wanted a bowyer to do was take a design from the past that was efficient and make it with all the latest advancements. Action Boo, carbon fiber, etc. So we could see how much improvement we could get. I think it would be a hot seller. The look of nostalgia with top performance. What's not to like?

Lots of bowyers do that. There aren't a lot of really original designs out there. Mostly it's an improvement, or perceived improvement, due to new materials being available.

Lots of hill style bows made with carbon. Action Boo isn't new, and hasn't been for years.

I think the difference in performance would be negligible if the same geometry was used. The biggest advance in performance has nothing to do with bow design, it is low stretch string material. Yes, you can go to the edge of diminishing returns...function versus catastrophe, and build a very fast bow. However, when designs remain the same, materials do not significantly add to the overall performance of a bow. Put some quality string material on old bows like the 55 and 56 Kodiak, and you will have a bow that shoots right with modern material and design.

I know a guy that has been thinking that one thru. JF

Come-on George, "when designs remain the same, materials do not significantly add to the overall performance of a bow" Please re-think that comment.

What George says has been proven true in bow design. In order to take full advantage of the newer materials, designs have had to change to take advantage of the characteristics of the new materials. That's no secret.

Like I said in the first post, this isn't a unique or new idea. it's been going on for years and years. It doesn't get talked about as much on this side of archery as it does on the target side though. Simple reason being that as a general rule, what's required for a good hunting bow isn't nearly the same as the attributes that are required for a good target bow.

Despite all the high tech materials...

How far have bows really come in the last 500 years?

The Fedora 560 was shooting 220fps 20 years ago.

English Longbows were capable of putting a bodkin through 4"s of oak 500 years ago.

For me?...it's more about the majestic feel of the draw and the high level of connectivity I have with the bow more than it's about "performance". JMHO ;)

It's true John-Doc, try it for yourself. There will be very little spread in fps, given the same string, arrows, etc., with like design. Show me it's not true.

To verify Mr Stouts commentary?...

In a conversation I had a few months back with Master Bowyer Robert Lutkenhaus (who studied under O.L. Adcock) he expressed to me that his same predator longbow made of glass/wood were only a couple FPS slower than his Quad Carbon/Boo models and actually shot smoother and quieter and he was explicit in emphasizing that when he says "a couple"?....he literally means 2..as in 2 fps.

CF is more a component of stabilization than it is a....

"Performance Enhancer"

And as for the stabilization enhancement, Rocky Miller was putting Core-Tuff in bow limbs years and years ago for the same stabilization reason prior to carbon becoming a viable option.

History shows better core woods improved performance using same bow design, adding sinew or fiberglass backing improved performance also without change in bow design. As we apply stronger modern materials like epoxy and fiberglass it actually allow design advances. Incremental improvements continue with carbon fibers, foam cores, ceramics etc.

The only real improvements that I have seen and they may not be unique to modern bows is that bowyers today are playing with the tapers a little more and paying more attention to where bows bend and how much of the limb is bending. As George said aside from the modern low stretch strings there really isn't much difference in performance.

As for modern materials, core materials only have very slight effects on performance. Things like carbon require slightly different design than glass to take advantage of the different mechanical properties just as horn sinew bows required different designs than all wood bows.

To Me a dead deer is a dead deer dont matter to me or it what bow or fps it was killed with ! They still get the job done as they have All through out time Traditional Bowhunting !!!

Actually....fiberglass didn't lend itself to nearly as much of a performance improvement as most folks think. What it did was make mass production of bows practical, and the selection of materials much less critical.

In fact, a sinew backed bow and a glass backed bow of the same side and front view profile the performance will be virtually identical.

Adding sinew to an all wood bow that is properly designed to begin with does little if anything to enhance performance if same draw weight/dimension bows are compared.

In straight longbows, it doesn't take a LOT of experience to make an all wood longbow that performs on par with a glass laminated bow as long as you follow a few design parameters.

There's a lot more to 'performance' than just speed. With that in mind, some of you guys contradict yourselves.

It's possible to realize differences in performance due to material change. Significant? That would depend on how we define significant.

A little more speed and energy will cast an arrow a few yards farther, less mass can mean a little less vibration and noise, some materials offer a smoother draw or a more stable limb.

Changes in string material make similarly small changes and combined, are considered by some to be significant.

"Adding sinew to an all wood bow that is properly designed to begin with does little if anything to enhance performance if same draw weight/dimension bows are compared."

Please elaborate Frank. Not sure I stand under what you're saying.

PD....what I'm saying is that if an all wood bow is designed well to begin with, proper length, width, physical weight, etc. for the intended draw weight/length, the addition of sinew to that bow design will have little if any impact on the performance (in this instance let's just stick with speed) in my experience.

I get you now. I thought you were saying a sinewed bow designed for sinew is equal to the same bow as a self bow. Basically a 58" self bow drawn to 28" will perform the same as a 58" sinewed bow would.

"a sinewed bow designed for sinew is equal to the same bow as a self bow" oh heck no..not if the sinew bow is designed to take advantage of the sinew's qualities.

Hmmmm....

Makes sense to me that materials only affect the performance of a bow to the extent that the bow is designed to take advantage of the physical properties of the materials, so re-creating a vintage design in modern materials is probably going entirely the wrong way with it.

Just a hunch, but I'd expect that any kind of a "breakthrough" would stem from a design which is either "all new" or (if it did recall an earlier design) based on something which was considered something of a dead end when executed in wood/glass or more Primitive materials....

And "trad" archers being such a conservative bunch, we may not have many among us with the will to experiment with anything outlandish enough to produce that breakthrough that many of us probably do secretly desire......

Personally, I would have no qualms whatsoever about hunting with a bow that would throw 7-8 GPP at "compound" speeds, so long as it was quiet-shooting, smooth-drawing, relatively free of hand-shock and as durable as something less exotic. In other words, slowness is no virtue in my book, but speed itself cannot compensate for a bow that's just flat unpleasant to shoot....

Agreed. We are on the same page now. This stuff is so much more fun to talk about in person.

Yes it is....

There are sure some fantastic woods and materials available now that can make an interesting bow and like most I have longed to have fancier wood and clear glass for limbs on my old Bears, Red Wing Hunter, or Damon Howatt. They all shoot real good with just old colored glass and maple center laminantes.

For me, its just not worth the long wait and money for a bowyer to remake my favorite vintage bow with new materials, especially if the end result would be only slightly better, not statistically "significantly better" in speed or smoothness as I would suspect.

Real experienced bowyers will know what designs work with with various materials.There are bowyers and there are bowyers but few are capable of getting the very best results from materials they use.I personally admire the specialist bowyer as they can make their preferred design far better than a bowyer who dabbles with all types of bows.Hey we all know who the best recurve guys are and also the longbow guys too.Some but few in number can do both well.quality design and construction is what counts and some modern materials can give a small advantage in performance but in most cases it's only marginal. OSR

It seems to me the use of foam and carbon in limbs has shown a significant improvement in limb efficiency....

...... over wood and then wood/fiberglass in the same old recurve designs that have been around for centuries

Beendare, bow tests indicate the difference isn't mind boggling. Yes, there will be differences from bow to bow, and material can help enhance performance but again, not so the average shooter would notice. Syntactic foam is not necessarily a performance enhancer, but it does have other qualities, particularly better stabilization in heat.

If some one can show me, in fact, that modern materials will make an old design significantly better...performance wise, I would like to read it. When old bows are shot with new string materials, performance versus newer bows becomes pretty even, regardless of material used or time of build. Like designs usually equal like performance....all else being equal.

I'm with GDS, modern string materials are the biggest performance enhancer in a long time. I think monolithic type limbs may begin outperforming laminated limbs, but that is a design change.

I agree with George. Performance difference would be slight.

Small gain for a lot of pain .Buying bows made of the latest materials doesn'tnecessarily give noticeable better performance.So is the extra expense worth it?Smoothness and accuracy take presidence over a few feet per second for me.George is right on this one. All things being equal Limb design can go a long way to giving bows good performance.Last week end I got to see first hand 150# English war bows being shot and the range was not really that great .Whilst they do deliver a heavy 1000 gn. to 1200 gn arrow my 60# recurve shooting a 750 gn shaft was able to match that distance as well .I suspect that is one case where materials combined with design does prevail.For the average archer it is a moot point.Apart from flight shooting the name of the game is to accurately shoot a target be it live or a stationary target face. OSR

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here