Wow would not have expected that. Old bows are impressive

Wow would not have expected that. Old bows are impressive

Thanks for the tests. By the way what lengths Uukhas are they?

Now that's a pretty cool setup! Thanks for sharing.

You can really see the Uukha’s open up at full draw.

Always good to see what most of us already knew.

Great test. Thanks for posting

I believed you the first time you did this. Put on your flame proof gear for the incoming firestorm from those who refuse to believe modern stuff is not much faster/better/smoother/accurate/whatever.

Yep lots of performance plus in the "old" bows. Thanks for the pics and the post. Good stuff.

Speed my be the same but the smooth draw and almost hydraulic smooth shot sensation of the uukha wins by miles for me. Having said that my now favorite hands down to shoot is my 52 bear k4 which surprisingly does not give up much to other bows for visual speed.

Just curious if you scaled the bows yourself, versus trusting the marked weights? Because if so, the 48# Kodiak is actually winning the contest against the heavier 50# Uukha--and with a Dacron string against a D-97, no less!

Each pound of draw weight in the Kodiak is generating 3.73 fps, whereas each pound of draw in the Uukha is only generating 3.62 fps. Plus, my tests with strings have shown that the FF should be giving at least a 3-5% boost in speed over the Dacron...so if you went apples-to-apples with string material, the gap would widen even further in favor of the Kodiak.

Longbow49, amm curious what your target/backstop medium is?

Thanks for the tests.

Great test, honestly suprised me a lot.

It'd be really interesting to see what the Kodiaks would shoot with D97.

Nice job.

Using a 10 strand string instead of the usual 14 strands of dacron explains why you are getting less difference from the fast flite than most report. The change in speed is almost entirely from the difference in weight of the string and not the amount of stretch that most believe is the cause.

Nah don’t stop posting results, most people do appreciate it. I don’t mind people questioning my on test, just when they doubt it without their own test to back up their position.

I don't really think anybody was being a jerk when they responded.

Any time anyone posts results of any test there is always debate. Particularly when you have people reading them that think analytically.

It's for sure a very interesting test. The results of course will disappoint some, and make others think and maybe do additional testing on other things.

It would be interesting to see what the results would be with strings of the same physical weight on the bows. Could very well be the old Bear isn't giving up anything at all.

Hi Thank you for the tests, were all the bows weighted @ 28" with a scale

It's difficult for many folks to believe and or understand that there really hasn't been much different in bow design in a long, long time.

New materials have allowed the building of some designs that are maore radical, like in the case of the 'Super Recurves". The concept of the 'SR" has been a known design for many, many years. Modern materials have simply allowed the design concept to come to fruition. But, those same materials used in more traditional designs in amny cases show no advantage at all.

Uukha pucha. Glass is glass

Don't stop posting things like this I enjoy it a lot some people are just rude!!

This debate reminds me of Hank Otterson (arrowsmith decease), he told a young gent that came into his shop and ask about a compound if it was fast, Hank replied "all compounds are fast", never said better and we got back to spine poc shafts.

Longbow49, you sir confirm my believe about recurves, haven't mess with a chronie since 91, personally I think the chronie have drove more folks back to the compound than increase it, but it is still interesting how most remains the same. Thank you for you test, it was educational and interesting.

I sincerely appreciate the demonstration. Thanks for sharing. More reason to try and get a 57 Kodiak. I'm sure this thread didn't help my pursuits, LOL!

Well, you went out and showed there isn't a hills worth of beans difference in speed between an old Bear recurve bow and top of the line/modern technology ILF recurve limbs. I'll take that a step further and extrapolate that there must not be a hills worth of beans difference in speed between all the different custom recurves out there. Despite our (myself included) tendency to attribute a little extra "speed/quickness" to our favorite bows.

yaderehey, anecdotal evidence doesnt prove anything. There are alot of reasons that could explain the seemingly poor performance from the uuhka's. Ive chronoed alot of bows myself and there is a distinct difference in performance between some of the older bows ive shot and the more modern bows. Some more than others but to say theres no difference is simply not true. Just look at the tradlabs test results and youll see a vastly different result. And no offense meant to longbow as his results are certainly interesting, but Cody Greenwood at the TradLab has alot of experience performing tests like these and puts alot of work into his testing to eliminate any potential error so I would put my money on his results being as close to perfect as possible.

I'm telling youn glass is glass

Nice work Longbow; you make a good case. We've had threads before about just how good (i.e. resin-rich) the 3M fiberglass of the early 60's was. It's also worth saying that I've heard bowyers say that the quality of rock maple for limb cores today isn't what it used to be.

A final thought is that bows are individuals--some just come out better or worse than others

Some cry foul, others say "I figgered as much"..(me)..and others need enth of degree differentiation between designs, strings, etc. But fact is, we don't use any of that stuff when we're out shooting so we don't realize differences most of the time...so what exactly are they worth in real life matters?

It's like guys who want the fastest bow around, even if they can't hit a bull in the arse with a handful of gravel. To me there isn't enough difference in performance between like-designs to sway me to use a bow of any brand over another. Now that "fit" thing is the deciding factor for me and whether or not I can hit that side of the barn from the inside.

I agree with George that splitting hairs over speed is just an interesting mental exercise. I doubt that most archers can tell the difference of 5 fps between different limbs. But what I find important is how the limb feels and reacts during the shot. While a draw force curve may measure that to a degree there is still a lot of subjective feel involved.

I've owned a couple 57 Kodiaks over the years and was always impressed with their performance. I have a 1960 Kodiak that doesn't seem as fast as the 57 but is smooth to shoot and stays put in my hand upon release. Those old bows can hold their own against any bow built today but it is interesting to follow the developments in limb design and construction.

Uukha limbs (I have the Ex1 Evo2) are smooth as butter during the draw. But so are my Winex and SF Ultimate Pro limbs and I have others that very close in feel. At release I actually prefer the Winex and Ultimate Pro because they don't feel as springy to me ad the Uukhas and I like the firmness at release better. I know others feel differently.

I appreciate what Longbow49 did in testing. I take it for what it's worth and realize other tests may show different results. To me it isn't worth exploring any deeper. It's just another data point along the way and I'm grateful he posted it here.

Old versus new bows will be the new civil war here, replacing the great battles over the definition of instinctive. Fix bayonets!

Phil nailed it. The subjective shooting qualities of carbon and carbon foam limbs which are much different and impossible to measure than a pure speed test. I much prefer my BF Extremes and SF Ultimate Pros over a '56 Kodiak I had that was quite a fast little shooter.

Kevin, If anyone has an interest in testing old bows I'm fine with that. It's interesting to read and talk about. But it will probably mean nothing in the end other than a comparison of that particular bow at that particular time with the exact variables involved. Change an arrow, change the string, change the individual's draw length and you will have different results.

So testing is OK to create some random type of baseline but a person could still buy highly rated XXXX brand thinking it's a burner and by making a change or two find out the bow he had before was faster.

I am dubious...

"I am dubious..."

Why do you think this about yourself?

Maybe someone here has one of these classic Bears that they can send to TradLab for testing under their regiment. I have no idea if they would be interested in doing the tests for us, but I suspect that they would be just as interested as the rest of us. FWIW, I found their results with the Morrison Max 6 limbs to be in line with my own experience shooting them.

I did a test similar to that about 5 years ago,and posted the results,and got roasted by many ILF shooters for one reason, or another according to them. Bows were set up for hunting. Indian Hawk Eye, Ben Pearson Cougar,Bear Grizzly,Damon Howatt Bandido, and a Fivics Ilf. All tested with the same 450 gr arrow, and 10 strand low stretch strings. Average velocities on these bows ended up from 162 fps to 168 fps at my draw. Indian Hawk Eye was the fasted, The Bear grizzly was the slowest, the other 3 fell in between those two numbers. The Ilf shot in the middle at 164 fps. with tournament foam carbon Fivics limbs.All the vintage bows had micarta tip over lays installed on them.Now a days I just test my self bows to see if I am getting better at building them. Just my findings. Others may vary.

Vrs Tradlab doesn't even matter here. Maybe they can get faster speeds on a different machine. This is about 3 tests on one particular machine. The naysayers have nothing to say until they convince Tradlab to take the same three bows with the exact same setups and test them on their machines. If there machines produce faster speeds from a newer bow then likewise the kodiaks will too increase in speed. I'm far from a space rocket scientist and with this I don't need to be. It's about consistent testing parameters on ONE particular machine. As with so many things in life bias clouds intellect.

One Machine.

Longbow Please don't stop testing and posting results. I don't comment a lot on here but read plenty.

I didn't know pontoon boats were so complicated and they even have their own forums. I should talk. I belong to a few decoy carving forums.

Do they argue a lot on pontoon boat forums? They don't on decoy carving forums.

My tests though not scientific have convinced me that their is not enough difference in performance old to new with my bows to worry about it, and my gap will be the same in a hunting situation.I closed the chapter on those tests 5 years ago.Now if I buy a super recurve my curiosity would be such that I would have to do more testing just to see for my self.

I had two Black Widow SA's. Both the same poundage, same string, same materials in the limbs. The length was different though, one a 62in and one a 58in. The 62 in consistently shot 10fps faster than the 58in every time using the same arrow.

First of all i think it is a great test and worth doing,it does rise some other questions in my head. Single piece bows VS 2 or 3 piece bows. would ILF limbs made to the specs of of any of the 1950's to 19 anything preform the same as a one piece. I know that on its face everything should be equal and the riser should not change the out come too much. but i do wonder if in actuality there may be some difference. So many bowers had their own design of glass used for the brand. Any way my question would be would overall bow design (1, 2, 3, piece) change the limb performance? or am i nerding out on this?

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here