davidmil

I started with a recurve. I practiced a LOT and became quite proficient with it. I hunted with it and took many deer for several years. When the compounds got going I decided to try one and see what all they hype was. I' ve been shooting one since the early 70s. If you' re looking for some pin point accuracy and proficiency within a short time.... the compound is the way to go. I can have a beginner whacking the vitals in a very short time consistantly. That' s not true with a recurve or long bow. A recurve or long bow takes much more dedication amd regular practice to become proficient. The recurves because of the physics involved do not have the speed, flat trajectory or pack the wallop a compound does. I' ve been at it for over 3 decades and for the past 3 or 4 years have been antsy to return to the basics and simplicity of a recurve. If a good recurve didn' t cost as much or a lot more than a good compound I' d probably be there... but I haven' t made the leap. You have to decide, what are your goals and preferences. Do you want to have the hi-tech equipment and gadgets or do you wish to make it simple and basic. They both do the job quite well in the hands of a disciplined archer. It will take years with a recurve to get to the level you can achieve in months with a compound. Those who say they went to a recurve after a compound have to remember they already had the skills and shot discipline so it' s not as big a leap as starting from zero. Obtaining a proper fit in draw length etc is critical with the compound and not always easy if you' re relying on a proshop who doesn' t have the crap together. Obtaining the proper bow fit with a recurve is not as big a problem.

Lamb, if your shoulders started bothering you with the compounds and you don' t have the problem with recurves it was probably more due to mismatched shooter/equipment than the physics of the compound. There' s nothing that' ll tear up a shoulder faster than having a draw length to long or poor form or over bowing.