling _all_ of whatever the marked weight is; compounds have a let-off, so if you have an 80# compound with, what, a 70% let-off, you're actually only pulling a few pounds. 
I think that's why it's been said over and over again to compound shooters attempting to break into traditional: START LIGHT! 25#-35#:wink:


----------



## alanraw (Feb 18, 2005)

sunaj said:


> Cheap but good spells ebay, if you know what to buy, why don't you just try working up to what you already have, if you are gonna hunt what you already own sounds about right


I agree with some of what you say, Sunaj, but I disagree with some of it also. I am more inclined to think that rdneckhntr may be better served by getting an inexpensive, lower-poundaged recurve and mastering form without having to struggle with the weight, rather than attempting to "handle" his 45# recurve. That way he can master the basics using a bow he can easily handle and _then_ transfer his skills to his 45-pounder, which he can then hunt with.

I do agree with your assertion that eBay is the place to go for cheap, used recurves, though. I am sure there will be lots of differing opinions, but since I am so blatantly biased, I am going to give mine, LOL. I am a big fan of older Damon Howatt recurves, and I saw what looks like a pretty nice Hunter, of an appropriate poundage, on eBay right now: http://cgi.ebay.com/DAMON-HOWATT-30...ryZ20839QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Here's another nice looking old Damon Howatt: http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Damon-H...ryZ20839QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


You better be careful if you decide to bid on that 30# Howatt Hunter, redneckhntr...you just might wind up bidding against *ME*


----------



## rdneckhntr (Oct 23, 2005)

I really like the first one you posted alanraw...I might just have to bid on that tomorrow. 


Whats the least # I should hunt with? Ive killed a deer with a #38 compound and I know its not all the poundage its all in shotplacement...Ill figure out my limit when I start shooting...


----------



## alanraw (Feb 18, 2005)

I think the minimum poundage you can *legally* hunt with may be dictated by your state's regulations, so that may have to be checked on by you


----------



## rdneckhntr (Oct 23, 2005)

Yea I know. Tell you the truth though I dont ever remember seeing a min. for WV...Ill recheck that tomorrow...


Im really wanting somethin that I can go out and just fling arrows with without all the bells and whistles if you know what I mean.


----------



## 45-70cannon (Feb 10, 2004)

No one says you have to draw the weight and hold it. Shooting a longbow is like shooting a slingshot. Pull it back and let it down. Practise stretching the string. Pull it and let down. Its easy.
Buy yourself excercise equipment, especially that gizmo that has two handles with springs inbetween them and you pull against both hands. You'd be suprised what that will do for your strength.


----------



## pappaw (Jul 17, 2007)

If you are looking for a good recurve. Try quinnsarchery.con You can't go wrong with any of the bows that they sell. The most bang for your bucks.


----------



## pappaw (Jul 17, 2007)

After a 12 hour shift I should read what I type. quinnsarchery.com


----------



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

I have never agreed with the current trend of shooting such light bows as 35lb and less for reasonably masculine men or better, in the old days people were often prepared for bow shooting by simply holding at draw, without an arrow until they were strong enough to pull without undue effort, I think that is still sound practise, and I myself pull a very stiff bow without an arrow to perfect my draw. It should not take a devoted practitioner more than 6 months to develop their upper body to draw a 45# bow. People with injuries may be a different matter


----------



## alanraw (Feb 18, 2005)

sunaj said:


> I have never agreed with the current trend of shooting such light bows as 35lb and less for reasonably masculine men or better, in the old days people were often prepared for bow shooting by simply holding at draw, without an arrow until they were strong enough to pull without undue effort, I think that is still sound practise, and I myself pull a very stiff bow without an arrow to perfect my draw. It should not take a devoted practitioner more than 6 months to develop their upper body to draw a 45# bow. People with injuries may be a different matter



Well Sunaj, I will admit that I can see how using a bow that is heavier than one is presently able to shoot _as a pulling/conditioning device_ may potentially help to develop the upper body strength needed to handle heavier poundages, but I was speaking more along the lines of mastering _form_ related issues without the added distraction of the weight of the bow...kinda like when we went to the rifle range when I was in the military; practicing sighting in without letting off any rounds and then when we were actually shooting to qualify, all the practice/mental visualization kicked in (if that's an acceptable anaolgy)


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

sanja - 

Don't recall that practice in the old days (for beginners) by anyone who actually knew what they were doing. Exactly the opposite, but I'm going back 30 - 40 years. The problem with the theory is that if you start out with a bow that's even a little too heavy and just "hold it back" you'll build up muscles alright, but not necessarily the right ones or be using them the right way. In effect you're practicing bad form and engraining it.

Now, on the flip side, there are a number of top level Olympic shooters who do exactly that exercise. They practice extended holding on bows #5 to #10 heavier than what they normally compete with. The difference, and it's a big one, is that they already know what form they should be using and can replicate it with the heavier bows.Very different from the yank and hold thing a newbie will be doing.

Clearly with the emergence of "trad" about 15 - 20 years ago, the camp has somehow split into two sides. The guys who want to fit some media hyped image of what a "bowhunter" is or should be and the old timers who still believe that being a competent archer is a prerequisite to being a successful bowhunter. I can't speak for the former, but for the latter, the methods we teach have really stood the test of time for a very large majority of archers/bowhunters. 

I can't tell anyone what's right for them, but I can tell people what's going to get most of their arrows where they want them, quickly and consistently. The choice is theirs.

Viper out.


----------



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

Well I think the Mongols knew what they were talking about as far as archery, I doubt whether the modern archer could compete with some older civilizations thousands of years ago, when the bow was the ultimate weapon and using it well meant life, food and status. But there is always more than one path to the goal of shooting-


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

sanja -

Honestly, I find these historical references (not only yours) quite amusing. Unfortunately, if I had to put any money on it, I'd be willing to bet that most "modern" college level archers could out shoot most of the ancient archers by a fair amount, and yes, that includes ishi.

The name of the game is putting the arrow where it needs to be, not who can pull the heaviest bow or keep the most arrows in the air at one time. 

I can't help you with that, nor am I saying what I teach is for everyone. I do say that the methods that have been developed over the last 40 - 50 years do work and have only been lost in the most recent times. Now it seems that accuracy takes a back seat to image or "do your own thing".

Of course there's no obligation for you anyone to do what I or other peoiple here suggest. Just posting an opinion.

Viper1 out.


----------



## PineLander (Oct 28, 2003)

Holding a bow at anchor without an arrow might perfect your draw....
but it doesn't do much for perfecting the loose of your arrow.

Wouldn't hurt to take a look at Quinn recurves, they are much better bows than their price might suggest. In this particular case, you get MORE than what you pay for... compared to many other bows.


----------



## alanraw (Feb 18, 2005)

PineLander said:


> Holding a bow at anchor without an arrow might perfect your draw....
> but it doesn't do much for perfecting the loose of your arrow.


Well said, Pinelander, well said.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Viper1 said:


> sanja -
> 
> Honestly, I find these historical references (not only yours) quite amusing. Unfortunately, if I had to put any money on it, I'd be willing to bet that most "modern" college level archers could out shoot most of the ancient archers by a fair amount, and yes, that includes ishi. Viper1 out.


ISHI? Ishi could hardly cast an arrow 35 yards... in some of the readings I've had from the good doctor, ishi was a master at stealth... had an uncanny read on the woods and its habitants.. and in pictures that I've seen of ishi, which aren't that many, I'd almost guess that he "plucks" the string... and all this back tension stuff comes back into my thinking again and my conclusion is that what works for you works.... 

I'da loved to have had the opportunity to spend time in the woods with the likes of Ishi, but thankfully there are the benefits of the writings of others.

Aloha...


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

rattus - 

Thank you, that was my point. If someone is after honing their woodsmanship skills, that's great, and there are plenty of people who can address that better than I can. If someone wants to SHOOT better, than I might be able to help, but only IF they are willing to listen and try something a little different than what they've "been told".

BTW - the only reason things like back tension and shoulder alignment came about is because some people wanted to SHOOT better. Can't argue with natural ability, good eye hand coordination, muscle strength and rock solid nerves, but a lot of don't have all those attributes, so we have to work things out to make the most of what we have. That kind of thinking makes sense to me.

Viper1 out.


----------



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

Well it's nice to see you are so easily amused, any good student of archery history should be aware of the historical fact I have posted. 
There was a day when men hunted their meat with the bow, shot running/flying game, protected their own during war-and still managed to carry on the gene pool. Most shooters today would die out in a few weeks to months. 
To suggest that early people did not have well made bows, accurate arrows, and the ability to shoot extremly well (their existence depended on it) is to be ignorant of history. Ishti was only one lone indian from California (not really know for great hunters or warriors, although his tribe did have notoriety among california indians) and did not represent the majority of american indians or their style and expertise in archery. When the europeans landed on this continet they met tribes that were extremely good archers with bows that could penetrate their armour.
And a lot of what people are calling new in the last 50 years in archery (materials aside) is not new, but rediscovered.


----------



## cpnkidd (Jul 28, 2007)

Man was eating a good bit of meat before the bow was invented too. If it came down to hunting for meat, I would sure rather have a black widow and some 2216 arrows than a selfbow with a sinew string and some handmade arrows from tree branches. But it sure is pretty cool daydreaming about how neat it would have been to be a really badass primitive archer shooting buffalo at 50 yards with a really powerful bow I made myself even if it didnt really happen that way.


----------



## Blaineyboy54 (Jul 7, 2007)

Gotta say here that I tend to agree with Sunaj in my personal approach to archery in general. He like me seems to abhore all this optimal exhaustive skeletal/techno/kinetics blahblahblah. One needs to know obviously the right bow/arrow combinations for what they want to do, the proper basic form, aiming/sighting/anchoring basics and just practice fer chrissakes!
In my brief (2yrs) of time spent with target style archery with traditional gear I have found with trial and error and reading up I can stand 30-40 yrds away from the target and get 12 arrows in the red or better on an 80cm target face. Sheesh......do I care about Robin-Hoods at 15 yrds? Oh puhleeze...
These guys that sling high scores with their $5000 high-tech machines at 20 yrds give me a break. I can't speak for hunters but if you can't hit an animal from only 15 ft away without all this high-tech stuff just get a shotgun already...
Obviously for a first bow to learn proper form and such I can see the sense in something like a 35#er....for about a month or so.....but now I find no joy in shooting anything under my 55# Martin LB....the feeling of all that power and straight tragectory within 60 yrds is what I'M talking about here.
Just work yourself up thru practice and you'll be able to handle something worth holding and shooting. Trust me, you may not become an "archery sage" like some on here but you'll have fun and find great personal satisfaction from doing it like it was intended to be done....
Blaine


----------



## PineLander (Oct 28, 2003)

Blaineyboy54 said:


> ....the feeling of all that power and straight tragectory within 60 yrds is what I'M talking about here.


An archer doesn't HAVE to shoot a heavier bow to accomplish that.
It is dependent upon the 'arrow to bow' weight ratio. I believe it is referred to 'grains per pound'.


----------



## sunaj (Jul 24, 2006)

You know some archery cultures made some terrific bows, every bit as good and accurate as ours, just not mass produced, but custom made by hand, every single one. They did require regular maintenance, but people had time, lots of time for these things. Think about that, tribes that had older men who were masters of their craft, bowbuilding, secrets passed down for generations and genrations, techniques tried and proven in the field and combat (if the technique was not superior, your school would die (meaning you)), self bows, horn bows, composite bows, recuves, longbows, this is mainly what they did. No tv, no running around in cars, high blood pressure, diabetes, but people lived in the field all year round, hunting dailey, pushed to extremes-if you didn't make a kill your family starved. If you missed your mark in a skirmish, you were dead. These were the HEYDAY of archers, where top archers got the prom queen, the best and biggest chunk of meat, and you don't think these people could shoot? You don't think they had technique, form, style, strength, hunting ability, Extraoardinare by our standards? We, who go out several weeks a year and have fun? Haaa ok That's it for me


----------



## alanraw (Feb 18, 2005)

sunaj said:


> You know some archery cultures made some terrific bows, every bit as good and accurate as ours, just not mass produced, but custom made by hand, every single one. They did require regular maintenance, but people had time, lots of time for these things. Think about that, tribes that had older men who were masters of their craft, bowbuilding, secrets passed down for generations and genrations, techniques tried and proven in the field and combat (if the technique was not superior, your school would die (meaning you)), self bows, horn bows, composite bows, recuves, longbows, this is mainly what they did. No tv, no running around in cars, high blood pressure, diabetes, but people lived in the field all year round, hunting dailey, pushed to extremes-if you didn't make a kill your family starved. If you missed your mark in a skirmish, you were dead. These were the HEYDAY of archers, where top archers got the prom queen, the best and biggest chunk of meat, and you don't think these people could shoot? You don't think they had technique, form, style, strength, hunting ability, Extraoardinare by our standards? We, who go out several weeks a year and have fun? Haaa ok That's it for me



You know what, Sunaj? I truly hope that *IS* it for you, because this whole "gotta have the last word/what _I_ say is correct and you're an idiot if you disagree" type of mentality is really getting tedious. Now---we've all seen how anal-retentive Artur is...you seem to be cut from a better cloth---show it.


----------



## PineLander (Oct 28, 2003)

I'm still trying to figure out how this thread went from 

- looking for an affordable lower-poundage recurve to.... 

- a history lesson in man's carnivorous and war related activities with bows.


----------



## alanraw (Feb 18, 2005)

PineLander said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how this thread went from
> 
> - looking for an affordable lower-poundage recurve to....
> 
> - a history lesson in man's carnivorous and war related activities with bows.


*HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA*


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Viper1 said:


> rattus -
> 
> Thank you, that was my point. If someone is after honing their woodsmanship skills, that's great, and there are plenty of people who can address that better than I can. If someone wants to SHOOT better, than I might be able to help, but only IF they are willing to listen and try something a little different than what they've "been told". Viper1 out.


For myself, I will try anything to improve. I've been an instructor of things for over 40 years, from airplanes, to pistol, rifle, shotgun and muzzleloader, advanced bowhunting, and several other endeavors. One thing that I have found to be true for myself, is that more I tried to impart the most knowledge to someone else, I got better at what I did. Whenever I had the opportunity to experiment with someone elses form, idea, method, etc, it had the benefit to me of expanding my horizons allowing me to adopt, evaluate, and incorporate these techniques into my own style when possible. I admire anyone who is willing to teach, for there is no more challenging a field. 

That you are willing to take the time to share your life experiences in the world of archery is something I'm sure that like myself, most of us here appreciate.

Much Aloha... Tom  :darkbeer:


----------



## CAJUNBOWHNTR (Nov 8, 2002)

I'll second the quinn stallion.I've shot a lot of the more popular bows and it is right in there with them for 1/4 the price.


CB


----------



## westksbowhunter (Sep 23, 2002)

Do you think that dropping 15-20 lbs in weight when going from compound to traditional still holds true today? Point being is that I shoot my compound maxed out. It is a 60 lb bow. I shoot that weight because todays bows are faster at 60 than the bows we shot back in the 80's shooting 75 plus pounds. I could easily shoot 80 lbs if I wanted. So I shoot my compound at 60 and can easily shoot a 55lb recurve. So now that I have made my statement, I have I made any sense?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

rdneckhntr said:


> I really like the first one you posted alanraw...I might just have to bid on that tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Whats the least # I should hunt with? Ive killed a deer with a #38 compound and I know its not all the poundage its all in shotplacement...Ill figure out my limit when I start shooting...


Id shoot for 40# if you can. 35# is usually a minimum weight for recurves and 40 for longbows. You have it down too... it is all in shot placement and a sharp broadhead... and in my opinion, a cut on impact broadhead would be the best choice with a lower poundage bow.

Good luck... 

Aloha...  :darkbeer:


----------

