Search options (Page 6 of 7)

I have no SMG bow, so I can't verify that claim.
But if this were true, you should have had the problems from the start, I guess.
I would interpret it as an internal damage in one limb.
This is a common fail mode for "modern" recurve bows.
I would contact SMG.

BTW, I'm shooting left handed as well.

Thank you for volunteering as beta-tester ...   
I've seen the Segye bow on the Alibow Site, and considering it once my thumb draw technique is stable.
The falling-off string bridge is an annoyance, but I remember similar stories about Kaya bows ...

And how about the performance ?
How does it compare to Freddies bows, which are same price range ?

And the grip ... well, I have the same problem with my Quinghai / Kaiyuan bows.
It is a bit small for my taste, and almost round.
But for the Segye - there is one image with an un-wrapped PU foam handle, resembling the normal Korean style.
It is probably too late for your bow, now, but the Alibow people had been very responsive to questions by e-mail, and custom requests "in scope", so to say.
I'm sure it's no problem to order a Segye bow with such a handle, and unwrapped.

In theory quite easy.
Take both bows and one arrow, and measure the initial arrow velocity directly after the bow.
This gives you a measure of the bow's efficiencies. The rest is flight ballistics.
When the same arrow leaves the bow at the same angle, the higher the velocity, the greater the distance.

Flight shooting competitions take out the "scientific" approach, inserting individual bows, arrows, technique and shooting angle.
It wouldn't be a competition if it didn't ... 

BTW, I reached a maximum of 220m with my 40# Kaya KTB.
Much depends on the arrow, others reached only 170 .. 180m.

Me neither - I don't even have TV anymore. For that reason.

Curiously, history suggests the Ottomans already practiced flight shooting in this period, with achieved distances significantly beyond 500 yards.
Which seems rather "useless" in the context of war or hunting.

Thanks for the link.
Albeit I know manchuarchery.org, I missed this sub-page.

Another thing that comes to my mind are coincident documentations about English and Mongolean war arrow designs.
For both, the long fletching effectively ensures a fast stabilisation, which in turn would suggest a focus on short-distances.
The documentation about the English design (forgot the URL ...) suggested 15 ... 30 yards.
Seeing the shooting style of ELB enthusiast, I have difficulties to believe anyone was able to consistently hit an apple-sized target at 90 yards with a 160# ELB.
Or a 200# Manchu bow, for that matter ...

IMHO the ELB is a military weapon, designed to deliver a certain "punch", while being easy to produce, cheap, and robust and weatherproof. It was mainly the weapon of conscripted Yeomen and farmers, not (or rarely) of highly trained professionals.

In contrast, e.g. Chinese Ming and pre-Ming bows were the weapon of the cavalry, i.e. professionals.
Less trained infantry soldiers had the cheaper crossbow. It requires just a few hours of training to be battle-ready, and the lower efficiency of it's simpler limps can easily be compensated with higher draw weights.
The 50# Windfighter I have is quite a challenge for me, but my 150# crossbow is not.

My two cents, based on limited knowledge.
I know at least of Korean medieval crossbows, and considering the costs of making a gakgung, I assume conditions were similar. Would be nice to hear an expert opinion.

With my superficial knowledge of Yumis and Japanese archery, I agree.
I would put it in a class with flatbows and ELBs, thus efficiency ought to be compared to this bows - or ?

After some thinking and correlation, I came to believe that a proper arrow is at least as important as the bow efficiency.
I mean not only weight and drag (diameter & fletching size).
Achieving greatest distances with a heavy arrow, as described, got me thinking.
And then I remembered my amateur rocketry times.
Those rockets usually look like short, fat arrows, but the ballistics are essentially the same, at least after burn-out.
And the magic parameter is the CoG - CoP distance, as it's usually called in rocketry.
CoG is the center of gravity (i.e. the centroid).
And Cop is the Center of Pressure, i.e. the point on the longitudinal axis where the aerodynamic forces equal out.
The CoG must be in front of the CoP, else the projectile is unstable.
CoG and CoP at one point would be meta-stable, i.e. the thing continues to fly on in any orientation you disturb it.
The distance between both points is a kind of "lever" the gravity and drag forces act on the projectile.
The larger the distance, the more stable, but the greater the "pull" of gravity on the tip.
The FOC is similar, but describes the centroid position in relation to the geometrical middle.
You can observe this effect on child "shooting" toys sometimes - if you shoot the fat, lightweight (foamed) projectiles angled upward, they just stop on apogee and drop down like dead. No pointing downward.

To come to the point - for flight shooting, you need a small CoP/CoG distance.
That means, small fletchings (which pull the CoP backward) and small tip weight (which pulls CoG forward).
And those properties seemed to be matched best with this old, heavy carbon arrow of mine.
But you need low wind, and a good technique, as the flight is less stable.

Not coincidentally, the Turkish flight arrows are like that.
Arrow tuning should have the most significant effect for traditionally style (Korean) bows.

Nothing really new, just a recap in more technical terms ...

To come back to the original topic - I met a club fellow last weekend, who shoots this arrows.
He told me they hold up quite well, at least compared to other "general purpose" carbon arrows.

What could be an issue - they are quite lightweight. Had read it in the specs, but seeing/feeling is believing.
For higher poundage bows with arrow weight limits above 10gpp, they might kill the bow in the long run.

That seems to be a good idea.
The 60# Kassai I sold recently was an even more extreme example. I could shoot it properly only after at least 6 week of intensified training (I'm about 5'8", and 120 lb).
According to medical recommendation I read, one should intensify draw weights slowly (over month, rather than weeks), else tendons and cartilage gets damaged, and might need years to fully recover.
Supposedly, excavated remains of English archers that died in medieval battles at young age support this point ...

Not quite sure about the 2315 variant, but I could order Camo-colored Gamegetters here. Still having enough 2219 old tend poles laying around, and have no use for them.
I use my Jazz arrows in the 3D parcours, with a 30# recurve. And they hold up much better than equally priced carbons. Quite fine for the 3D distances below and up to 50 yards. But indestructible they are surely not ...

I'm quite aware the a fiberglass bow is not really "high quality", and prone to hand shock. Sold an old Kassai bear 60# this week (fiberglass as well), which I never really managed to master.
I don't expect too much "kickback" from a 25# bow, who is sought as a temporary step stone. Just need to do the 10.000 (or so) shots with a bow easy enough to handle, to automate the thumb draw technique.
As an additional pro, it's easy to stay above 10gpp with such a bow. The lighter the arrows, the more the bows are kicking in my experience.

As mentioned before here (or in another thread ?), my target is 40..45# at full draw. I think about to accompany my Kaya/WhiteFeather bow with a longer model, like one from Alibow. If so, it ain't gonna be a fiberglass model.