Are many deflex reflex bows actually semi-recurves?

[Mick Smith]

This is a question that has been raised time and again. After browsing through many old photos on the net, I have selected a few that might be of interest.

So, the question remains. Have a look at the photos below and you be the judge.

The first photo is a Toelke Whip which is of modern manufacture and the bottom two are semi-recurves from around 1960.

[rodlonq]

G'day Mick,

In my understanding, if any reflex remains (concavity in the back of the limb) when the bow is strung then it is a semi-recurve. If the limb is straight or the back is convex in shape then it is not a semi recurve. I would say the whip photographed is a semi-recurve.

Cheers.... Rod

[Stickbow Hunter]

Mick, I think what you are suggesting is that because the two semi recurves in your photos are different to your Whip then your Whip is not a semi recurve. If you are suggesting this then you are incorrect. What Rod has written here is pretty much right:

In my understanding, if any reflex remains (concavity in the back of the limb) when the bow is strung then it is a semi-recurve.

I'll just add that the string is not to have contact with the limb other than at the string nocks. If the string does touch the limb other than at the string nocks then the bow becomes another form of recurve such as, static tip or full working etc.

These two photos are of bows from the 1950's and as you can see the middle one in the first photo and the one in the second photo are very similar in limb design to your Whip.

Jeff

Cliff Coe Bows Circa 1953-4.JPG (25.85 KiB) Viewed 2518 times

Hoyt-Semi-Recurve-Circa-1954-7.jpg (13.01 KiB) Viewed 2517 times

[Mick Smith]

No Jeff, that's not what I was suggesting at all. I don't have any hidden agendas in what I'm putting forward on this occasion. I have said before that I believe the Whip is indeed a semi recurve bow, as are many other similar bows, IMO.

I thought the old semi-recurves in my photos looked remarkably similar to the Whip. That's why I posted them. The photos that you have supplied (particularly the photo of the Hoyt) appear to be even more similar in their limb shape to that of a Whip and other similar deflex reflex bows of modern manufacture. I believe this corresponds entirely with your own views on the subject, so we are not at odds here.

In one of his posts, Dennis suggested that further proof or evidence might be required before certain bows could be historically identified as having the same limb shape and form of the semi-recurve bows of pre 1966. I think these photos are more than enough proof enough of that for some bows. Rightly or wrongly, I have sensed a reluctance to include bows, such as a Whip and some other similar deflex reflex bows, into the ranks of 'traditional' bows as per the Ozbow criteria. These photos should go some way towards addressing that reluctance, hopefully.

[Stickbow Hunter]

Thanks for the reply Mick as I wasn't sure what you were meaning with your first post.

Rightly or wrongly, I have sensed a reluctance to include bows, such as a Whip and some other similar deflex reflex bows, into the ranks of 'traditional' bows as per the Ozbow criteria. These photos should go some way towards addressing that reluctance, hopefully.

I for one have never inferred such bows were not traditional bows only that they were not longbows.

Jeff

[Mick Smith]

Yes, agreed Jeff. I also concur, they're definitely not longbows, despite what the manufacturers might choose to call them. Perhaps I'm just being a bit pedantic or paranoid, but I do have that sense.

Anyway, I have found it to be an interesting thread. We have often spoken about this subject, but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I can't get over just how much that old Hoyt looks like a Whip.

[rodlonq]

Mick, the Gordon Plastics bow is interesting. It doesn't seem to have any reflex around the riser area. It would be good to see a shot of it unstrung.

A related question I have often pondered. If a bow is built with reflex only, but takes string follow to the point where it looks deflexed once it is shot in, is it a deflex/reflex bow or a reflex bow with string follow? Who could tell other than the bowyer who made it?

Cheers... Rod

[Mick Smith]

I think it is unstrung Rod.

On the other question, I must say the thought never occurred to me, but I'd say you're right though.

[Stickbow Hunter]

I can't get over just how much that old Hoyt looks like a Whip.

Mick, Yes very similar indeed. Not long after 21st Century Bows first started this nonsense of marketing their semi recurves as longbows (1989 from memory) Hoyt jumped on the band wagon as well. I am led to believe they used the design of their 1950's semi recurve but called it a longbow. The rot as they say set in from there.

A related question I have often pondered. If a bow is built with reflex only, but takes string follow to the point where it looks deflexed once it is shot in, is it a deflex/reflex bow or a reflex bow with string follow? Who could tell other than the bowyer who made it?

Interesting question. I think I would view it as in this manner. Most flat laid bows end up with a little string follow but are still rightly said to be flat laid bows. Futher to this, if a bow has deflex in the limb design the riser usually will be shaped to match.

Many of the old semi recurves were just reflex in design but some were flat along the back of riser like this.

Bow Designs 2.jpg (77.34 KiB) Viewed 2490 times

Others such as these Bear semi recurves actually had the riser reflexed as well. They may look flat in the photo but they weren't or at least some year models weren't as Dennis has some in his collection.

Bow Designs 5 B.jpg (16.84 KiB) Viewed 2490 times

There is lots of interesting stuff when one looks into our Tradition Archery history.

Jeff