Richard Longbow

[mullet]

Tom,I just reread the article again. No Peeing this time.Just magic dust. Basically if you put an 1/8"of rawhide on your ,looks like at least a 2" wide flat bow,It will increase the performance(his words).Also if you sprinkle bone dust on the bow over the hideglue it will change to super glue qualities and dry in 24 hours.Sounds like fairy dust.Anybody that has read Jim Hamm's books know that mixing bone dust and rawhide scrapings in hide glue helps the quality.As Mr. Longbow says you can't pull it off without removing wood.Hasn't that always been the way good wood glue works?Even without the magical dust?

[duffontap]

Squirrel,

I don't remember if you said you were a bowyer or not.  If you are not a bowyer, or perhaps are very new to bowyery, I could see how some of the comments we have made may seem disrespectful or rude.  But we are not trying to be so.  I've seen some lousy bows posted here (and built more than a couple myself  ) by beginners who are learning and looking for advice and I've never heard a forum member attack or tear such a person down.  We all remember the struggles of learning to build bows and we love to see new people added to our numbers.  This is not an exclusive club by any means. 

Now regarding Richard Longbow--it is obvious that he is a fine craftsman with great attention to beauty and detail.  No one is arguing that.  The problem is that he is a professional bowyer who publishes very unorthodox, unscientific, non-traditional, non-Native-American techniques and claims, without offering any proof or explanation, that his bows are improved by these methods.  Intentionally forcing set into otherwise strong wood (like ash) is a practice without precedent among Native Americans (who often sinew-backed bows so they were reflexed, and took great care in the seasoning process). 

I don't believe it is ethical for Richard Longbow to sell his bows based on magical performance contrary to the laws of physics.  If he were to follow the examples of most responsible researchers in primitive archery, he would publish flight distances or chronograph speeds to prove the advantages of his techniques.  Ask any flight shooter here and they'll tell you why he doesn't.  His bows will shoot well below average due to their set.  There is no way around it.  When you string the bow, it's easy to do right?  Take one of Ryan's reflexed/recurved bows of the same weight and it would be way harder to string.  Tightly wound springs are just springier. 

If you do believe that his bows are superior, shoot a 500 grain arrow through your local archery shop's chronograph and give us the results.  I'll be the first to apologize if we are wrong. 

                 J. D. Duff

[mullet]

J.D.,Well said.The other thing that hasn't been mentioned is ;Why hasn't Mr. Longbow rebutted any of this.Obviously he has access to a computer when he submits his articles.And now I'll probally get in trouble,Why is Primitive Archer buying this crap again.

[psylvain]

   Richard Longbow does not have internet connections, so he can't rebut any comments here.
   Regarding the power of his bows -- mine is not easy to string. It takes some effort -- there is a lot of power and speed in it, as well.
   No, I'm not a bowyer, and yes, I'm new to shooting bows. My friend Dave (who is pictured in the article, in camo) is an experienced archer, and has several of Richard Longbow's bows, and they are amazing. At least one is buffalo backed, and he did take a deer with it last year. It will do the job, despite appearances.
   And, I'm sure most of y'all are a great bunch of folks, but some of the comments and cracks at the outset of this thread had little to do with the article, and more to do with trashing a guy whose approach to the craft may be a little different. The "spirit" crack is a case in point. Why does PA print his stuff? Maybe because he does offer something different, and worthy of fair and open discussion. Imagine how boring PA would be if everyone agreed with everything said and written, and if every one did things (built bows) exactly the same way.
   Finally -- and for the record -- his Lakota name is Itazipa Hanska, or "one who makes bows" -- and he has been making bows since he was a child. He certainly did not take the "Longbow" name from another writer, or anyone else.
   Anyway, some good comments and discussion here despite the other stuff.   
   

[oak]

This whole discussion makes me think of a fellow on the Leatherwall that supposedly makes horsebows the way his Great Grandfather did on the steps of Bulgaria or the Ukraine (it's kinda hard to tell cause he never exactly says the same thing twice).  As somebody that has done some research into asiatic composites I find he seems to be deceiving people to sale bows.

It just saddens me that there would be people out there that make claims, sometimes outlandish, just so they can make a buck.  There are things that are known in the archery community by anybody who has done any research into it that should be very common knowledge.  Yet sometimes somebody has to break away from convention just to make a name for themselves to make a buck, even though 99% of the proof of physics and the study of archery and bow making is against them.

Just a couple of my thought in general that were brought up reading this thread.
Blake

[Traxx]

Itizipa Hanska,
Is literally translated in English,as Bow long.The way it is spoken in English,is Long bow.In the Lakota launguage,the initial subject,is put first.

[jpitts]

Bob,
That is soooo cool. Do you happen to have pic's of the bow's with shark skin backings? I'd love to see them.
Justin,
I couldn't agree with you more. I've heard crap all my life about being a "Good Ol Boy" or "Red Neck" or "HillBilly" that I don't even pay much attention to that ignorance any more. Heck ...... the Atlanta area has so many northern transplants, you can't swing a cat without hitting one. Gotta drive slap to the mountains or down to Macon to even hear an accent these days. Most of us around here have some mixture of Native American in us too. Mostly Cherokee I guess. Went to Highschool with a guy that was part Miccosoukee and another that was part Chickasaw. The wife even has her Sioux Great Grandmother in a book called "Foxfire # 9" She was just a kid in the pic. My daughter would love to learn more about her but I have no idea how to persue it. Too much info died with the elderly. Sadly we as a nation have lost a lot of treasures due to Manifest Destiny. A lot of Archery knowledge. Anybody ever read the writings from De Soto's travels ?  Marvelous stuff. 
Dane,
Pappy (my Pappy....scuse me)  always said the best way to get an argument started is to mention religion or politics. 
I too am a youngster here. I have been bowled over by the most hospitable group I've ever come across. I've learned so much and gained so much confidence from all of you here that I could never repay the kindness. Thank you all.      scuse me....Thanks Ya'll

[marvin]

Hey folks, please try and avoid making comments that may be sound like personal attacks. It's certainly OK to debate the facts and theory but try to do so without calling into question a man's character or integrity.

For all we know Richard may be and probably is one heck of a great guy. Let's keep the discussion respectfull.

[George Tsoukalas]

I read the article and its content seemed pretty good. The bow pictured at the end of article also seemed fairly attractive and the set wasn't all that much.I also don't agree that rawhide appreciably approves cast.  I don't agree with the religious aspects and I'd be happy to discuss them but not here. I don't agree with everything that I've read in all of the 3 surviving trad mags and I'm sure people don't agree with everything that I have written. That's ok. That's what makes life interesting. Jawge

[marvin]

George, I always appreciate your maturity and wisdom. You are a credit to the community.

[Justin Snyder]

George is right. Lets stick to discussing things that can be measured.  Some cannot be proved, but if you can substantiate the claim it is acceptable.  Some disagree with Badger's mass formula, others disagree with Marc's heat treating. Both of these guys make incredible bows and can show how their theories work for them. They cannot prove them but can certainly show substantial evidence to support it. Lets leave the "spiritual" part and the personal attacks out and discuss the parts we can substantiate or disprove.  Justin

[psylvain]

I read the article and its content seemed pretty good. The bow pictured at the end of article also seemed fairly attractive and the set wasn't all that much.I also don't agree that rawhide appreciably approves cast.  I don't agree with the religious aspects and I'd be happy to discuss them but not here. I don't agree with everything that I've read in all of the 3 surviving trad mags and I'm sure people don't agree with everything that I have written. That's ok. That's what makes life interesting. Jawge

FWIW, the bow pictured in Longbow's article was mine, while it was being made late last fall. It is the same bow I submitted for Bow of the Month in January, and which stirred quite a lot of commentary. The finished bow had some diamond-shapped designs painted on the buffalo hide backing, which was done by Longbow after these pix were taken.

The bow being shot in the "camo" picture by David Green in the same article being discussed here, also is a buffalo-backed bow, of the same basic design and build, but maybe two inches shorter in length than mine. His is pretty stout -- about a 60- or 65-pound pull, I believe. Mine is a bit less, only because I'm not as strong as Dave, so Longbow tillered it down some.

I can only learn about primitive archery by reading and doing. Bow-making is a subject I'm not well-versed enough in, and therefore not really qualified, to discuss at any length. For me, the enjoyment of shooting the bow, especially out on a stump trail in Maine, or with David, is enough, and this bow does everything I want it to do.

In the most untechnical of terms, I can say the bow shwon being made in the article does shoot smooth, and has a lot more snap than you might think. It is quick, especially in the hands of someone like David, who is way more experienced and practiced than I am. The bow, itself, is light in weight, and perfectly balanced. Yes, it is a piece of art, but functional art, and I have no doubt that if I was a hunter, this bow would be deadly.

While I may not know much about bows, I do know something about guitars (40-plus years of playing them), and very often people focus too much on the minutia and numbers and technical stuff, rather than just enjoying the instrument. If it plays good, feels good, sounds good to the guitarist, that's all that should matter. I see it the same way with my buffalo-backed bow. There probably are a number of valid reasons for it goes against the grain of tried and true bow-making -- but, heck, it works for me, and that's all that matters, at least to me.

But a civil discussion is always welcome, as was th4e case about my bow in January, and as this discussion seems to be now. I do know that I see some pretty nice looking work being cranked out every month by many of the bowmakers who visit here. I would qualify many of these as functional art, as well.

Paul

[Justin Snyder]

Paul,  what would be really nice is if you can make it out to some of the primitive events/shoots.  Maybe you can let a few guys shoot your bow (make sure they aren't drawing to far before you let them hold it).  Then they could judge the performance for themselves.  You could also shoot a bunch of other bows.  This would give you something to compare the bow too. 
As a site with MANY NEWBIES, we get a little excited when we see things that 999 times out of 1000 will decrease the performance to the point we consider the bow ruined.  We don't want to attack the bowyer. But we do want to prevent newbies from being missled by information that we think is going to make their bowbuilding experience a bad experience.  If you read through the posts you will find many guys asking if the bow they made has to much set to be a viable hunting weapon, it is not just yours we are concerned with.  Final weight can be extremely high without performance being there.  I guarantee Marc St Louis can make a bow that has 5" of set and draws 60# at 6".  It will not cast an arrow very good, so you wont see him doing it.  Justin

[StanM]

For me proof is in the pudding, so to speak.  It's why I have and use a chronograph.  Helps me determine the performance of my bows.  I reserve judgement on the bows Mr. Longbow crafts until someone can put numbers to them that allow me to make useful comparisons. 

Paul, is it possible you could take the bow someplace and have the speed of a known weight arrow measured?  Perhaps it could be shot for distance with an arrow of known weight, though there are more variables in that approach.

Thanks,

Stan

[marvin]

Paul,

I would strongly recommend reading the Traditional Bowyers Bible I book. The chapter on bow design and performance will help you understand some the issues experienced bowyers have with Richards assertions. The sister site to PA, www.horsefeathersranch.com sells the book along with it's other volumes II and III.

If you can't get it let me know and I will gladly loan mine to read.