I have come to the conclusion that what Howard Hill said about the straight ended longbow for hunting, along with a back quiver is right on the mark till something else is invented. For general hunting the system he put together just can't be beat.

With my longbows and my recurves, the longbow has proven over and over through thousands of shots, that it will throw an arrow quieter, just as accurate for hunting, and with better arrow flight even with less than perfect release. And with the back quiver vs a bow quiver, it's that much more quiet,less chance of making noise with the fletching and less likely to be noticed while moving to make a shot.

I know I'm far from the most consistent, form and release wise, I'm just an average archer but have noticed with my recurves I will have a not so good release and the bow/arrow flight will point it out to me every time, not so with the longbow. I don't know if it's something to do with the uneven finger pressure in conjunction with the fact that the recurve limbs work more independently of each other because they are out on the ends of a longer,stiff heavy riser or what, I only know what all those shots have shown me. Or maybe it's because the longbow has less movement of the limbs to do the same work in addition to the longer length that does it, but I do know seemingly no matter what I do shooting that longbow, I get near perfect arrow flight 98% of the time. I have to purposely mess with the release to get the arrows to fly bad (and it's not that bad).

I know all this isn't wishful thinking or just favoring the longbow/Hill style on my part, it's a pattern that has repeated over and over.

Why the longbow/back quiver ever fell out of favor to the recurve with a bow quiver doesn't make sense to me, I guess people just naturally like the "new" or "latest thing" as opposed to the tried and true.

I,ve hunted with both and I really find the back quiver to be just as convenient and trouble free as a bow quiver and much better in a treestand.

It's all about what works for you.

I am a proponent of longbows and flatbows as well. but I don't have any false impressions about them, what they can do and what they can't.

And the same holds true for a back quiver. There are very few methods of carrying arrows (and maybe none) that require as much movement to get a 2nd arrow as a back quiver does.

New and latest thing? Fred started using them in the 1940's and people saw them as a common sense way to carry arrows for hunting. Most folks don't need over a dozen arrows for a day afield so the bow quiver fits the bill quite nicely. When I first saw one in the mid 60's I didn't think anything about "latest and greatest", I saw a convenient way to carry arrows.

We are all different in our approach and our needs and likes. There is no one way of doing something right. Maybe there is for you and that's great, but many of us.....not so much. :)

I have used and own many types, they all have their virtues. For the last 30 years I have used the Hill style back quiver.

Here we go

LBD. I had one of those I wiki quiere back in the day. I picked up my buddy in the dark in the early morning for a hunt. He put his strung bow on the back seat of my car along with my bow. Ten minutes later we heard a twang and found that his string got cut while bouncing around in the back with my bow. Those things were dangerous!

Ya' know they did make a cover for them?

I think we had enough sense to know they were potentially dangerous so we were careful. Those who weren't suffered the consequences from cut fingers to jabbed legs....whatever. People are dangerous, not objects. I did buy an Apache brand bow quiver in 1970 and it had a hood incorporated in it. I didn't have daddy to pay for my goods back then either. :)

Just for your info they make broadhead covers at three rivers archery. They cost a bit but the make it safer and keep broadheads sharper. But Howard put more of a serrated edge on his broadheads which probably didn't dull as easily as a scalpel edge. I agree with you that the straight limbed longbow is quieter and more forgiving of a less than perfect release. I believe that is the case because the limbs don't twist as easily. That being said. most people prefer recurves and claim they work better for them . I respect their choice.

I actually still use one and oddly enough mine works just peachy. Never had a problem with them as long as they would fit the bowimbs and the latch fasten.

No excuse for a loud bow quiver.. I purchased a Hill back quiver from Jerry in 1990 used it a lot and loved it, A buddy of mine made me a hip quiver reinforced for 2 blade broad heads, use it a lot love it.. This year using a bow quiver with my recurve, love it.. They all have their place and advantages.. Love it all..

in my opinion, yeah, Hill had it right :)

Well, Thumper, I disagree with you and agree with Howard Hill. No hard feelings. Maybe you don't hold them right. (Just kidding.) - lbg

I'll believe hill style bows are the most accurate when I see one able to compete with the recurves in world class archery such as the olympics. Personally for me they're not even close to a good recurve or rd bow for accuracy on less than perfect releases or on distance judging. I lik my Hill and I like my hill back quiver but I'm not so naive to believe they're as godlike as guys make them out to be. As recurves got better and better longbows disappeared to the point for 20 years you never saw a single one at shoots. Fact is hill bows and quivers can't compete in accuracy or ease of use in all hunting conditions. Btw, how many perfect 300s , something very common, been shot with them.

I really don't understand why when there is a discussion of longbows and recurve people always compare target recurve to stripped longbows.

That's silly, illogical, and bias. You can shoot a stripped down recurve just like you can shoot a stripped down Longbow. You can build the riser the same, make the center shot the same, and make the grip the same.

And if you can't hit moving targets with a recurve, that's on you, not the bow.

Shoot whatever you want to shoot and enjoy it. But don't try to justify the superiority of your choice using non sensual defenses. If you have to defend your choice and constantly tout why you use a particular bow to the point of convincing someone else of it's superiority you yourself aren't that confident in your choice.

I shoot and make all different kinds of bows, many of which I won't even show on here because of all the crap that comes up.

Phillipshunt, I believe Howard Hill would argue the point with you, since he touted how he won 192 field shoots without losing one. Howard was a devout target shooter and actually made his living doing that. Nearly all archers of his era and beyond were target shooters...that's how the NFAA got started...by hunters.

Some of you guys apparently think no one knows archery history, or you really don't know it...or don't care about it, or you wouldn't declare one form of archery to better than another. That's just an ego booster...nothing else. Howard Hill, Andy Vail, The Wilhelm brothers..Ken and Walt, all were top notch target shooters. That is history.

George, you mentioned Hill, Vail, the Wilhelm bros. etc. were target shooter and you're right, but in their time they weren't shooting against bubble levels,foam core limbs, berger buttons and magnetic rests.

Let's look at what the Hill system (which is what I started this thread about) can't do well. It can't give pinpoint accuracy over and over through an extended shooting session to get to a "300" or win regularly at 3d and indoor competitions, that is a proven fact, if it could ,it would. It can't give high,profitable, widespread commercial sales because it takes time and devotion to become proficient as compared to recurves and compounds. It can't be sexy looking as a recurve with all those curves and pretty woods. It can't be shot easily in an enclosed commercial popup blind unless it's one of the largest sizes available. It can't be welded (spelling?) in a carefree fashion in a treestand like a shorter bow, it takes a longer learning process . It obviously cant be a one pcs deal like a bow quivered bow.That's all I can come up with at the moment, there are probably more.

Now, if you put all these points on a plus/negative comparison sheet, the plusses (not by number but by importance to achieving the goal,putting a broadhead through a deer's chest) outweigh the negatives verses other systems overall I think.

Be glad you live in America where we CAN go bowhunting and get to choose whatever bow we want to use that makes us happy. Many countries cant do that.

I don't like a quiver on my longbow, so I use a side quiver. I'd rather use a Hill-style back quiver, but I'm not flexible enough to reach back over my shoulder to remove or replace an arrow.

never used a back quiver before. Or a longbow for that matter. But I recently bought a Bear Montana, then I won the McBroom ASL longbow giveaway on here and I have a 7 Lakes longbow on order. So I have been thinking its time to try a back quiver. A bow mounted quiver on my recurves works great but for some reason I don't want one on my longbows. I think it just takes away the beauty and simplicity of shooting one. Years ago I used the old Quikees without the hood. finally threw them out.

This thread continues to get more and more nonsensical and self serving all the time;

"because it takes time and devotion to become proficient as compared to recurves and compounds." An inference that those who shoot a longbow are some how more dedicated and more skilled than those who don't. And the grouping of recurves with compounds.....that is completely, totally asinine.

"It can't be shot easily in an enclosed commercial popup blind unless it's one of the largest sizes available. It can't be welded (spelling?) in a carefree fashion in a treestand like a shorter bow, it takes a longer learning process" That will come as a shock to all those folks that use ASL's in ground blinds and tree stands every year. It's remarkable that that Bob Burton (aromakr) was able to kill any game with his ASL from pit blinds in Africa.

Thumper/fdp, I do think it takes more time to master (if that is possible with any weapon) because of the lightness of the bow (holding on target) maybe "get used to" is a better way to put it. I think accuracy with a longbow is more about anticipating/timing releases than it is about a rock steady bow arm, that timing takes experience and experience takes time. Finger shooting a recurve consistently better, the mechanics of it, I do think that takes more skill than with a longbow,the recurves saving grace is that the recurve is heavier and the law of inertia works in it's favor.

As for the blind/treestand, I didn't say it was impossible or overly difficult, only that certain adjustments have to be accounted for.

The comparison of recurves and compounds... The fact that recurves and compounds have more in common than longbows do with any other type of bow isn't asinine...it's a fact. I've seen recurve pics that if you crop it to just the riser you couldn't tell if it was a compound or a recurve, they both commonly have sight holes/rest holes drilled and tapped ( or can easily be done on most recurves),they can both take the same sights/rests/stabliizers etc. I see on here all the time recurves built on old compound risers but I've never seen nor heard of a compound being built on a cut off longbow riser. Have y'all? The compound bow was born from the recurve bows of the 1960's/70's, some of the early ones used existing recurve risers in their development and initial sales. Think about the Bear Alaskan or Carroll compounds, in the Alaskans case it's just a reworked Kodiak T/D riser and the Carroll is identical.

"ASL shooters suck at targets because they are too good to be caught dead having fun shooting with other archers. Or maybe those other shooters would see that they were full of crap after talking trash on the internet?

What a coincidence...."

Oh my Thumper, I'd expect better manners from a Southerner,but there are a lot of carpetbaggers around these days.

ASL shooter scores probably do suck compared to other types at targets, I agree with that,but back to my point. I read what Howard Hill said and in my own experience in shooting both types of bows and using both systems, I found he was right. But it could be that you know what I saw and found out better than me,maybe you were looking over my shoulder all those shots and I didn't know you were there and are pointing out that I didn't see what I saw, I just imagined it all. Thank you for correcting me and showing me the error of my ways. I will be eternally grateful.

Tembo here's the thing...whatever a person thinks is important is, and whatever reality is to you is what reality is to you. If you think something is more difficult, it will be, if you think something is easier it will be. And that's fine.

But with that said, I've been around archery too long, seen too many different archers shoot too many different bows too many different ways to buy into any absolutes when it comes to the shooting characteristics of any bow.

However, and I don't really mean to be offensive, but the comparison of recurves to compounds is still asinine in my view, as is the statement that recurves have more in common with compounds than longbows. The difference between a longbow and a recurve is the curve. A longbow can be, and they have been throughout history and still are today, built with the same front view profile as a recurve, without the curve.

He had lots of things right, and some things, that were only right for him.

He's always been my "go to" for learning, and honing my shooting, but some of his "things" just don't fit me.

Rick

"However, and I don't really mean to be offensive, but the comparison of recurves to compounds is still asinine in my view, as is the statement that recurves have more in common with compounds than longbows. The difference between a longbow and a recurve is the curve. A longbow can be, and they have been throughout history and still are today, built with the same front view profile as a recurve, without the curve."

I really don't know how to respond to that, I guess a longbow "can" be built to look like 2 beach balls with a with a shelf and handle between them as long as it's over 64" long.. I guess? A recurve "could" be built with limbs ,width wise, from riser to nocks as thin as toothpicks as long as they have curves? I... I just don't know what to say?

Tembo there isn't even any clear definition of the length of a "longbow" any more in general archery conversation so the 64" length limit is something that YOU attached to the definition.

Based on Hill's method of measuring draw length and matching draw length to bow length a person who has a 22" draw would shoot a 62" bow which based on YOUR definition would NOT be a longbow.

And yes....longbows and recurves have been built using both of the descriptions that you provided.

I actually prefer longbows and flatbows (with my real preference being those made of all natural materials which to ME, are the only real "traditional" bows) as I stated in my first post. But, I don't have any illusions about what they are or aren't, or what they can or can't do.

I don't know fdp, seem a man can't just tell it like it is without somebody starting in on him.

So Tembo...what makes you think your version of "telling like it is" has any more merit then anyone else's version?

The answer is it's only more important to you. And may or may not be true for others.

And that is perfectly fine.

I was just reading what Hill said and when I put it to the test I found he was right.

He was right FOR YOU..at this time. Remember that Howard was a business man and self promoter of the highest order.

Had he favored thumb drawn Asiatic bows and had he been making and selling them he would have written the same thing.

Tembo you didn't tell it like it is. You made up some exagerations that aren't close to being right. I have a recurve that has narrow limbs like a hill style and has a straight grip and 4 lams. I also have a 70" hunting recurve with a small riser and a leather wrap. And at one time most longbows other than Hh longbows had limbs as wide as some recurves. The difference actually is recurved tips. We all have our own definitions. To me a longbow is minimum 70" long. And I have two at that length.

I think Howard was right. Looking at the time he said that a ALS and back quiver would have been tough to beat. For the way I hunt I find it to be very affective but can also understand the way other people hunt is quit different then mine. Even for me there is times when I have to wear a backpack and use a Raptor side quiver instead of a back quiver. Times have changed along with hunting tactics but in Howard’s time I think he had it right. Even in 2021 Howard’s way is extremely effective and my preferred choice.

As usual ldb you didn't read his post. He said hills version of longbow being so much better hunting bows and so much more forgiving was spot on. That warrant other opinions.

"static ILF shooters do a different game than fluid longbow shooters,"

So what about fluid non ILF recurve shooters who use a bow quiver or a hip quiver?

Why is there a mistaken impression that there is only 1 method used to shoot a particular type of bow? Static for recurve shooters and fluid for longbow shooters?

Not to argue, but just as an example for comparison:

The last pig I killed, I had to track/follow it through a tunnel of briar for a long way to get to it.

Now, I'm not saying, that some fellers couldn't crawl that tunnel with a back quiver full of arrows on their back, but there's no way I could have.

But, I was able to slide my recurve with it's bow quiver full of arrows along in front of me just fine.

Anyway, like I said: "Just an example for comparison.

Rick

John Schulz learned directly from Howard Hill and he taught the Hill method. From photos and videos of Schulz, he appears to be the "average height" of 5' !0" or even shorter. Now look at this still frame from Schulz' instructional video. His classic Hill style longbow doesn't look very long to my eye. What do you think?

You are correct, Mr Hill is one of the top authorities on everything archery.

Good point Rick.. This year I am using my waldrop seat. That calls for my bow quiver, my bear hunter loves the bow quiver, I kind of like the added mass.. There is no wrong choice if at the end of the day you are dragging out game.. I totally understand the Hill hype.. Been there.. Use what you want, be good at it..

LDB, the very first post stated that the Hill method/combination could not be beat for hunting. It wasn't quantified to be a singular opinion but instead was stated as an absolute. When you do that about any subject there will be opposition to your position.

I didn't see that anybody got belligerent about anything.

And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up ILF shooters. That's odd to me.

Ilf shooter sometimes use sights, they sometimes string walk ,but most of the ones I've know shoot them like most people do any other stickbow. Ilf is a limb mounting system, no more, no less.

I started using a great northern side kick quiver when i hunt. Thats because I usually have my lone Wolf climber on my back. The quiver hangs down to my side when I haul the stand in and out and it doesn’t get in the way of my stand or my pack. I use a back quiver for just about everything else. I keep that quiver loaded with old acme cedars and either hunters heads or grizzlys for broadheads. I don’t hunt so much these days with both my kids involved in fall sports and my work schedule but I do enjoy it when I can get out.

LDB, just so that you are aware, you are just as guilty of being an opinion pushing Leatherwaller as any one else you may be referring to.

Carry on.

Justin, I see you have that broadhead mounted the "correct" way.

:-)

Rick

Yea I like to feel the metal on my knuckle without slicing my finger or pulling the arrow off the string haha!

No back quiver for me. Modified one to a front quiver.

I agree about straight ASL and backquiver. I haven’t hunted with the set-up bc I don’t hunt. If I ever decide to hunt again, it’ll be wild turkey, and the HH set-up.

I always thought so to but then I pick up my Sierra Blanca recurves and longbows with a bow quiver and shoot more consistent. I was raised on stories of Howard Hill because my father met him but now maybe I identify with Fred Bear or I just do my own thing because I have ASL bows with bow quivers and recurves and never really cared what anybody else thought.

Let's take a look at a man named Arne Moe. Excellent archer. Shoots with a vertical bow, not "fluid" like you would suggest He shoots a hill style longbow, and he is a consistently high scorer on paper targets. I don't know if you're trying to say a longbow is more forgiving or harder to learn, which is it? Seems to me like you're trying to justify for some reason what you shoot as superior to others. Why, I do not know, but if you like it, more power to you. I think the hill longbow has it's merits, and I think there are real reasons why most people don't like shooting them as much as other longbows or recurves.

I love all bows

I have a thing for Hill style bows . I love shooting them and hunting with them .

And I love a back quiver loaded with arrows for hunting , roving etc

But if they are more forgiving etc , you would score better on a 300 or York round with them , see more at tourneys etc

Unless of course , the target is chained to a tree …

( and the Hill shooters don’t shoot paper or foam is ludicrous . D.Reels broke the IFAA word Field record with a straight limb ASL bow in 2006 )

Not wading in to this,just grab my D bow,my back quiver,my wood arrows and enjoy stump shooting and hunting

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here