Archery Talk Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have been assigned an argumental paper about any topic. Being an avid archer and bowhunter, I chose the topic why compound bows are more benificial over long bows or recurves. I know many of the obvious reasons but I may not know all of them. I could use all help to make my paper stronger. If there is an actual "expert" involving this topic, please come forward because my professor wants me to get accurate information from someone who knows a great deal about this.
Thanks
 

·
Archery Coach
Joined
·
23,291 Posts
More beneficial? what does that mean? Do you mean that compounds are more beneficial to game management because compound bows will have a higher rate of predicted harvest? I suppose to Dave Cousins, a compound bow is more beneficial than a longbow but Byron Fergunson would disagree and Jay Barrs would find the Hoyt recurve he won a couple worlds and the Olympic gold more "beneficial"then any wheelbow:D

I think we can all agree that compounds

1) made bowhunting far easier and thus far more popular

2) can be mastered to the point of getting ethical hunting level accuracy within weeks rather than months or years needed for recurves or longbows

3) benefits shop owners because of all the neat gizmos compound archers buy including scoped sights and mechanical releases
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,289 Posts
CP -

OK, you asked for it.

Pros
1. Greater speed.
2. Less "holding" draw weight.

Cons
1. More things to go wrong (more moving parts)
2. Must be held vertically (given that most compounds are shot with sights).
3. Greater mass weight.
4. More things to get snagged in the brush.
5. Generally (not aways) noiser.
6. Did I mention - more things to go wrong.
7. Exacerbation of dependance on the bow sight. Most, if not all compound shooters today, use bow sights / releases. If these come loose, malfunction. The hunter is basicaly lost, where as the guy/gal with a longbow/recurve, unless the bow shatters, he's good to go. (Try changing a sring on a compound as quickly as you can on a recurve.)

Accuracy - sure, most compound shooter can shoot more accurately than most recurve shooters, but again, take the sight and the release away, or have them slip or malfunction, and see what happens.

Most good barebow recurve/longbow shooters can grab any bow on the rack (within their draw weight limits) and shoot acceptable hunting sized groups at 20 yards. I don't believe many compound shooters can say the same. YES, yes, there are exceptions, but we're talking generalities here right?

:D

Viper1 out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,455 Posts
I shoot bare bow compound and do well with it. 4" groups at 30 yds and arrows all touching at 20. I think it is true though that a majority of compound shooters would be helpless without sights ect.;) I like the efficiecy of a compound.:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
what is more important? the purity of a recurve without a sight, used to hunt food or the technical (although derived from the earlier bow) used for a sport of hunting?


MM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,289 Posts
Matrix -

Purity is a nice thing, but being stuck in the woods with a loosened sight, or pulley malfunction is quite another.

To take your arguement a step further, if meat on the table is the end result, then a 30-06 beats both hands down.

Please don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with compounds, just discussing the deltas and the reasoning behind them.

Viper1 out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,499 Posts
I think I'd change the papers title as to "The benefits of a recurve over compounds".
These guys have pretty much covered the benefits of a compound bow.
It's a lot easier to romantisize a bow that takes more time to master and to describe a skill that can carry a person all the way to the olympics.
I don't envy you in your task.It's going to be a tough paper to write.
I started out years ago shooting a recurve and loved it.But like most people I ended up using more compounds than the other.
I don't know that there are truly any advantages.........I guess its in the eye of the beholder.
The past 5 years have shown us that more and more people are going back to the traditional side of the disipline.The craftsmanship and skill levels of shooters are showing up on the lines at an ever increasing rate.Home made bows and arrows take a person to the roots of archery.
I envy these people and enjoy seeing this type of equipment.It may not be for me at this time,as I still enjoy my compounds also.
I just don't know that they have any advantages.
Good luck,
Jerry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
hey punch why dont u change ur paper to '' why mathews is sooom much better than hoyts'' ud have 300 replys before u got the first one read ....on second thought dont do that i have to write one of those papers in about a month ill wait and ask the age old question then :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,353 Posts
An argumentative paper huh?

Ok. . .

Bows all to the same thing, basically. They have a handle with two felxible limbs that get pulled back when the string is drawn. Releasing the string launces the arrow. Compounds do this better. They provide better performance and are more pleasing to shoot.

[I'd really stay away from any kind of hunting - I have yet to see an english prof who does not have a great disdain for any sort of killing. If you have any weak areas at all in your writing skill, you don't need to inflame the person who is grading you.]

Better performance is easy, but I would stay away from technical stuff, as it gets boring to a non-archer. I would start with drawing: compounds have letoff; recurves do not. This makes compounds easier to hold than recurves, while still providing much higher arrow speeds. Next is aiming: compounds have available and are allowed much more accurate sights. Contrast a compound's scope to a fita pin or instinctive with recurve. Compounds are much more repeatable with ther draw stops and release aids. Recurve archers are plagued by inconsistent draw length and sore fingers. Nobody likes sore fingers.

Address aesthetics by sticking to how pleasant the bow is to shoot compared to a comound - no large holding weights, flimsy metal clickers, sore fingers, and easy-to-see, accurate sights. Recurves will amost always win on looks and preconception, so you have to make them seem like elegant looking pains in the butt to defeat them on aesthetics.

Then you restate your thesis by recapping how compounds are high performance machines that are groovy to shoot, but recurves are overly romanticized and outdated.

For all I know, your prof is a bloodthirsty 3-d ace who will be going out for a hunt after grading your paper. Or not. Most likely, you will be writing for a liberal city kid who grew up and teaches english. I think it would be really cool, though, if your paper got them curious enough about shooting to go out and pick up a bow. You never know.

Scott
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top