Choosing between recurves and compound

[Frenchie]

Don't mean to start WW3 or anything but before I delve too much into the world of archery I'm wondering whether I should stick with a recurve or start up on a compound bow. The club I'm currently shooting at(Olympic Park) has recurve bows and i believe all three of the 'instructors' there shoot recurve, but i've seen more than enough compound shooters there(what this has to do with my question, I'm not sure).

For the record, I've shot a recurve a few times(5-6 sessions of 90 minutes, mainly at 20m) and don't mind it. Haven't touched a compound bow. I'm fresh meat so have no opinion of my own. I've never been hunting, so most of my shooting would be at a range, with the occasional shooting done from my car a-la drive-by :D

So, I guess what I'm wondering is why one would choose to use a compound bow over a recurve bow. At first I thought that only recurves could compete in events, but reading stuff here, it seems that both bows have competitions enough, should I want to go that far.

[alexvpaq]

Hunting --*> Compound
Target --> Recurve or Compound
Higher competition --> Recurve or Compound But at the olympic it's Recurve Only.

Recurve is harder
but compound is hard in the way that you got Even Better shooter that you can even imagine... Guy like Clint are just like living Hooter Shooter :silly: but there's some recurver that shoot awesome score that might just hurt the feelings of a compounder like Park Sung Hyun (1405) so Choose what you think is the best but my final advice is : Go get a recurve coz it's better:rofl:

[burt666]

Go get a recurve coz it's better:rofl:

And French speaking recurvers make better lovers too, it a known fact!!:cool: :rofl:

Honestly, try both, and pick the one you like most... mind you, nothing forbids you to start with one type, and explore the other type latter on in your archery carreer!

[Patto]

Frenchie

I am one of the compounders that shoots at Sydney Olympic Park. My advice is to go with what you are interested in. Recurve is a great bow if you have the time to put into practice. I have seen many people buy one and improve rapidly for a year or so and then plateau or go backwards as they only shoot it once a week. Recurve seems to take more practice than compound to stay at the higher level.

If you just want to shoot once a week (hopefully with the club), compound will give you more success initially, and it is easier to maintain that level. It does demand more in the set-up, but once there they are easy to maintain. The important thing is to get a bow that suits you. I would recommend one with adjustable draw length initally as you cant really decide on the right length until you have shot them. I started at 28 1/2" and found with more experience a shorter draw length was better for me (27").

Let me know if you have any questions. I am only too happy to help. I run the club there, so if you need some help on site, give me a yell. Ask for Patto or Bruce.

[frommy]

Frenchie,

I cannot add anything to what Patto has said. It comes down to personal choice. I have shot both, although not competitive with recurve, which needs lots of practice.

Brian

(edit) I am not implying that you do not need practice with compound, just that compound technology can lift an archer to a reasonable level quite rapidly, whereas a 'curver has to work to get there. Both then need extra work to reach higher levels.

There was a good post from Marcus on this subject a while back, but I cannot now locate it

[Flehrad]

Also, there is nothing to stop you from shooting both types.

2Dogs, Erika Anear, Jackson Fear are examples of folk who have.

Nothing also stops you from switching depending on how things go. I started on recurve, had a stint on compound before returning back to recurve as a serious archer. It's true that a recurve takes a lot of hard work (unless you are one of the talented), but when you shoot a great score (for what you have put in) it feels fantastic and you know you've earnt it. Compounders also get that too, but the competition level is very tough as the equipment makes those competition winning scores high, and sometimes it's only a point or two between the top few.

[recurve boy]

Also, there is nothing to stop you from shooting both types.

Money? :P

[Jay.G]

fair point there, Some archers just start with a recurve then later tries a compound and sometime they just don't go back.

[primal]

if you are thinking of taking up recurve i can save you alot of money......

just run head first into a wall 30 times or so. thats what its like to shoot recurve.

Only freaks and weirdo's shoot recurve (and half of them shoot compound as well)

As a compounder i enjoy hitting the middle of the target, as a recurver you enjoy just hitting the target.



Disclaimer : i am poking fun at recurvers, suck it up and get over it you freaks.

[Flehrad]

Well, recurvers enjoy hitting the center of targets too, but it's more satisfying when it happens :rofl:

[primal]

:rofl: about the same time between x's as hailey's commet is visable from earth

[Eberbachl]

:rofl: about the same time between x's as hailey's commet is visable from earth

One day you should shoot a FITA against some of our better recurvers, and then have an X count.

:rofl:

[Marcus]

Ah the young squire is mouthing off again. :lol:

[shannonhearse]

You might be better off in the long run if you spend the first 6 months of your shooting life shooting recurve. Then make a decision.
While shooting recurve, you will discover about things like good form and technique. Not that you cant discover those things while shooting compound, just that you must when shooting recurve.

[Flehrad]

And excellent recurve form will be excellent compound form also.... while bad compound form tends to turn into terrible recurve form :rofl:

[Progen]

Well, recurvers enjoy hitting the center of targets too, but it's more satisfying when it happens :rofl:

Best part is knowing that you did it on your own. :rolleyes:

[reversehaven]

Only freaks and weirdo's shoot recurve

:o cool. i've always wanted to be a freak :D
though that explains why we've got so many freaks here in SParchery club. heh.

well, it's generally known that in compound archery you have the luxury of cams, peeps, and releaser devices

soo...... that means you can probably get away with a bit less training and still score quite well.

but you'll have to bang your head against the wall for a nice score in recurve archery. but don't worry. you aren't alone :D you gots all the freaks here in AF to join ya :cool:

[alexvpaq]

Money? :P
yup... lol

[RafaPolit]

I believe its a matter of appeal,

Ask yourself if you would enjoy shooting like primitive men, with no "space age technology", for example, the wooden bows of the great wars or the bows made by egiptians, or even some time build your own bow. If this appeal to you, then probably go for the recurve or traditional archery.

If, on the other hand, you find appealing every technological gadget, super precise almost computarized aiming for hitting the target, amplified scopes (like a sharp shooter) go for the compound. Its true your absolute scores will be better, but your own appreciation of the scores is different, so both bows have their gratifications to the shooter.

I belong to the first group.

Rafa.

[Jay.G]

Mmm I agree with flehrad, If you start with a recurve you can always change to compound but the vice versa is not always viable.

[Marcus]

Ask yourself if you would enjoy shooting like primitive men, with no "space age technology", for example, the wooden bows of the great wars or the bows made by egiptians, or even some time build your own bow. If this appeal to you, then probably go for the recurve or traditional archery.

So you shoot Olympic recurve because you find the fully machined alloy risers, foam and fibreglass limbs and barrelled alloy carbon matched arrows similar to what the eqyptians used?
Right.
:rolleyes:

The technologial differences between the accuracy of a compound and a recurve is pretty much just in the letoff and the release aid. That's it.

[Jay.G]

I believe its a matter of appeal,

Ask yourself if you would enjoy shooting like primitive men, with no "space age technology", for example, the wooden bows of the great wars or the bows made by egiptians, or even some time build your own bow. If this appeal to you, then probably go for the recurve or traditional archery.


Thats an extremely ignorant comment. Marcus's absolutely right and if you don't have any idea of the mordern techs on a recurve bow, you must've been living under a rock.

[Sandy Hancock]

The technologial differences between the accuracy of a compound and a recurve is pretty much just in the letoff and the release aid. That's it.

I would suggest a scope at the front and a peep at the back probably help a bit too ;)

But the sentiment is spot on. Comparing a modern target recurve bow to something the ancient Egyptians used is facile.

[Marcus]

peep helps, but the scope isn't as big an impact as you may think.
Untill this year my PB's at 90m and in a FITA were shot with a recurve style open apature.

[The One]

But the sentiment is spot on. Comparing a modern target recurve bow to something the ancient Egyptians used is facile.

'Facile' means easy in french. Of course it doesn't make it right...

[GrahameA]

IMHO

I believe its a matter of appeal,

Ask yourself if you would enjoy shooting like primitive men, with no "space age technology", for example, the wooden bows of the great wars or the bows made by egiptians, or even some time build your own bow. If this appeal to you, then probably go for the recurve or traditional archery.

I believe this is the sentiment he was trying to express. :thumb:

There can be as much enjoyment in building a bow as there is in shooting one. And shooting a bow you have made yourself does have its own intrinsic reward.

[alexvpaq]

So you shoot Olympic recurve because you find the fully machined alloy risers, foam and fibreglass limbs and barrelled alloy carbon matched arrows similar to what the eqyptians used?
Right.
:rolleyes:

The technologial differences between the accuracy of a compound and a recurve is pretty much just in the letoff and the release aid. That's it.
and most of the time 20 pounds more than any recurver will shoot...:rolleyes:

[Progen]

...
Untill this year my PB's at 90m and in a FITA were shot with a recurve style open apature.

Cocky, ain't he? :thumb:


and most of the time 20 pounds more than any recurver will shoot...


Not really true. A lot of the top male archers have over 50 lbs at their fingers.

[Sandy Hancock]

and most of the time 20 pounds more than any recurver will shoot...:rolleyes:

Alex, are you aware that the maximum peak weight for compounds in target archery is 60 pounds?
I'm sure there are one or two recurvers who shoot over 40 pounds :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Marcus]

I believe this is the sentiment he was trying to express. :thumb:

There can be as much enjoyment in building a bow as there is in shooting one. And shooting a bow you have made yourself does have its own intrinsic reward.
No doubt, however I find it highly amusing that many recurve archers believe their version of the sport is more pure because compounders use magnified scopes and release aids. They ignore that the technology that goes into recurves is as highly advanced as a compounder. In fact in some regards even more so because recurves are more sensitive to arrow spines etc.

[GrahameA]

Hi Marcus

Compound, Recurve or whatever it all depends on what you like. Elitists of any camp need to understand the other camps before they run them down.

Seek first to understand - then be understood.

However, I really cannot see myself building a compound - I have enough challenges making what I make. And it is somewhat easier to make selfbows compared to recurves with foam core HMG laminated limbs in your average home workshop.

[Sandy Hancock]

....many recurve archers....ignore that the technology that goes into recurves is as highly advanced as a compounder. In fact in some regards even more so because recurves are more sensitive to arrow spines etc.

You're often right Marcus, but not here.

Sure, limbs, risers, strings, arrows, vanes, plungers and all that are just as high-tech as compounds, but spine is more important with recurve archery because of the *lack* of technology assisting the release.

The same applies to even the venerable longbow, although big feathers may make it less critical :p

[Hannah]

Dude - you should shoot whatever you want...there are some good points for and against each of the bows. You will find strong bow type and brand allegiances, which means that asking a question like this you are going to get a few silly responses..but sift the information and let us know what you end up shooting ;)

[Jason.P]

Dude - you should shoot whatever you want...there are some good points for and against each of the bows. You will find strong bow type and brand allegiances, which means that asking a question like this you are going to get a few silly responses..but sift the information and let us know what you end up shooting ;)

Couldn't agree more:thumb:

[RafaPolit]

I believe this is the sentiment he was trying to express. :thumb:

Thanks GrahameA for the comment and support, for everyone else:

I am not a native english speaker, sorry if my post was not clear as what was my approach to making a decission between styles: I have nothing against compounds, and I find it very odd that by using terms like "space age technology" it may have offended some compound shooters!!!!

I am fully aware of the technology that is behind a modern recurve or even a wooden traditional bow... but they are much closer to old day bows (if only in appearence and style) than when using compounds. This is in no way a detrimental factor of compounds, its just a different kind of technology (cams, scopes, pips, release aids, more arrow speed, etc.).

So, if old stlye appeals to you, recurve style is more close to it... is it not? Just as typewritting and mailing a letter is closer to handwritting than e-mailing would be. Also this is in no way an insult to e-mails, its just an opinion, even if some insolent people like Jay G. would consider this an extremely ignorant commment.

Rafa.

[RafaPolit]

...their version of the sport is more pure...

Marcus, I never spoke of purity, that would have been speaking better of recurve than of compound (purity being a higher state). I just spoke of comparison... if anything the arrow flight and trajectory is way purer in the compound, so this was never my approach, just nearer (as explained above) to old style shooting.

Rafa.

[Jean Lafitte]

you have a ponytail, what do you know?

[RafaPolit]

you have a ponytail, what do you know?

Very nice forum of people, thanks.

My first comment is missquoted and tagged as ignorant. The fact that someone else doesnt agree does not make it ignorant.
And now my appearence dictates weather I have any knowledge at all?

Nice folks here!

Rafa.

[Marcus]

No not pointed out as ignorant, just a point I always find interesting that is all.

You will find this forum is a bit more lighthearted than most and while the level of knowledge is very very high, those on here do not take themselves too seriously.

Feel free to call Jean a wanker. :lol:

[burt666]

you have a ponytail, what do you know?

[irony mode on]

and you shoot M1's, what do you know?!? :silly: REAL recurver shoot G3's :rofl:

[irony mode off]

[Flehrad]

Heck no, real recurver's shoot with KAP limbs, and kick arse with 1350 scores using them :rofl:

[Drummo]

As a compounder i enjoy hitting the middle of the target, as a recurver you enjoy just hitting the target.[/I]
yeah i know you were joking, but this is just contributing to helping them choose. on that note, recurves are a lot less forgiving in accuracy than compounds.

while in both types technique and form is paramount, in shooting a recurve you cant shoot good scores without a spot on technique. in shooting a compound, you can shoot awesome scores with a ****ty technique and form. ive seen that happen a lot.

so, as a couple of people have already said, recurve is a much bigger challenge to get to a satisfying level.

[Hannah]

Marcus, I never spoke of purity, that would have been speaking better of recurve than of compound (purity being a higher state). I just spoke of comparison... if anything the arrow flight and trajectory is way purer in the compound, so this was never my approach, just nearer (as explained above) to old style shooting.

Rafa.

Marcus never said you said anything about purity, it is more a sentiment that is usually attached to that sort of comment - trust me, we have heard it said often enough. All good ;)

[Jean Lafitte]

[irony mode on]

and you shoot M1's, what do you know?!? :silly: REAL recurver shoot G3's :rofl:

[irony mode off]

G3s have a strip of GREEN in them.

seriously

[Frenchie]

The first page of this thread was a rather interesting read. The 2nd page was just a lot of crap.. gotta love these forums ;)

Thanks for your thoughts though, probably going to stick with what I can get my hands on(ie. recurve bow) and see how that goes. I have no way of getting my hands on a compound to shoot it long enough for me to form a good opinion of it. :|

[RafaPolit]

Frenchie, good luck with shooting, Im pretty sure you will love your recuve bow and the improving of your abilities over time. By the way, which equipment are you getting?

Sorry for the second page, I know it kind of kidnapped your post, but I just thought I should clarify my point of view and complaint about some of the members conducts.

Good luck again,
Rafa.

[Jean Lafitte]

I think a poster's credibility should be based on how sensible their hairstyle is, with highest regard given to mohawks and pompadours.

[Hannah]

The first page of this thread was a rather interesting read. The 2nd page was just a lot of crap.. gotta love these forums ;)

Thanks for your thoughts though, probably going to stick with what I can get my hands on(ie. recurve bow) and see how that goes. I have no way of getting my hands on a compound to shoot it long enough for me to form a good opinion of it. :|

Have you joined a club? I would not suggest you buy anything until you have felt what it feels like to shoot it...at a number of clubs you will have the opportunity to try both before the need to purchase (often through some sort of beginners program). Honestly, don't buy before you have tried it...also any shop worth going to will have a short 'test' range in it for this reason.

[RafaPolit]

Honestly, don't buy before you have tried it...also any shop worth going to will have a short 'test' range in it for this reason.

I truly envy this kind of situations, over here (Ecuador) there is no such possibility, and you can only try what other archers let you shoot. The shop doesnt carry anything but Optimas, a few arrows, and everything overpriced. No range, not anything.

Good advice though, if you have the chance.
Rafa.

[Jay.G]

Sorry for the second page, I know it kind of kidnapped your post, but I just thought I should clarify my point of view and complaint about some of the members conducts.


Look mate you can complain all you want, doesn't change my view of your post been ignorant and have you actually considered your view of recurve bows actually been ignorant? No, you just complain that I said it was extremely ignorant and of my 'conducts'. Look from my perspecitive and think if its ignorant or not.

Tranditional archery:wooden arrows, barely any accessory, made of wood, not really boasts tech.

Recurve: Aluminium, Carbon, Carbon/Aluminium (vice versa) arrow shafts. **** loads of stuff, stabilizers, sights, clickers, plungers. Limbs: foam/carbon foam, wood, carbon, heck win win even has titanium in one of their limbs. Riser: Aluminium/plastic/wood/other materials. Loads of tech: tech bars, built-in vibration-killers (doinker, carbon...), able to adjust poundage, alighnment of limbs. I think the axis even has the capability of adjusting the grip position...

So do you see why I'd view your post as been ignorant?

Okay they may have been stemmed from the same family but Recurve has evolved soo much that it can hardly be called the same as any of the traditional archery's bows, well except for the beginners one and for one thing they not even in the same class in competition anymore.

Yes feel free to call jean a drug-addicted wanker.

[Marcus]

actually if we want to get pissy shooting a turkish traditional bow with a thumb ring is more like compound archery than recurve archery.

[Jay.G]

or just go on Jerry Springer...lol

[GrahameA]

Marcus

Thumb rings and Compounds.

Don't say that you will start getting them all confused.

Anyhow them Asian type thingies are to complicated what with multi-laminated construction, non-working limb extensions. etc,. etc. Next thing you know people will be wanting to use Penobscott double bows or cable backed bows so they can adjust the poundage. :thumb: :D

[Hannah]

Someone once argued that compounds started as merely an extension of the technology that goes into recurves...but some in the archery community are just scared of change :lol:

Not sure if there is any validity to the argument but thought I would add my stupid comment, too ;)

[Sandy Hancock]

Recurve has evolved soo much that it can hardly be called the same as any of the traditional archery's bows

Not the same, but still recognisable. You pull the string back with your fingers, you need a reproducible anchor for a back sight, you need good form to effect a good release, and you need to be reasonably fit and strong to get anywhere. These things have not changed since ancient times.

Sure the materials are better, and evolution in design means tuning can be more precise. Apart from that not much has changed.

[Hannah]

I really don't see how this is that far removed from compound...especially barebow compound where you are using your fingers to pull back the string. For compound you still...

need a reproducible anchor for a back sight, you need good form to effect a good release, and you need to be reasonably fit and strong to get anywhere. These things have not changed since ancient times.

Further the following is also the same for compound.

Sure the materials are better, and evolution in design means tuning can be more precise. Apart from that not much has changed.

Honestly, the difference between compound and recurve isn't that much, IMO. Mostly just a matter of choice.

[ninevalleys]

id say go with recurve... get somthing basic (nothing liek a Helix) to begiin with, and see if you enjoy it. then try compound when you get a chance. when i started i shot about 6 arrows with a recurve and then was given a compound to try, adn i though GREAT it was so easy!!, but now i regret it. after shooting 2 years with compounds (from basic to real expensive stuffs) i have jsut switched to recurve, and boy do i get soem crap form the recurvers due to the fact that i need to actualy now develope more back muscles, its way harder to go from compound to recurve, than recurve to compound.

thats my 2 cents worth...

NV

[Hannah]

thats my 2 cents worth...

For a currency that doesn't exist in Aus, it sure gets a lot of use here.

[Marcus]

2c rounds down to zero so really the opinion is worth nothing. ;)

[Hannah]

Only too right - maybe that is how one should charge for the site ie per comment worth nothing...wholly up to the discretion of the master ;)

psst - not saying that the site will have a fee ever...just a reference to a previous thread.

[ninevalleys]

ok then... my 2 dollars worth

[Eberbachl]

...i though GREAT it was so easy

:rofl:

That's why you have so many titles under your belt with compound huh (before giving it away to conquer recurve)?

:p

[ninevalleys]

lol, no luke, is was because i was 13, and funnily enough compound was EASIER to pull back OMG!!!, you know i had my reason for changing (if you bothered to even read the other threads???) to recurve.

Cheers NV

[ULTRAPROELITE]

cross bow
with lots of grease on the rail:thumb:

[alexvpaq]

oh c'mon dude Crossbow are awfull:mad: