teardrop bows

>>31853042
Chances are low it'll pop, just don't use arrows less that 5 grains per pound of draw and you'll be fine.
Bows are shit for happening, and I have more money in bows than 99% of /k/ has in guns.

>>31853079
teach me sensi. show your bows

>>31853108
Teach you what exactly?

>>31853298
all about bows, how do you spend $1000s on one? i paid $40 and it came with 20 arrows

>>31853315
It's quite simple to spend that much, GENERALLY the more you spend the easier it is to be accurate.

>>31853042
If I were to use a bow in a happening I would want to rebuild the cam system. Compound bows have built-in inefficiency for comfort and ease of shooting. Could have a much more powerful machine if you design it to be efficient rather than easier

>>31853418
i would probably use it for hunting only as its silent and wouldnt draw attention.


whats the cam and how would you fix it? i feel like a recurve would be better for defense

>>31853449
The cam system on a compound bow are the oddly shaped wheels on either limb. The shape of the cam determines the way force is applied to the arrow at any given point during release. In order to make drawing and aiming easier and more comfortable, the force is unevenly distributed along the the draw in such a way that it starts out mild and gets heavier and heavier until just before it ends, when it drops to almost nothing, creating the hold at the end. While much easier, it's mechanically inefficient so you ultimately have less energy transferred to a less stable missile

>>31853449
As far as traditional bows go, recurves are excellent and can be just as powerful and accurate as a compound bow as they are now designed. The mongol or Chinese longbow is probably the most technologically advanced a traditional bow can get. The biggest downside to a traditional bow that is present in all designs (more or less present depending on the design) is what's called stacking. Stacking is where the farther a bow is pulled back, the greater resistance the limbs provide.

>>31853361
I dunno, I use a low-end Mathews and I'm pretty damn accurate within 40 yds. There's really no substitute for practice.

>>31853568
That is so unbelievably false I can't even. The trend for the last decade has been speed, arrow weight has stayed the same or decreased on average, draw weight has decreased on average to a cap of 70lbs, but arrow speed has increased over 100fps in that time. How are they in any way sacrafiding efficiency for comfort? IF anything long time shooters complain about how uncomfortable new comps are .

>>31853668
I use something else a fair bit more expensive and am accurate to 100yds. I also practice more than you so take that as you will.

>>31853643
A traditional bow will never be as powerful as a modern compound at the same draw. NEVER ever ever.

>>31853735
i can hit a target at 100 yards without sights or a release

>>31853760
So can anyone with a dozen arrows and a working brain. Hit a 2 inch target at 100yds CONSISTENTLY then talk.

>>31853042
>also what does /k/ think of bows for a happening? is it even remotely practical?

Absolutely, although I feel recurves/longbows are a far better choice as you will not be able to fashion a replacement cable very easily should the need arise. Not to mention replacing it without a bow press, ugh :P Also you shouldn't really use wooden arrows with a compound because they will shatter and drive fragments into your wrist/hand so good luck making more when you run out. Alternatively get a crossbow without cams that can take a normal string if you don't want to learn to shoot a real bow.

>>31853748
This is true but it doesn't need to be IMHO

>>31853735
shiiiiieeeeeet, that's pretty impressive. I'm >>31853668 not >>31853315 btw

>>31853079
I really want a compound. But the prospect of needing specialized tools and bench to service it sort of puts me off in the case where my one and only local archery shop closes and I have no where to fix or maintain it.

>>31853705
Idk what to tell you man. It's just physics. Maybe they've been playing around with the materials or design of the limbs. Maybe the cams have actually become more circular (which is exactly what I'm talking about). But as far as the physics of a torsion machine goes, it's energy over distance. When you start with little force then increase, you store less energy than if it remains consistent

>>31853748
Well that sort of depends on the bow. Designs like the Chinese longbow were very effective in reducing stacking. Ultimately you're right, but with a proper design they can be pretty dam close

>>31853568
Wait.
I thought modern compounds have hit a ceiling in terms of speed due to it being dangerous as fuck to go past a certain magic number, at least in current tech allowances?

>>31853315
>buying a shitty cheap fiberglass bow
>thinks its a real bow

Kek

>>31854039
You actually have it backwards, the more radical the cam design the more energy it exerts. BOW manufacturers toyed with high let off bows, the max ever being 92% and those things screamed, pushing arrows out at 350IBO. But the came tore themselves apart, they were hell to shoot for anyone not at expert level, and most states only allow 85% LO for hunting.
Mathews recently went back to circular cams with the No Cam line, much more comfortable to shoot, way less efficient, only putting out around 315IBO. Radical cams are still used on all the speed demons that can get to 370+, I can explain to you why circular will never be as good if you really want but it seems apparent if you really think about how they work.

>>31854049
Nope, they can never come close, compounds on the low end, the very low end today put out 300fps at 29/70 no amount of toying around with materials or design will let a trad do 300 at 29/70 even 250 is a stretch and a dream.

>>31854104
Now that I think about it that makes sense. Traditional bows are limited by the weight of the limbs. Heavier limbs store more energy but are slower, so you can toss a heavier projectile at the cost of speed. Or you can make them light to get the speed, but you won't be able to use a very heavy projectile. Because of the way compound bows are designed, they aren't really limited in that way. So increasing draw weight doesn't necessarily mean a slower projectile

>>31854328
What? ARROW speed/energy is gained by reset speed. THE faster the limbs return to their resting position the faster the projectile is loosed. That's why composite bows are faster than wood bows. If you are stuck with only one kind of material increasing the stiffness will increase the speed, but as you make the draw stiffer you need a stif fer arrow, and again if you are stuck with one material for those then you need to make the arrow larger/thicker to get that stiffness. THIS increases the weight and hampers your speed gain but you see a marked increase in penetration.

>>31854357
Tldr, the limb travel on a traditional bow is close to or greater than one foot, a shitty compound is 6 inches, a good compound only has .75inches of limb travel. A 30lb comp with .75inches of inflection will shoot faster than a 90lb comp with 6" of inflection.

whats a decent price range for a starter compound and recurve bow?
no fancy sights, but maybe a fancy arrow guide. I'm 5'7", and about a 55lb draw

>>31854548
Buy a Samick Sage recurve for $150, anything more expensive is a waste of money unless you are doing gay ass "Olympic archery" lol. You absolutely should not start out with a 55 pound draw unless you want to eventually fuck your shoulders up, we are talking not being able to lift a spoon levels of damage. Work up from around 25-30lbs and make sure to learn proper form to fully engage back and shoulder muscles.

>>31853748
But it will be quieter, and less trouble to maintain.

Just killed a rabbit with my samick sage today. Anyone know a good blunt tip?

>>31854650
Not really no, at equal force they have the same decibels produced, both can be dampened to near silence. BUT the compound d has the benefit of adjustable weight so you can use it at 70 for distance and real hunting, or drop it down to 30, still be more powerful than a 50lb recurve, and be as quiet if not more so.
As for maintenance if you know what you're doing a set of strings will last a decade, and pocket bow presses are a thing. Apart from making sure your screws aren't coming loose; loctite, there is less maintenance on a modern compound than with a wooden trad.

>>31854548
500 for a fully set up compound, 250 for a fully set up trad. If you aren't using sights then you don't need a rest and shoot just shoot off the shelf. Get a samick sage in 40lbs, a dozen carbon arrows, a quiver, a case, a target, and some form of finger protection

>>31854055
It's not really a tech problem, but rather a market "problem" - with fancy aerospace composites, etc it should be easy enough to build a bow strong and light enough to hit well over 400fps. To accelerate an arrow faster though, you also need either more acceleration, which either means a longer draw length (not happening) or a greater draw-weight, ideally with minimal or at least a sharp let-off. To get something up to 500fps or whatever you'll probably end up having to produce a crossbow for it's winch.

>>31854761
forgot to add - but because of the extra weight and expense associated with those materials, etc, and because aiming becomes a problem at distances where that level of speed matters, there just isn't a market for it, so industry doesn't go there.

>>31854775
You can bypass the draw length by designing a way to have negative brace height like on some xbos, there are a couple bow manufacturer's r&d departments working on this. It is proving to be...difficult.

>>31854808
I suppose if you built one with a strap-on forearm brace it'd work, though you'd have to begin the drawing over your head (making it probably useless for a lot of hunting) to keep your forearm straight for the bow. That or you'd need to be super fancy with a mechanical racheting pivot point where the forearm brace meets the bow.

>>31854934
>>31854808
Just found this thing: http://www.google.com/patents/US6715481

looks... weird.

>>31854548
>>31854617
thanks anons, I know PSE makes decent stuff, now Samick, but are there any companies that should be avoided?

>>31856644
>>31854736
didnt mean to quote myself