reverserisers

Forward or reverseriser Hills seem to pop up from time to time and are always of interest. Kind of strange looking critters but those who have shot them always seem to think highly of them. Still, they have never really caught on, so any advantages are still open to debate. Howard himself experimented with them and spoke highly of the potential benefits in smoothness and reduced vibration, but again, he didn't stick with them. This may be because they just look odd, because those unfamiliar with them are likely to string them backwards, because they are harder to make or just because they didn't prove to be good sellers. Howard was, above all, a businessman.

Anyway, they've been around a long time. Craig will still make one on request. John Schulz was particularly fond of them and made quite a few when he was the Hill bowyer. I have had two, a Tembo II and a Big Five II. Note that in both cases John labeled them with the "II" after the model name, indicating that they werent the usual thing. He also put an "R" in front of his initial in the serial number.

I recently received some photos from Matt Hamilton of what seems to be a very fancy John Schulz forward riser Big Five, but with some odd differences both in construction and in marking. The model designation on the bow is "Big Five", but without the "II" that John seems to have usually included. The serial number looks right, with the "R" in front of his initial. There is more finger molding to the riser than John normally used. Finally, and this is the big difference, all of the lams are forward of the riser. On the two that I have had, one lam was forward, the others behind.

In studying this bow, pictures of my old Tembo II and a recent forward riser made by Craig, I could see that there was potential for an interesting comparison of these forward riser bows, and that is what I am going to try to do on this page.

Let's begin with a look at a standard John Schulz model, the Tembo II that I had:

If you haven't seen one before, this is the typical profile of a strung forward riser Hill.	As with most Hills of that period, there was noticeable backset, or reflex. You can certainly see how easy it would be to string this thing backwards! Note not tip wedges or overlays.
Here you can see that there is one lam forward of the riser and two behind. (three lam Tembo). With one exception, shown later, all of the forward riser Hills I have seen had this semi-deep locator type grip.	John did do some hand shaping on the risers

I don't have the bow any more, so I couldn't get a better picture of the serial number, but you can see the "R" in front. Note, I was told the riser is lemonwood.

There you have what I consider a real typical old Hill forward riser bow by John Schulz. Wish I still had it!

Serial number looks correct, with the "RS" in front. However, condition is way too perfect for that old a number. Note that all four of the lams are forward of the riser. I'm very intrigued with what this must have taken in the way of clamping to do. Not also that it appears all four lams were full length. Only the glass goes up the back of the riser, corresponding to what would be the fades on a regular bow.	Same semi-deep locator grip as on the Tembo II but more pronounced finger molding.
Definite tip wedge, which, to me, means later manufacture. However, still no overlays.	This locator grip seems notably deeper than on the Tembo
	Here's the limb markings. Note no "II" after "Big Five" and the signature doesn't look like what we expect.

Matt sent these pix to Craig at HH Archery, wanting to verify that this was indeed a Schulz Hill. Craig said the serial looked right but he could not actually recognize the bow. Given its condition, my first surmise is that the bow has been refinished and the refinisher tried to come close to the original markings. As to the other differences, particularly all the lams being in front, I just don't know. Any bowyer gets tired of making the same thing and gets ideas they want to try, or recieves custom orders with specifications. I've ordered two regular Hills with all the lams in front and Craig quite happily built them. So my guess is that this is a John Schultz, just not a regular one. I can see this bow being quite a lot more trouble to build, so someone would have likely had to be paying for it.

If anyone knows how to contact John Schulz, or maybe his son, who I understand is making the Schulz Americans again, let me know. Both Matt and I would very much like to see if he remembers or recognizes this bow.

And, finally, a "modern" or more or less current production forward riser Hill. This one was made by Craig about three or four years ago for one of our list members, Horace Worcester. You'll see that it's a lot simpler bow to build than either of the above. It's quite a mix of characteristics. There are five laminations of bamboo (Wesley) plus a back of Mountain Juniper (Cheetah). All of the working lams, the bamboo, are together, not split by the riser (ala very old Hill). The riser is a normal Hill shaped riser, simply placed on the back instead of on the belly.

I do wish I had a better picture of the serial number Craig put on it. The Model name is put on as usual "Wesley Special", no "II" after it.

__________________________________________

I want to thank Matt for rattling my cage about his bow. It's sparked an interest on my part in building one, or maybe more. I'm intrigued as much with the building issues as I am with the bow style. For instance, functionally, there isn't much difference between the Tembo II and a standard Hill, except for the orientation: i.e. one lam goes up the fades and two work together on the other surface. This splitting of the working lams is commonly done to help lock the riser into position. Obviously, the bow has some reflex built in. I have forms with both reflex and deflex built in. If I ran a bow on the deflexed form, but nocked it reverse, it would become a reflexed forward riser, like this Schulz.

Horace's Wesley is a straight Hill, with all five working lams are on one surface, as Howard used to like them and as on the Classics I had Craig custom build for me. They're just on the belly instead of the back. The only real issue in building this bow becomes which direction you cut the nocks!

Then you come to Matt's bow and to me, that's a real puzzler. A great deal of effort went into putting all four full length lams on the curved back, but to what purpose? You are going to have to work with full length lams, and you'll want to use at least one more than you need for the weight you want. Since they will be double bending, you won't want them any thicker than you can avoid. Also, you are going to lose at least one, maybe two inches of potential bow length, since the outer lams will end up shorter than the inside ones after all that bending. Finally, thus located, the curved section of the lams are inert; they really don't have any more or less effect on the working of the limbs than if they'd been on the back. It appears to me that placing them there like that actually reduces the degree to which the riser is forward of the working limbs. Once again, I find myself with the thought that if this was such a hot idea, more of the them would have been built. Gotta admit it looks neat, though.

With these three examples, I'm sure I can come up with something and I'm itching to get at it. I'm most inclined to go with Schulz's approach. When I do, I'll post pix here just for the fun of the comparisons.