Quote:
|
why are longbows or AFB harder to shoot than a Recurve
|
As far as for hunting and general goofing around with a bow, this is a myth by way of over-generalization. The probable origin of the myth comes from the fact that recurves usually have more mass in the riser than longbows, which makes them more stable and a far better tool for plunking arrows into target faces. That's why you see them in the Olympics rather than longbows. A good many of us mere mortals who do not have the archery skill of Olympians actually do shoot recurves better than they do longbows. I am one of those who loves longbows but was always a much better shot with a recurve. On the other hand, many others shoot longbows just as well as they can shoot a recurve. Many shoot longbows
better than they can shoot recurves.
Whether or not YOU will be able to shoot a Montana better than or as well as you can an X200 or Kodiak, nobody can say. It's one of those mysteries that can only be solved by actual shooting.
Even then, if you don't shoot the Montana well, it's entirely possible you could shoot great with another longbow. Fit and design are even more important with traditional bows than it is with compounds. And remember that most traditional bows are made, in large part, with natural materials, and natural materials are not homogenus and consistent. I've shot exact duplicates of the same bow before with one feeling really good with a smooth draw and the other one feeling a bit off and more stubborn to draw. I'm sure there is scientific reasoning for this to happen but I prefer to think of traditional bows as having personalities. You need to find a bow with a compatable personality for you to really shoot well with it.
Longbow , AFB and Recurve
. Come think of it , i shoot an X-Force .... nuff said . 
