# Longbow



## GetOntheGoodFoot (Sep 23, 2012)

Hey what do you guys think about longbows vs normal recurves? Are they better, worse, more fun, are they better for hunting, less accurate-more accurate? Just wondering as I havn't used a longbow yet.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 23, 2012)

Last week we went to the Royal Armouries in Leeds just down the road from us, I'm still in raptures from all the edged weapons they have, floors and floors of them as well as guns of every description going. A place to get lost in! Anyway one of the galleries is about bows, all types including crossbows. They have a demo thing set up where you can try to pull a long bow, some people managed, I'm boasting as I did it but it does take some doing. The distances covered by the English longbow is amazing. I'd love to actually try to use one for real.
http://www.royalarmouries.org/visit-us/leeds/leeds-galleries


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 23, 2012)

In a nutshell, despite the legend of the English (Welsh) Longbow, re-curves are easier to pull, easier to aim and tend to shoot further.  The Longbows glamour comes from it's deceptively simple and elegant shape and from all the battle honours it won on the fields of Europe in the hands of British archers.  Much of that fame, however, is down to the skill of the men who used it rather than the weapon itself.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 23, 2012)

For the times it was used in, the longbow was a great weapon, with men trained to use it well.  A modern day compound will give a person more release power and an easier draw.


----------



## GetOntheGoodFoot (Sep 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> They have a demo thing set up where you can try to pull a long bow, some people managed, I'm boasting as I did it but it does take some doing. The distances covered by the English longbow is amazing. I'd love to actually try to use one for real.


<br>







Id love to try one they look like it would be hard to use but fun when you finally are able. Were English longbows built primarily for war?

What I really wanted to ask was what about a recurve longbow vs normal recurve? Are they not very good and built for nostalgia purposes or only surpassing a normal recurve by distance? I understand the compound vs recurve, but ive not shot a recurve longbow yet and was curious if they can be great.


----------



## Takai (Sep 23, 2012)

I am not sure what you mean by a recurved longbow. The recurve and the longbow are two entirely different bows. 

Due to its construction style longbow has to taller and narrower than the recurve to produce a similar draw weight. Both are actually excellent bows in their own right. Howard Hill safari hunted dangerous game in Africa with a longbow. Fred Bear hunted just about everywhere with a recurve. Both of them have left an indelible mark upon traditional archery.

As far as accuracy I find that the recurve is easier to get used to. The arrow rest in the riser in my opinion makes it simpler. With a longbow you have to get used "instinctive shooting" style. The bow has no shelf so the arrow is canted. You have to get used to instinctive adjusting for that. The longer the range the more delfection you have to allow for.

My current bow is a mid 60's Fred Bear Grizzly. I am contemplating going to an Asiatic Horn bow but just haven't gotten to the point of spending that much money on a bow, That I would have to learn how to shoot with a thumb ring....but I digress. 

My suggestion would be to find an a shop with an indoor archery range and just test out the various style to see which one you like better. This will give you a great opportunity to get your draw length measured and just talk shop. If you are looking for some traditional archery suppliers drop me a line and I will be happy to help you out.


----------



## GetOntheGoodFoot (Sep 24, 2012)

Takai said:


> I am not sure what you mean by a recurved longbow. The recurve and the longbow are two entirely different bows.



Well I thought they existed lol. When I was a kid I remembered my dad having a very tall recurve bow, it looked and was built like recurve but was like 7-8ft tall or something, like a longbow.

Here I even found a link for a Fred Bear Recurve Longbow.
http://www.cabelas.com/product/Hunting/Archery/Bows/Recurve-Longbows|/pc/104791680/c/104693580/sc/104235480/i/103969080/Bear174-Archery-Fred-Bear-Ausable-Recurve-Longbow/1203111.uts?destination=/catalog/browse/hunting-archery-bows-recurve-longbows/_/N-1100007/Ns-CATEGORY_SEQ_103969080


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 24, 2012)

Obvious question but I'll ask just in acase.  I wonder, was your dad's bow unstrung, *GotGF*?  If so that would explain why it might have looked like a recurve as the limbs would not be bent in a single, graceful, arc like a strung one.  Do you know what the country of origin was for it by the way?


----------



## Takai (Sep 24, 2012)

I think I understand what you are getting at now. That bow shows just a mild amount of recurve. I would really like to see what it looks like unstrung. The addition of the riser is going to make it easier to shoot than a traditional longbow.

It really comes down to personal preference. Really determining you intended usage is what will be your determining factor. If you are just going to target shoot it probably will not matter to much in the long run. It plan to take your bow into the field to hunt or go roving your requirements will be different. IMHO, if a bow is properly made, fitted properly to the archer and the task all that is left is to acquire the skill level needed to accomplish the task at hand.

If you don't have a local shop here are a couple of shops that I would recommend for traditional archery:

http://www.3riversarchery.com/
http://www.kustomkingarchery.com/


----------



## Bikewr (Oct 4, 2012)

The late Howard Hill, writing about bowhunting back in the 40s and 50s, greatly favored the longbow over the recurve, which was "newfangled gear" back then.  The first commercially-made laminate recurve bows were just becoming available, and the compound bow hadn't even been thought of.
Hill thought that the longbow was much more stable than the recurve, and generally handled heavy hunting arrows better.  Back then, there was no carbon fiber, no fiberglass, no aluminum.  Arrows were wood.
Longbows could handle heavy hunting arrows with stout broadheads that penetrated very well.
Hard to argue with Hill, he took just about every kind of game that was possible back then, including elephant.

Of course, technology marches on....

Modern recurves will have a greater cast (velocity) for a given draw-weight than will a longbow.  Modern arrows are muchly advanced over the Port Orford Cedar items that were state-of-the-art back then.
Modern broadheads are very effective and aerodynamic as well.

The modern compound bow is of course, considerably more efficient than any traditional item; but many (including myself) are put off by their overly complex and mechanical nature.
If you're just looking for an efficient hunting weapon, it'd be hard to beat a compound.   However, many traditional archers like the thought of hunting (or just shooting) with a weapon like our ancestors used.
I've made several so far, including a very nice osage orange number that turned out very well.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 4, 2012)

Bikewr said:


> The late Howard Hill, writing about bowhunting back in the 40s and 50s, greatly favored the longbow over the recurve, which was "newfangled gear" back then. The first commercially-made laminate recurve bows were just becoming available, and the compound bow hadn't even been thought of.
> Hill thought that the longbow was much more stable than the recurve, and generally handled heavy hunting arrows better. Back then, there was no carbon fiber, no fiberglass, no aluminum. Arrows were wood.
> Longbows could handle heavy hunting arrows with stout broadheads that penetrated very well.
> Hard to argue with Hill, he took just about every kind of game that was possible back then, including elephant.



that's interesting, was he speaking of the early recurves that were being made in the US at the time?  Perhaps they were not well constructed yet?  Recurves have been used for millenia, and the laminated recurves of Asia were incredibly powerful war weapons, often pulling over 150# and slinging arrows much farther than the English war longbows of the time, even those of similar draw weight.  I am sure they were handling heavy war arrows quite well.

There is also a distinction between a proper longbow which is also known as a war bow, vs. a simple straight bow.  The war bow was used by the English, the technology stolen from the Welsh, and was quite long, perhaps 6-7 feet long, with a very heavy draw, often well over 100# and usually made of a single piece of yew because the elastic properties of that wood was considered very good for the purpose.  These were weapons meant for war, for contributing to the arrow-storms that would decimate a group of advancing infantry or mounted soldiers and could pierce maille armour and perhaps some items of plate as well.  A simple straight bow however, was a scaled-down version, not so long, not nearly so powerful, and was meant for hunting or recreational shooting.  I think there is a tendency for people to call any straight bow, a "longbow", but that really isn't proper.  I have an all fiberglass straight bow, pulls at around 55# that was my dad's bow when he was a kid back in the 1950s.  It shoots great, but is not a longbow.  It's just a fiberglass straight bow.  I am sure I could take down deer quite readily with it.  But it's not a warbow, not a longbow.



> I've made several so far, including a very nice osage orange number that turned out very well.



nice, I'd like to try my hand at it someday, I've purchased a number of books on bow making.


----------



## Samurai (Feb 4, 2013)

The recurve bow has more "handshock" than a well made longbow.  That can throw a hunter off if they are not used to it.
The longbow was used in mass.  That is MANY archers would fire into the air down on the "bad guys" and it would rain arrows.  Truely an effective technique to thin the ranks quick.
Thanks
Jeremy Bays


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 4, 2013)

Longbows are fun, recurves even better, love my hornbow but..... in the modern time there is nothing better in the bow world than a modern compound bow or a modern crossbow!  If I were to pick between a longbow or a recurve Sukerkin hits it on the head in that the recurve is easier to deal with and a better overall product.  Still having shot all of them the only way to go is with a compound for enjoyment and hunting capabilities!


----------



## chinto (Feb 14, 2013)

most long bows in the middle ages were slightly re-curved. look at the art painted at that time.


----------



## Samurai (Mar 24, 2016)

Always the ARCHER not the bow


----------



## Tgace (Mar 25, 2016)

Samurai said:


> Always the ARCHER not the bow


I don't know if I buy that old saw 100% of the time. Technological advances give definite advantages over older technology.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 2, 2016)

Samurai said:


> Always the ARCHER not the bow



To a certain point, yes. However, the weapon you use does make a difference. I don't care how skilled you are with a slingshot, it has a maximum range that a longbow could easily out-do.


----------



## Hudson69 (Jun 13, 2016)

I like it all even the compound bow.


----------

