Looking for Archery Lessons in Toronto? Hire an experienced archery instructor.

Welcome to Project Gridless!

Hello! Project Gridless is dedicated to off the grid living, foraging / hunting / gardening for food, traditional survival skills and modern tips for alternative energy. Please Follow, Subscribe or Like.

Dating a Bear Grizzly Static


"Wondering about age and value I believe it's a 1948 from the bits and pieces I have found so far on the internet.

Jim W.
Fyi Discovered Bow in our attic in  Port Sanilac Michigan "

27523 serial number
53# poundage


Hey Jim!

I have nearly the exact same bow, just the serial number is different and the pattern of the fibreglass is different, and mine has aluminum in it. Mine is from 1949 and still shoots perfectly.

Judging by the serial number, the decal and the fibreglass pattern (no crossweave) your bow is a Circa 1952 Bear Grizzly Static. There is also no aluminum in the limbs so it could be a late 1951 model, but most likely it is from 1952.

Value might be $150 to $200 USD. Depends on the condition of the limbs, handle, tips, etc. I would need to see about 12 to 16 photos of every part of the bow to make a detailed guess as to the value.

Have a great day!

Charles Moffat
The small Running Bear decal on the left was used by Bear from 1948 until 1953, with the larger Standing Bear decal replacing it in mid-1953 and lasting until the 1955-56 model years. Beginning in 1955-56 Bear began using the silk-screened logo shown on the far.
The Grayling Era bows of Bear Archery

Beginning in 1947, Bear Archery moved into a new plant in Grayling, Michigan. Bow sales were now beginning to soar as new archers and bowhunters entered the sport in record numbers due in large part to the successful promotions of Fred Bear.

Fred realized that he could not meet the demand which would come from these new recruits by making bows one at a time like Bear had been doing since it's inception almost 15 years earlier. So he came up with a new method of mass producing bows, finally allowing his company to meet this demand. But Nels Grumley would not accept that quality bows could be made by any other manner than one-at-a-time, so Nels left the company to go out on his own.

Upon Nels departure, Fred moved another employee by the name of Bob Meeker over to supervise the manufacturing of the new bow lines. Even though bows were then largely the result of machine work, Bob came to be considered a fine bowyer in his own right.

The Aluminum Laminated Bows

The first new bow model which was introduced in 1949 after Nels’ departure was the Grizzly. The Polar and Kodiak were introduced in the following year, 1950.

These bows of 1949, 1950 and early 1951 can be recognized by the lamination of aluminum in the limbs. This aluminum was scrapped from B-17 bomber airplanes of WWII, the purchase of which was arranged from the government by Glen St. Charles. The aluminum lamination on the Kodiak and Grizzly is found only in the inner lamination, surrounded by layers of maple and glass. However, on the Polar, the aluminum is found both under a layer of maple and glass, and on the outside lamination.

In 1949 and 1950 Bear was using a bi-directional glass on their bows which looks somewhat like a basket weave pattern. Then in 1951 Bear began using a new Uni-Directional glass in which the glass fibers all ran lengthwise to the bow limbs. This is a good way to tell the difference between the 1949/50 and the 1951 models. The 1951 Grizzly also began production with the aluminum lamination, but very early in 1951 the aluminum was dropped due to the high reported breakage problems of these aluminum bows.

The Kodiak was introduced in 1950 with the bi-directional glass and the aluminum lamination. Then in early 1951, just as with the Grizzly, the new uni-directional glass was introduced but the aluminum lamination was still present. This glass change apparently occurred around serial number 5000. Then in mid-1951, the aluminum lamination was dropped. So for 1951 you will find Kodiaks with aluminum and bi-directional glass, aluminum with uni-directional glass, and no-aluminum with uni-directional glass.

This aluminum laminated caused two problems. First, the bows had quite a bit of handshock when shot, and as a result were not comfortable to shoot. Secondly, the large amount of shock contributed to a large number of bows delaminating. This warranty problem caused a substantial strain on the companies finances, but Fred insisted that all bows be replaced if returned broken.

An Alternative Pin Setup for Compound Bow Sights

Whether you are using a 3 pin sight, a 4 pin, or a 5 pin sight on your compound bow a common theme is to setup the pins in the following order, with 20 yards being the pin most often used:

  1. 20 yards
  2. 30 yards
  3. 40 yards
  4. 50 yards
  5. 60 yards

Even though most compound shooters when bowhunting rarely use the 40, 50 or 60 yard pins because it is generally accepted to be unethical to take a shot at long distances when you cannot guarantee the accuracy. It is more likely for a bowhunter to end up needing a 10 or 15 yard pin setup as bowhunters often end up being that distance from the deer (or similar game) when hunting anyway.

The general rule of thumb is that an ethical hunter should only be shooting at any distance they know they can consistently hit a target the size of an apple (roughly the size of a deer's heart).

Thus a more useful (and ethical) pin setup is:

  1. 10 yards
  2. 15 yards
  3. 20 yards
  4. 25 yards
  5. 30 yards

The 3 distances most likely to be used are marked in a dark bold green.

Thus the bowhunter gets added accuracy by setting their target pins to the distances they are more likely to be using.

If someone actually had 6 or 7 pins they could potentially add 35 and 40 yards to their pin setup, but with the realization they might never use them.

Any experienced bowhunter will also tell you that you usually first see the deer at 25 yards or less anyway. At further distances they are usually obscured by brush or trees.

And once they are spotted you still have to wait until you have a clear shot at its heart and lungs, so they will usually end up wandering closer to the hidden bowhunter who needs to be patient to get a good shot at the heart area, which means the deer might only be 5 to 15 yards away by the time they take the shot.

Rambo Last Blood - Uncertain Feelings

September 12th 2019.

Back in May 2019 the trailer for Rambo Last Blood came out and at the time I was excited. Now, 4 months later, and 8 days until the film is released in theatres on September 20th, I am less excited.

I am not even sure if I will even bother to see it in the theatre. Might just wait until it comes out on Netflix/etc.

Now I admit I love the whole Rambo and Rocky franchises.

But I dunno. Something about this newest offering... feels off. I am sure I will watch it regardless, but spending $$ on a film that feels off and gives me feelings of uncertainty... I just don't know.

Maybe I need to read the reviews. (Except in my experience film reviewers suck and I often disagree with them, and therefore they cannot be trusted.)

As films go one of the draws for me is that the movie has archery in it...

Except there has been other recent films which contained archery that I refused to go see too.

eg. The 2018 film "Robin Hood" which had the main character doing backflips, parkour and shooting a horsebow.

It looks nice in the trailer, but the lack of realism in archery always annoys me.

What Do I Look For In An Archery Film?

#1. Gritty Realism.

Think Die Hard. The hero should get injured often. Glass in his feet, beat up and bruised. The whole shebang.

#2. Realistic Archery.

Any real archer watching movies these days will often have a long list of complaints about the lack of realism in the film.

#3. A Good Plot.

An easy to follow plot with only a few twists to make it interesting. Too many twists and weirdness and the plot becomes derailed with too many plot holes.

#4. The Film Should Stand On Its Own

Do you know what makes the first Matrix film so good? It stands on its own. It doesn't require sequels. Same with Die Hard. Stands on its own. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark... stands on its own. You could potentially never watch another Matrix, Die Hard or Indiana Jones film after watching the first one, and you would still think the first films in their franchises were great films because they simply are. The film makers didn't set out to make a franchise. That happened by accident.

Take a film like Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves. Awesome film. My personal favourite of all the Robin Hood films. Worthy of a sequel, but they never made one. It stands on its own as a great film.

#5. A Good Lead Actor.

Fat Russell Crowe? Bad actor. I wish he could be banned from acting entirely.

Taron Egerton? I find him annoying. He should be relegated to B movies.

Kevin Costner? Great actor. I enjoy every film he is in.

Errol Flynn? The original Robin Hood from 1938. I admit I haven't seen him in many films, but those I have seen have been very good.

And I am not alone, clearly as the last two flops show.

The last two big budget Robin Hood films, Russell Crowe in 2010 and Taron Egerton (2018) were both HUGE flops. The 2010 film managed to double its production budget in profits, which means it basically lost money by overspending on advertising. The 2018 film only earned back 84% of its production budget, which meant its advertising budget and 16% of its production costs was all flushed down the drain.

To find a Robin Hood film that actually does well at the box office you have to go back to 1991 - 28 years ago:

Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves.

It did so well at the box office it made back its production budget times 8.

And it led to a toy line which sold successfully.

You can go on eBay today and search for 'robin hood prince of thieves toys' and find a robust bidding market of 279 action figures for sale.

Why? Because it was a popular film back in 1991. Still popular today.

Also trust me when I say nobody wants an action figure of Fat Russell Crowe.

So what about Rambo Last Blood ?

Well, the film should qualify for 3 or 4 of the 5 bits of criteria I consider for a good archery film. Gritty, realistic archery and a good lead actor. Whether it has a good plot or can stand on its own is a matter of debate.

I don't know. I don't want to completely pass judgement on a film I haven't even seen yet.

Even if it only has a half decent plot and manages to half decently stand on its own that would make it a 4 star film in my book.

Or maybe it does both well, in which case it deserves 5 stars. I won't know until I watch it.

So maybe I will go see it in the theatre after all. We shall see.

Popular Posts during the Last Year

Search This Blog

Sign up for archery lessons in Toronto by visiting CardioTrek.ca

Learn more about archery in Toronto by visiting the Toronto Public Archery Range Facebook page
or by joining the Canadian Toxophilite Society.

Compound Bow Repairs

This Week's Popular Posts