April 12th, 2011, 03:55 PM
Pearson Cougar 706-64" recurve or longbow information request
I was running in my neighborhood the other day and came across a garage sale which caused me to pull up short to take a look. The seller did not have anything that I normally like, so I asked about archery items.
He went to the house and returned with an older bow with "Ben Pearson Cougar 706-64" with pouncing cougar logo on belly of lower limb. The technical specs on the upper riser have been scratched off. I believe Pearsons were based on 28" draw length so it should not be difficult to check the draw weight.
It has tan or carmel colored back and a cream or white belly. The riser is brown wood with a white wood sight window. The bow has no holes, cracks, twists, chips or other apparent issues; it could use a good refinishing though.
I found some specs on the web yesterday for a 1964 and 1966 Cougar 706-64", but they descried a bow with white on both belly and back and I did not see colors listed exactly like this one. The same web site also indicated the brace height to be 7-7.5". This one is more like 7 3/4" with a 60 inch string untwisted.
I am wondering the year of manufacture. Is it properly called a recurve or long bow? The correct brace height and the finish the factory used.
Basically any information which someone would be willing to share would be gratefully appreciated, Nuke
Pearson Cougar 706-64" recurve or longbow information request
April 12th, 2011, 07:33 PM
It's a recurve. The brace height just depends on whatever string is on the bow and the archer's preference. Manufacturers usually have a recommended brace height but it's not uncommon for people to go beyond it one way or the other... especially on a 45 year old bow from a garage sale.
The "a.m.o." (Archery Manufacturer and Merchant's Organization) standards weren't adopted until 1969. I've been wondering about how strings were measured for some of the older bows, because the brace heights don't always work out like they're supposed to, as you found out. But if you shoot that string a while, it would probably stretch into the listed brace height.
Mid-1960's might be as close as you get to finding the year it was made. There are Pearsons from 1965 that have brown and white glass on the same bow but as far as I know it's not common. Some of the models used brown glass for hunting-weight bows and white glass for lower weights. With the vast numbers of bows Ben Pearson made (especially Cougars, the longest-running model bow they made) it wouldn't surprise me if it was an accident.
April 12th, 2011, 07:48 PM
I take it back, it might be what they called a "modified recurve" or "semi-recurve". I just found one online, supposed to be from 1964 with reddish-brown and white glass on the same bow.
April 13th, 2011, 06:32 PM
That's it. I just kind of stumbled into the deal as it wasn't on a table or anything. Anyway the guy asked if I would give him a dollar; I didn't have the heart to see if he would take less. The finish on the riser is pretty much toast, but everything else looks good. I am happy to have it. Thanks for the response, Nuke
April 13th, 2011, 10:19 PM
As best as I can find, the Cougar 706-64 was made from 1964-1966. In 1967, the 706 was 62". In 1963 the Cougar was a 962 64".
April 20th, 2011, 04:31 PM
I've got one of these bows too, used to be my Dad's but I bought his house from him and he left the bow in a closet... thanks Dad! Anyway, I've been wondering if it's classified as a longbow or a recurve also. The limbs do recurve but the string doesn't lay on the limbs like they do on a standard recurve bow. So to me it looks more like a hybrid longbow. I'm sure they probably weren't really thinking about that back in the 60's when they were building these bows... I know one thing for sure, the bow shoots really good and is super quiet.
April 28th, 2012, 09:59 AM
Reviving the dead here!!! It's a semi-recurve no questions asked. Awsome shooters, longbow type grip with locator. Get a string 3" shorter than length, not 4". I have one for my wife thats 32#@26" and I shoot it alot with #3 microflites.
These bows are the predecessor to the modern hybrid longbows. If I could fmd a 45 or 50lbr I'd buy it in a email@example.com
April 28th, 2012, 06:42 PM
Brian, I've never joined a "hobby" forum before, but had to register here at AT, just to agree with you!
I've been shooting a 7050 (62" Cougar) since buying it new in '67, and also wouldn't mind having one or two more in other weights. It's smooth, quiet, and shoots pretty sweet; shot my first elk and deer with it (eons ago), with hardware-store Port Orford Cedar arrows ($12/dozen, field-ready [!] back then).
I prefer an endless loop string (think it's a shade faster than a Flemish) on mine, and recently discovered mine prefers a heavier aluminum shaft (Easton 2117 CamoHunters) over the carbons I was using.
April 28th, 2012, 07:33 PM
What weight are you shooting? I love this one. Its light in hand and feels great. I am finding out I prefer the smaller grips as opposed to the larger detailed recurve grips
April 28th, 2012, 10:58 PM
Hey nuke submariner,
I have a 706-64" bow exactly like you've described......and yes, it's called a modified recurve. Mine is 45# @ 28" but I have a 30" DL and it scales out at 52# at my DL. I've recently built a set of poplar arrows and really like shooting this bow. I bought it several months ago and it has a good Flemish twist string on it. The brace height is 8" and shoots very quietly. I tried lowering the BH a bit, but it seems to shoot best at 8". Sounds like yours is in really good shape. Mine has a few stress cracks near the center of the limbs, but doesn't seem to be a problem or be getting any worse. Get some arrows matched to your draw weight and enjoy shooting it! It's a keeper.
April 29th, 2012, 11:43 AM
Mines rated 30#@28", but I've never scaled or chrono'd it.
Originally Posted by Brianlocal3
I overdraw several inches (wear a 36" sleeve length), so am probably getting a little more out of it. All the spine selection charts say I should be shooting lighter spine like the Easton 2018s, but I'm happy with the overall performance of the heavier arrows (accuracy/penetration/range)... and watching 2018s fly off this bow is like watching a trout swim upstream - they're all over the place!
Actually, I'm shopping around for a more up-to-date bow, specifically for hunting, but its pretty hard to ignore just how nice the ol' Cougar really is!
April 29th, 2012, 12:47 PM
Hmm…sure wish Easton would put up the old spine charts…they never used to give me the sensation of ready to toss lunch, when I all I was after was a simple answer.
Originally Posted by jusoldave
Anyhow, Easton has been nice enough to print spine weight ratings on their Legacy shafts…don’t presently have them in 2018, but the 2016’s are marked 50-55# and the 2020’s are marked 60-65# so I’d imagine the 2018’s fall in at 55-60#. That said, all the shaft’s mentioned would be way off the mark for a 30# bow @ 28”…or even at the weight they would scale if drawn to full-length of the shaft.
I’m not surprised that the 2117’s seem to perform better…but, Easton has their 2117 Legacy’s marked 60-65# so, once again the shaft is actually overspined for your application. IMO, and for a better indication of obtaining a “more shootable” arrow/shaft I would suggest checking out the info at:
http://www.shootingthestickbow.com/ArrowGuide.html or http://www.bowmaker.net/index2.htm (under “Bow Tuning”).
The best book I ever read on human behavior was about training dogs
April 29th, 2012, 05:28 PM
Here is one of Easton's arrow spine charts from 1973 as an example as to how the spine charts of yesterday differ from the spine charts today.
sure wish Easton would put up the old spine charts
April 29th, 2012, 06:59 PM
Guys, thanks for taking the time to educate an old duffer. I'm pretty baffled as to why my old bow seems to prefer launching those Big Fat Missiles, as opposed to a lighter load. And of course, my lack of education is compounded by the closest pro shop being 3 hours away by freeway.
So, I found this: "If you go to a 30" arrow, jump up one spine number, if you go to a a 32" arrow, then go up two spine numbers...", which if I read the chart correctly, means my bow should be liking 1916s (nominal 30#, 3" overdraw, X 32" arrow = still in the ballpark for 1916s).
Then, I stumbled on this: "Head weight will also affect spine, however, it will require 45-50 grains to jump one spine number...", and thought 'Aha!'... until I processed the rest of the paragraph. I'm shooting 100 or 125gr heads (both in fields and broads), so that doesn't move us down the chart at all.
I think I'll invest in a spine-test kit...
April 29th, 2012, 07:38 PM
Unless otherwise indicated the recommended arrow spines are commonly calculated based on being mounted with a 125 grain head.
Here is another early spine chart.
Tags for this Thread