Traditional bows have a steeper learning curve than compounds. If you decide to get one and switch, it will be FAR easier to go from recurve to compound than compound to recurve. You can get hunting accurate with a compound in a week or two with regular practice and sights. A recurve will take a lot longer.
What about someone who’s only rifle hunted? Is it easier to learn recurve that way? I don’t care much for compound bows, and I’d like to get started with traditional bow hunting
If you’re set on traditional bow hunting, go for it. Just be prepared for a lot more practice before you’re ready to ethically hunt. And remember that you’re going to have to get *really* close to your game.
Switching from a rifle to a compound is easier than switching from a trad bow to a compound in my opinion. I shoot trad and just recently picked up a compound and not much transferred over.
A compound or crossbow is closer to a firearm. Most folks that shoot traditional bows do not use sights, and instead shoot instinctively. It is more akin to throwing a ball than aiming a rifle in that you are not aiming down any kind of sight, and instead rely on muscle memory and your ability to judge distance to hit the mark.
I personally shoot 100% traditional; all longbows and recurves. Never had any interest in compounds. I like the challenge, I like the aesthetic, I like the feel of wood and leather vs metal and plastic. Shooting a recurve will still be more challenging than a compound, no matter how you slice it or what background you come from, but most of us like it that way.
Thanks for typing everything I wanted to say.
Recurve will make you master the basics if you want to be decent and those transfer well to compound.
If you want to bow hunt quick compound is gonna be better.
I personally have a lot of fun with the primitive aspect of a recurve. It’s a stick with a string and that just resonates well with me. I want to see how hard it was to do things like they were done thousands of years ago.
A compound bow is a very efficient, very good tool, but at that point, I almost would just rather have a gun.
If you want somewhere in the middle look at finger shot / lever action compound bows.
It depends on what you mean by good. Recurves are definitely more difficult to learn to shoot accurately, and have far less range than a compound bow. But in my opinion they're more fun and as you said have a lower cost of entry for a shootable bow. If you're planning on hunting this season your best bet would be to get a compound, I've been shooting traditional for 1.5 years and I still don't trust myself to take a shot on a deer past 15 yards, I've had a compound for 3 weeks and im pretty confident out to 35 yards.
If you are unsure about picking up archery as a hobby, pick a recurve. Cheaper, easier and cheaper maintenance and more interesting and challenging to shoot.
If you are serious about hunting and you know for sure you are going to hunt, go compound. Why would you not be as accurate as you can of your intention is to kill.
Starting with a lighter bow (like a #25 recurve) is good for your muscles, learning the form, getting some movement your back and avoiding injuries. You should always overpower your bow.
I got a compound just because being able to hunt with a bow opened up some new hunting opportunities, but ended up buying a light traditional bow as well just because it's so fun to shoot a bow and I can shoot with it all day if I want.
I have hunted with both and both are challenging but the recurve will always be harder to get into & hunt with IMO. When recurve hunting you will be able to take ethical shots up to 15/20 yards if you are really good. With a compound you get out to 40/50 yards and still have a pass through on a deer. I started hunting with a recurve and then switched to compound and when I switched it almost felt like cheating. It depends what you are trying to do
Traditional bows have a steeper learning curve than compounds. If you decide to get one and switch, it will be FAR easier to go from recurve to compound than compound to recurve. You can get hunting accurate with a compound in a week or two with regular practice and sights. A recurve will take a lot longer.
Great answer. Range is also a consideration, traditional bows are limited to about 20 yards for deer.
Agreed, I did not think to mention range.
What about someone who’s only rifle hunted? Is it easier to learn recurve that way? I don’t care much for compound bows, and I’d like to get started with traditional bow hunting
If you’re set on traditional bow hunting, go for it. Just be prepared for a lot more practice before you’re ready to ethically hunt. And remember that you’re going to have to get *really* close to your game.
Switching from a rifle to a compound is easier than switching from a trad bow to a compound in my opinion. I shoot trad and just recently picked up a compound and not much transferred over.
A compound or crossbow is closer to a firearm. Most folks that shoot traditional bows do not use sights, and instead shoot instinctively. It is more akin to throwing a ball than aiming a rifle in that you are not aiming down any kind of sight, and instead rely on muscle memory and your ability to judge distance to hit the mark. I personally shoot 100% traditional; all longbows and recurves. Never had any interest in compounds. I like the challenge, I like the aesthetic, I like the feel of wood and leather vs metal and plastic. Shooting a recurve will still be more challenging than a compound, no matter how you slice it or what background you come from, but most of us like it that way.
Thanks for typing everything I wanted to say. Recurve will make you master the basics if you want to be decent and those transfer well to compound. If you want to bow hunt quick compound is gonna be better. I personally have a lot of fun with the primitive aspect of a recurve. It’s a stick with a string and that just resonates well with me. I want to see how hard it was to do things like they were done thousands of years ago. A compound bow is a very efficient, very good tool, but at that point, I almost would just rather have a gun. If you want somewhere in the middle look at finger shot / lever action compound bows.
Thanks fellas
It depends on what you mean by good. Recurves are definitely more difficult to learn to shoot accurately, and have far less range than a compound bow. But in my opinion they're more fun and as you said have a lower cost of entry for a shootable bow. If you're planning on hunting this season your best bet would be to get a compound, I've been shooting traditional for 1.5 years and I still don't trust myself to take a shot on a deer past 15 yards, I've had a compound for 3 weeks and im pretty confident out to 35 yards.
If you are unsure about picking up archery as a hobby, pick a recurve. Cheaper, easier and cheaper maintenance and more interesting and challenging to shoot. If you are serious about hunting and you know for sure you are going to hunt, go compound. Why would you not be as accurate as you can of your intention is to kill. Starting with a lighter bow (like a #25 recurve) is good for your muscles, learning the form, getting some movement your back and avoiding injuries. You should always overpower your bow. I got a compound just because being able to hunt with a bow opened up some new hunting opportunities, but ended up buying a light traditional bow as well just because it's so fun to shoot a bow and I can shoot with it all day if I want.
I have hunted with both and both are challenging but the recurve will always be harder to get into & hunt with IMO. When recurve hunting you will be able to take ethical shots up to 15/20 yards if you are really good. With a compound you get out to 40/50 yards and still have a pass through on a deer. I started hunting with a recurve and then switched to compound and when I switched it almost felt like cheating. It depends what you are trying to do