OK so I just finished a 60" R/D longbow. Its 37 lbs at 27" Im shooting a 375 gr arrow and the speed is 150 fps. Is this good speed for this draw weight? Any input would be helpful.

Seems a bit slow but 27" draw hurts it

Depends on who you ask. Some will say t's slow, some will say it's average. How well can you shoot it?

I can shoot it very well. Where ever I look, the arrow goes.No hand shock at all. Extremely smooth

Thanks for the input...

You are shooting 10 grs/lb, 150 fps is slightly below average. But, it some of the factors for speed are bow string material, silencers etc. But, in the end, speed is not a critical factor. Is the bow smooth? Is it quiet? Is there hand shock? Can you hit the target? I say don't worry about the speed.

You can find performance data, all day long in any number of reliable places, that will show you 150 fps with a self bow with 10gpp is on par with many recurves.

For example:

43# Samick Sage with a 423 grain arrow will accelerate an arrow to 153 fps average (9.6 gpp)

Stalker Wolverine 45# @ 26 (static recurve limbs). Easton Axis Traditional, 490 gr, avg 160 fps (10.8 gpp)

Black widow SA 57# @27 shoots a 662gr arrow at 188fps (10.2 gpp)

Drake - Firedrake Champion, 38#@28 (Drawn to 27.25") shoots a 320gr arrow at 160fps (8.7 gpp)

I can find PLENTY of sources that rate the Bear Montanna at 168- 173 fps using 9 gpp arrows.

I think you're doing alright with that one.

And Sipsey echoed my sentiments exactly.....

Too much feather can also effect speed, there are many factors that effect it. Bob

I'm going to vote for way slooooow.

OTOH, someone above mentioned self bow??? Is this a self bow?

I have a 68" string follow hill style 34# @28" that shoots a 525 grain arrow 148.9 fps.

Your R/D bow should kick the hill styles butt, IMO. There is a lot of value in good shooting qualities, but shooting faster would not necessarily eliminate those qualities.

What are the build specs on the bow?

is your bow an all wood bow,,?? I think your cast is acceptable for the draw and weight,,

Truth is if you don't use a hooter shooter or some kind of shooting machine your data is literaly meaningless. It only tells you how fast you shoot the arrow but should not be used to evaluate any bow. All the factors such as weight, arrow weight, string, draw length etc need to be accounted for.

BTW, please don't take my comments as anything other than constructive critique.

30yards and in that speed isn't hard to work with. At 50 plus you have to be a bad A to hit the bullz with that trajectory.

The bottom line is that at 150 fps your arrow is going to be dropping 2 inches per yard past 20 yards. So if you think the target is at 22 and it's actually 26 you'll be 8 inches low. And its very easy to do in the woods. Try it out with a range finder, estimating the yardage first. You'll find it's more difficult than you think. So, if hunting, I would stick to close shots.

6point,

I shoot a field round every two weeks with San Diego Archers.

Presently, I shoot a 1963 Firedrake that is rated #38@28". The bow is 69" long and I shoot a 320gr carbon arrow that chronograph averages 160 fps.

I have very little difficulty hitting the mark at 60 yards and quite frequently hit the mark at 80 yards.

"Difficult" is what you make of it!

As long as you are aware of overhead clearance, hunting distances should not be a problem.

I guess its what your are used to,, I shot a wood bow in alot of shoots that was shooting 150 ish,, did very well,, even past 30 ( shot the texas long bow shoot way back and didnt miss a target the first day out to 60 plus),, my hunting shots were usually under 20 so no issue ,, I like to shoot my bow through a chrono, cause I like to know what kind of cast I am getting with my marginal release :) ,,,, and I can compare one bow to the other for myself,, or fine tune a design,, I prefer to shoot and hunt with a bow that has good cast for its draw weight,, I like to make them,,, so its not a problem to fine tune one to shoot well for me,,

It's fast enough. You're shooting 37# at 27" draw, and that is likely average for most longbows. Guys get way too hung up on numbers and it's a sad state of affairs that someone has to think their bow is not up to snuff. Pay no attention to anyone who says it isn't good enough. What is required is that you hit what you shoot at, and at 150 fps, it will do anything you need it to do. We survived for eons before people had chronographs, and the sport was likely better for it.

Personally I don't want numbers from a shooting machine. I'm not using a shooting machine on the 3d course or hunting. I wanna know what the bow does for me with me shooting it. But numbers aside, even tho all mine have been chrono'd , my go to bow is my slowest I own. There's more to a good bow then how fast it shoots. If it shoots where you want it to and is quiet, plus doesn't rattle your bones you got a bow that's hard to beat. If nothing else I've learned that much in my 50 years shooting stickbows.

The chronograph gives the builder valuable feedback regarding the build. A fast bow is not necessarily Ill mannered and vice versa.

There is nothing to fear from the chronograph. If it says you could have designed a bow better or that you have improved the design, it's a learning experience either way.

Totally agree with Stout on this. Nowadays we want to quantify everything for some reason. One of the reasons I don't like cbows is because the arrow is way too fast to see. I actually like a slower arrow because I enjoy watching the light. At the short ranges I shoot it gets there plenty fast enough. I could totally care less what the FPS is. If I shot longer range I would probably have a different viewpoint.

Not bows, but I also like watching the flight of my .44 cast bullets. Get the early morning or late afternoon light coming from straight behind you, and shoot down into a canyon that is in the shade. Viola! Tracers! Easy to see for a long ways. Good for analyzing pistol trajectory.

If I built a bow, it would probably shoot backwards, I'd be happy with that if I built the bow, I probably wouldn't buy it though if somebody else made it.

I've known people who were perfectly happy with a particular bow, until they scaled it, at their draw length, and/or chronographed it. Makes no sense to me.

OK so here is what I did, I order my kits from Bingham Projects. For this bow I changed my riser a little making it curve back about 3/16 more on each end toward the shooter. Also I ordered a 5lb draw weight kit with actionboo. Now I used double carbon, 1 on the back and 1 on the belly bringing me up to 40lb @ 28 and 37lb @ 27. Ive been experimenting with the whole double carbon thing for a while and this is the first bow I got within range of my targeted draw weight. I have another one that I am in the middle of making and its a 55lb, now that bow I aimed for 45 lb but it wound up coming out to 60lb a huge 20lb difference. I sanded the limbs down to the weight it is now. So before I keep spinning my wheels and losing money, have any of you done this before?

Ive been making bows since 2005 on and off. Ive made close to 40 bows sold a bunch and now I wanted to play a little and see what I could come up with as fare as riser design, and carbon. Every bow I make, I only use action boo for the core. From all the research and questions Ive asked bamboo is the best limb material. I have noticed that since I changed the angle of my riser, my speed and weight has decreased but the smoothness of the bow went up a bit.

Vamp, there is a lot that goes into bow design and all the variables depend on each other. For example, ratios of glass to wood can have a dramatic effect. You said you sanded 20lbs off your bow...no doubt this had a very negative effect on your efficiency because you took away a lot of glass. But in reality, it all boils down to early draw weight. When you let the string go, how quickly the limbs snap back to brace height is in reality determines how fast the bow will be. This is why compounds are so much faster than traditional bows because if you look at the force draw curves, the compounds peak tremendously as you start to pull it back...this translates to faster speeds because the bow is snapping back to brace very quickly....I said this because if you are changing the angles of your riser you could actually be making this worse. reflexing away from the shooter will give you higher early draw weight which in average will translate to faster speeds. This is also why recurves ON GENERAL are faster than longbows because the limbs are more stressed at brace which also makes them want to snap back quicker. But again, this is just one variable to the speed equation, limb design, taper rater, glass thickness all go into it. You have to experiment with your bow design to come with the best off all these variables. Example, typically the more reflex you put into a bow will make it faster but it also makes the limbs unstable so you have to find that happy medium...if I were you, I would do a force draw curve of your bow. That way you can see what it is doing and calculate efficiency. This will go a long ways to letting you see what is going on. When I was designing my bows, I would change something, redo the force draw curve, chrono it and log that in...then changed another parameter and redo all the numbers. Eventually, you get to that point where you maximize efficiency, speed and stability.

Vamp, did the smoothness really go up or did the early draw weight just get a bit softer? Normaly smoothness will go up when early draw weight goes up instead of down. Smoothness is usually defined by how much weight it gains per inch of draw. If it starts lower it has to build faster to catch up.

Sorry let me clarify myself. The smoothness of the shot. Its almost like I have less then zero handshock. Ive never really had hand shock in my bows but with this its different. For the better

DUVAL is right on.

Is The carbon being used in addition to the glass?

That makes good sense.

Longcruise, there is always a downside to everything like chronographs; particularly as stated in the original post. It makes people second guess and put numbers ahead of reality...shootability, etc. We are smart enough to know that the figures can be used to compare, or see how to tweak designs, but the average archer doesn't use it for that. Most of the time it causes disdain because Fred's bow isn't quite as fast as someone else thinks it should be, and then someone one else makes them even feel worse by saying..."I think that is a little slow." That sets the mess in motion. Use them if you like, but don't think they are all golden and no brown.

If peoples feelings are hurt over the speed of their bow, they should take up some other pastime.

Like you said, ""We are smart enough to know that the figures can be used to compare, or see how to tweak designs,....."" That was the gist of the OP's topic. He has built 40 bows, I doubt if he has a heavy emotional investment in the speed of that bow. He just wanted some feedback on his latest build.

Duvall gave him excellent feedback.

Not sure why every mention of the word "chronograph" sets off a debate over them. If chrony readings are upsetting to some people, they should avoid them, but I don't intend to stifle my conversation to accomadate them.

I said that the bow came out 20lbs heavier then I wanted. I knocked off 10lbs not 20. The bow I was talking about 37lb at 27 is the one that only came out a few lbs under my target weight. I have a few bows Im working on but only 2 of them are experimental. The one that is being discussed and the one that came out WAY to much in weight. So just to clarify again, I didnt shave 20lbs off a bow. I think that would be dangerous to say the least.

Your bow is fine at 150 fps, regardless of the negative comments. And it's not about people getting their feelings hurt, it's about some dolt telling him his bow is too slow.

It's not "too slow". It's just slower than would be expected from the bows stats.

Duvall hit the nail right on the head with the observations about the change of the limb angle coming off the riser.

Duvall, My design before this was really awesome and I was always withing 1 lb of my targeted weight. When I started to play around with the design of the bow I noticed that I lost poundage but didnt now why, Now with you mentioning all of that it makes total sense why the bow is 1- easier to shoot 2- loss of speed and weight. Come to think of it, the bow is EXTREMELY smooth in the beginning of the draw. I think Im going to go back to my bow design before this one.

Thank you far all your help everyone

BTW, the carbon was under the glass on the back and belly

You might also consider leaving the carbon off the belly, and using the carbon without the glass on the back. If your carbon lam material makes that impractical maybe go with very thin glass on the back.

The fastest longbow I have shot was a 21st Century Carbon edge with glass on the belly, bamboo core, and bare carbon on the back.

Your double glass and double carbon sounds overbuilt to me. Kindly let us know how your next experiment goes. - lbg

"Guys get way too hung up on numbers and it's a sad state of affairs that someone has to think their bow is not up to snuff"....George, the reason why we need to know numbers is because the customer wants to know...can't tell you how many people have called to have a bow built and within the first 30 seconds of the call they want to know how fast the bow is. So, you can't blame us for wanting to know. An answer of "well, its fast enough" is not going to cut it. Believe it or not, I actually had a guy call me back about his bow. He took it to a club and shot it through a chrono in front of his buddies and was upset with it. So, after a few questions, he admitted he only draws 26", was shooting a B50 string loaded with nocks and string silencers and was shooting over 10 gpp arrow and was upset that he wasn't pushing 190 like I told him my bows shot. So, yeah a chrono is pretty important to us bowyers.

Carbon under glass is a very poor design. The added weight of the glass adds to the mass of the limbs, thereby detracting from the efficiency and speed.

Try using the carbon alone. I personally hate the looks of bare carbon, but you can easily enough put a nice wooden veneer over it to hide it.

when I made bows professionally,, the guys , would always pick the fastest one,, everything else was secondary,, if they were going to compete with it ,, everything had to be perfect,, I used a chrono to fine tune the design of the bow,, or just to know how fast it was shooting before I would send it out,, or give it to the client,, if it was not shooting with enough cast for the draw weight,,, I would fine tune it ...or make another bow,, I never had anyone send bow back because it was too slow,, I had one guy send one back cause he said it was not the weight marked on the bow??? but he hunted with it all season before sent it back,:)

Guys use ff string in low strand count for more speed which translates to more penetration. They use single bevel heads for more penetration. The high foc thing is at a fad level, for more penetration. Guys super tune their arrows, again for better flight, accuracy and PENETRATION. So theres nothing sad about a guy wanting the fastest bow he can get for better accuracy at different distances and, yep, penetration.

And that is nothing new. Before chrono's guys shot distance to measure cast. Even some states bow requirement for hunting was it had to shoot your hunting arrows a certain distance. Even Pope and others in history compared bow woods by cast.

Yep, it's a ballistic field of endeavor, so bowyers endeavor to produce the best ballistics. Would anybody here HONESTLY choose the slower of two otherwise indistinguishable bows?

Not likely!!!

I agree that there is more to it than that but like Matt says, if all else is equal..............

Sorry if it sounds politically incorrect but this bow is a dog regarding to bow speed for a 60" R/D design double carbon with modern string. Extrapolating the datas, it is something in the upper 150 fps got 28" 10 gpp out of a shooting machine (+3 fps for 28" +4 fps for fair hand release). All else equal, average R/D LB in that length is expected to be in the 170-175 fps range for a glass bow and top performers in the 180-185 fps range and rare best ones with double or triple carbon limbs will blow the 190 fps mark. ( for an average bow for the given design, not speaking about hot rods for speed contest) The " it shoots where I look, no hand shock and smooth " thing is a real joke. ANY bow with proper limb timing and design and a tuned arrow released by an archer with fair form is expected to do so. Second joke is the " bow is too fast I can't see my arrow": well if 180+ For 28"/10 gpp is too fast, no problem you can shoot 14 gpp arrow if 155 fps speed is your game or drop 10 pounds from your 50 pounder bow in bow weight if you don't want to change arrow weight. If I have to pay for a bow ( what I actually do...) I take the good fast bow against the good slow bow any time

I totally get what you all are saying but there is one thing that I think some of you over looked in my post. I made this bow with the limbs being only a 5lb draw weight. Adding the double carbon boosted it to the 37lb at 27" making my limb mass VERY low. So by adding the glass is just to ensure me that it wont fail. Ive heard horror stories of bows failing with the raw carbon and no glass. When I called Bingham I ordered a 5lb draw weight at 27. then asked him to add 2 pc of carbon to my order. So the carbon WAS NOT factored into the laminations

If you have both glass and carbon in your limbs I doubt they are low mas limbs unless they are very narrow.

All you have to do is take the glass off the back, and the belly. By adding glass as well as carbon you increased the limb mass considerably as I previously stated. by 25-30% at the very least. The 1" shorter draw length doesn't account for the double digit speed loss.

If a design that is 50lbs. shoots a 10gr. per pound arrow at 180fps. The same design in 30lbs. shooting a 10 gr. per pound arrow should shoot at a nearly identical speed.

Binghams carbon has to be used under glass or it will possibly splinter along the edges. You need bias ply carbon which incorporates a weave on the outside and extruded carbon on the inside , It is made in layers and will not splinter. When I use only extruded carbon like Bingnams sells I grind the back glass to .o25. that allows the carbon to work. Belly carbon always goes under thin glass on the belly when I build with it. I will not comment on the performance other than that for a carbon bow it is missing something. It takes a lot of either teaching or experimenting to learn to use carbon effectively and properly.

God bless and good luck, Steve

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here