Archery Talk Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have noticed that there is a perception that a decent compound shooter will generally beat a traditional archer in a 3D contest. I am of the opinion that this is due to course design more than anything else. Example , if you have a number of moving shots and odd position shots from actuall bow hunting range the traditional archer will outscore the compounder. If you have the average 3D tournament with clear lane long time limit shooting then the compound shooter will do better than the traditionalist. Often I have compound shooters ask me how a longbow can be accurate or fast enough to kill a deer, when they shoot an informal course with me set up to the traditional standards I outlined above they become much more convinced as they are unable to even take some of the shots on the "course" Any thoughts ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
You might have a point.

Recently I've seen some criticism directed at courses that allow only one shot per animal. Apparently somebody isn't scoring as high on those they expect. So they criticize traditional shooters for being one shot wonders. Well, I think that might be the point of the exercise after all.

DART, the video hunting simulation, is another example where things tend to even up a bit when time limits are imposed. Some scenarios require waiting for a shot and others require taking a shot right away. The letoff probably aids some shooters in the former while it's not especially advantageous in the latter.

I've watched some people take up to two or three minutes per shot on a two shot per animal course. Often as not they're not that impressive even after all the deliberation, which includes peering at the target through binoculars, tightening the stabilizers, affixing the mechanical release, making sure the sight pins are still illuminated with the proper colors or the scope is free of dust and so forth.

On the otherhand, sometimes they can put the arrows side by side in the 10 ring. You just never know.

One interesting experiment I participated in one time was a bonus target. The bonus target was a metal silhouette skunk with a three-inch hole bored through it placed at 19 yards or so. If one's arrow didn't get through the hole, the arrow got trashed.

I saw many sighted, compound shooters trash arrows on that one. Mine got through oddly enough. Sometimes that happens for no apparent reason. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,707 Posts
Darrel Longbow,
First....Welcome to Archery Talk! :)

I've shot both types of equipment and the increased accuracy that I am able to achieve with a compound is why I take my compound hunting with me, more often than my custon recurve.

It's also a matter of what you practise with too. If you spend your time with a recurve then you can expect to be more proficient with a recurve (considering you have good eye-hand coordination, good equipment and practise regularly, like with anything else).

Human nature enters into compound shooting, to where a person thinks that if the bow's sighted in, then 3 weeks before the season opens...."I can knock the dust off of my bow, check the sights and go hunting." Just because it has a sight on it, doesn't allow for a "hap hazard" method of using the equipment. :rolleyes:

A bow is a bow and they all require you to hone your skills with them on a regular basis. If you don't have that sort of time to dedicate to the sport, then perhaps a person should look at another type of weapon.

Barry Wensel once stated that, "Good shooting skills will allow for you to make longer shots if you have poor stalking skills. Likewise, if you have good stalking skills you won't have to take longer shots. Idealy, it would be best to have both."

I'm sure this topic will have a lot of opinions, but that's what makes archery so great. It's a personal sport and has many options. :D

Good hunting, Bowhunter57
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
Some good points have already been made but there are a couple more:

- assuming that the compound bow in question has a higher draw weight, then the arrow speed ought to be higher (I haven't shot compound nor do I have a cronograph). Given that this is so, the trajectory of the compound shooter's arrow would be flatter. This should be an advantage where the target distance can vary or is not precisely known. The same logic applies to hunting rifles.

- like Bowhunter said, it matters how you practice. If a shooter is using sights that make quick target acquisition difficult then they won't do as well where a snap shot is required. This is where the Traditional archer might have an advantage because the traditionalist eschews sights; not because of the type of bow being used. If the compound archer is using the archery equivalent of ghost ring sights (designed for quick acquisition), then the traditionalist has a problem.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
I think that arrow speed is somewhat overrated as an aid to attaining hits at unknown ranges at least out to 30 or 35 yards.

The midrange trajectory on even a traditional bow is on the order of four or five inches at those ranges which means one should still hit the vitals of a deer sized animal out to 30 or 35 yards without inordinate concern about the precise range of the target.

Beyond that things get a little more problematic of course although I've noticed an interesting phenomenon in that I typically hold higher at more distance targets almost by nature since they are higher in my visual field.

Still there's little doubt that a sighted compound will get more hits at extended ranges than a traditional bow, all other things being equal and assuming the sight pin selected on the compound does represent some close approximation of the actual range.

No matter how fast the arrow, though, it's not coming close to even the slowest pistol bullet so I suspect the range limitations of pistols ought to be observed and then reduced accordingly.

I've never seen a ghost ring sight on a compound or any other bow for that matter. One might wonder why that is I think? Probably because it's equivalent would be a larger hole in the string mounted peep sight. It's possible that such a larger hole doesn't in fact reduce the time required for target acquisition sufficiently to justify using it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I am not sure that arrow speed would be that important in the type of shoot I am thinking about. Several years ago while in Florida I shot at a Traditional Bowhunters Of Florida shoot. Some shots were made while crouched over or even laying down shooting under a log with very little clearance, I doubt that it would be possible to shoot from these positions with the type of rests used by many compound shooters. This is one of the reasons the traditional bow is my choice for hunting, to me and that is the key word, to me. If one is comfortable with a compound I would rather they shot that well than a recurve or longbow poorly. Quick shots from the ground at close range with lots of walking in a day make my longbow the ideal weapon for my use. My point is that compound shooters sometimes state that the recurve or longbow is not accurate enough to hunt with based on their observations of traditional shooters at 3D shoots when the shoot is set up in such a way that the compound shooter will appear to be more accurate, if it is set up another way the traditionalist will do better, it is course design and the individual shooter, not the equipment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
One time I nearly won a bet with a compound shooter after I claimed I could execute a shot on a paper cup at 20 yards he couldn't execute. He wisely demurred after I demonstrated.

The shot involved standing with my offshoulder toward the target instead of my bow shoulder. In order to execute the shot it was necessary to twist the torso radically toward the target then draw and release the arrow with the bow nearly horizontal. This the compound shooter couldn't do really because of the type of rest of he was using.

He tried to execute the shot by remaining upright but his torso wouldn't twist enough. When I did it and hit the cup the first time, he commented in evident exasperation, "Every dog has his day. Let's see you do it again."

I wisely demurred of course. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,128 Posts
Yes I have some thoughts on your comments!

Course design doesn't have a lot to do with which archer will prevail in a contest. If the course is set up with UNETHICAL shots,(like most traditional shoots are) the recurves and longbows will have an advantage for sure. With a compound you can't lie down with your bow canted 90 degrees and execute a shot. Neither can a curve or longbow, CONSISTANTLY. Thats the key.


Now don't flame me too bad here because I enjoy both modern and traditional archery. I enjoy twisting around like a pretzel, or bending over a log and under a tree like a contortionist to make a shot with my recurve. BUTTTTT , it's far from a HUNTING shot. Most Traditional archers can NOT execute a simple 20 yard shot CONSISTANTLY.

The real issue is CONSISTANCY. Thats what we strive for in archery. If your competing with a modern archer he has certain advantages over you. Those advantages are corrected for by shot distance. Traditional stakes are shorter to compensate for speed, sighting aids, release aids etc.

The essence of the competition is to see who is more consistant with his or her chosen equipment. Not to see who can stand on their head and fling an arrow. 90% of the shots that give traditional shooters an edge in competitions are unethical shots in the field.

If you want to compete with a compound shooter shoot from his stakes. Then you will know hands down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
I agree that the trick shots are obviously stunts. But then I've seen a number of compound competitions where people thought it was okay to shoot while standing on a log for example. Didn't strike me as a shot I'd want to take in the field.

I suppose the point then is we got showoffs in both disciplines and as long as people understand that 3D is usually a rather poor simulation of actual bowhunting, they might not be mislead into thinking such competition is adequate preparation.

Regarding consistency, it depends on how you define it. In hunting terms first shot consistency is critical, subsequent shots usually don't count. In competition they do count, critically. Competition also requires a substantially different mindset than hunting.

This is why compound shooters who can consistently hit a javalina doll at 20 yards can consistently fail to hit the real thing at five yards. Consistency on the range doesn't necessarily translate into consistency in the field.

And people schooled in the attitude that lack of perfect consistency in competition is tantamount to failure probably won't do well in the field because they'll be way too nervous most of the time.

I don't think that qualifies as a flame, but let me know if it got too hot for you. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Maybe I should add, for clarification purposes, that the shot off the log would not, in my opinion, be preferable to a shot sitting on the ground or from a low crouch with the bow radically canted.

I also think there's enough instances of bowhunters falling out of treestands to suggest shooting from a treestand might be a stunt for a few people.

A local league finally decided to eliminate shooting positions entirely and leave it up to the individual competitors how they choose to engage a target as long as they stay on the line of course. That's a better choice I think because it's more realistic for one thing.

So far I haven't had much luck shooting from the prone but the supine seems to work okay. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Archerybuff, I am talking about competition not hunting. As Seymor said it is entirely different mindset between the two. Was the field round we shot commonly a few years back ethical as applied toward hunting with shots out to eighty yards. As to a person not being able to lie down and cant the bow 90 degrees and shoot with consistency I disagree as long as the range of the shot is close (ten yards or under) Where I grew up ( Florida) very close shots, made quickly, from all manner of positions was common when hunting the swamps from the ground. As far as stating that most traditional shooters can not hit well enough to be considered consistent from twenty yards is a disservice to a awfull lot of them. As to your last statement about competing from the same stakes as a compounder and then you will know hands down. I already know, I was a sponsered shooter with a compound in the mid and late seventies (Bear archery) and no I could never do as well score wise with a traditional bow as I could with a compound, scope sight, and a release in competition. How ever I find I kill game with much greater regularity with a traditional bow. I also can not agree with most traditional tournaments having unethical shots at least not that I have seen and I love to travel and compete though I do realise that is a subjective observation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
Unrealistic? Or Unethical? There's a difference!

Seymour, you hit the nail on the head!

Archerybuff,
"... If the course is set up with UNETHICAL shots,(like most traditional shoots are) the recurves and longbows will have an advantage for sure. ..."

Sounds to me like you really like to overuse that word UNETHICAL! I think that mabey you should seriously revist your attitude regarding just how much you really enjoy those shoots you go to. Could it be that you just don't like the way the course is setup but would prefer to carp about it instead of pitching in and helping to improve it? Or mabey you just can't seem to separate target archery (albiet simulated situations) from hunting. The archers I know who do both certainly are able to distinguish the difference without a hint of being unethical.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Since we're on the subject of 3D shots and their presumed relation to ethics, I should mention that one shot in particular that I typically find on 3D courses disturbs me. This is the quartering away shot, which in the field is a very good option sometimes because the animal is less likely to spot the bowhunter and the vitals are still reasonably vulnerable.

All the animal dolls I've seen have scoring rings on the side that reflect the vulnerability of the vitals from a full profile angle. When the doll is quartered away, these scoring rings no longer reflect that. In fact, in some cases, hitting the 10 ring on such a quartering away animal would yield a very bad hit in real life.

The proper hit for the angle often falls not only outside the 10 ring but the 8 ring as well meaning the proper hit is penalized not rewarded. This is an unfortunate but probably not readily corrected consequence of the 3D competition and is another reason why it might not be as good a simulation of bowhunting as many people believe.

I've frequently mentioned in the past that if modern tackle was so superior to traditional tackle, that superiority ought to be reflected in game harvest statistics, but it isn't. Consequently, competing with compound archers from their own stakes is probably irrelevant for establishing anything other than superiority in a particular target game. It doesn't evidently have much to do with superiority in the field.

However, there is much discussion about the relative merits of various gadgets or other items of tackle that vendors promote as the best thing ever devised for bagging the game. I think such discussions are by in large a waste of time.

I suspect in fact that little if any of these tackle innovations has any practical value whatsoever, at least in the hunting field, although they undoubtedly work for some people on the range. I wish therefore these issues didn't even come up because they tend to confuse an already confusing activity.

But of course that's a vain wish because they will come up repeatedly as they have in the past with people supporting raising the issues over matters of alleged ethical shooting among other things.

For all the complications that result, it's a wonder modern bowhunters can harvest anything other than a bragging 3D score. Perhaps that's the real purpose of the exercise after all. I would hope not but it's difficult to argue otherwise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,128 Posts
Kitsap, I don't need to revisit anything!!!!!!!!! I enjoy 3-D shoots reguardless of the equipment I shoot. Archery is a sport and a pastime to be ENJOYED with friends and family. I do exactly that!!! I don't let idiots like you ruin my time.

I have been on the council at my club for over 3 years. I AM THE PERSON THAT SETS UP THE SHOOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am also the person that collects feedback from shooters of every class. I try to accomodate as many people as I can when I set up a 3-D shoot. The reason I associated traditional shoots with hunting situations, is because of that feedback. Virtually all traditional shooters I talk to want "hunting" shots.

These same people want you to set up a shot where they have to kneel down and shoot under a limb or tree. One has to assume that if they want to practice these shots, they would take the exact same shot in the field.

I've just spent 5 minutes of my life that I will never get back typing a reply to a moron who didn't deserve 5 seconds. MY BAD

Seymor, There are"dolls" that are made with quartering away kill zones on the sides. These are the only targets we put out on quartering shots.

I'm not sure which game harvesting stats your looking at. 20 years ago when I started bowhunting it took the average person 6 years to harvest his/her first animal. The last information I read on this subject, that figure had dropped to less than 2 years. Maybe you could elaborate a little.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
I'm talking about the total bowhunting game harvests. Have you read that those have increased?

If your stats recording first timer harvests are correct, that should have been reflected in the total harvest unless it was countered by a decline in first timer participation, either initially or subsequent to the first kill.

I'm gratified you use more realistic scoring rings for quartering shots. I've never seen any however. When were they introduced or do you produce them yourselves?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
How about we just remain thankful that we even get to shoot animals, targets or courses? Fighting amungst the ranks upsets me more than imaginable. We are all on the same team with generally the same goals in mind, hitting the vitals, live or foam. Lets keep it one, big, happy archery family and maybe, just maybe we will be able to enjoy it for years to come?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
I don't think anybody's fighting here. If discussing things bothers you, I suspect you probably shouldn't be reading bulletin boards.

And I don't think there's any ranks around here either the last time I checked. Try the military recruiters at the mall. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Ah, he probably just misspelled "more on that" or something. And he didn't actually call anybody an idiot, just an "idiot like you" but I don't think anybody should take that personally. There might be many idiots who would like to be like me or anybody else for that matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
"... If the course is set up with UNETHICAL shots,(like most traditional shoots are) the recurves and longbows will have an advantage for sure. ..."

"...I have been on the council at my club for over 3 years. I AM THE PERSON THAT SETS UP THE SHOOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..."

"...These same people want you to set up a shot where they have to kneel down and shoot under a limb or tree. One has to assume that if they want to practice these shots, they would take the exact same shot in the field...."

The problem was with the very clear accusation of impropriety on the part of Traditional Bow Hunters....

The question seems to be: What is unethical about practicing an unusual attitude/position shoot in a safe venue where, if it doesn't work out no animal gets hurt? Also, if the position (as practiced within the safe confines of the target range) doesn't prove to lead to reliable and accurate shots, does anybody seriously think that even an amoral hunter will consider using it in the field?!! And if the shot is unethical, then who is being unethical: the competitor or the one who setup the course in the first place?

As for where all of these ideas for unusual position shots come from:

“ . . . Taking all these facts into account, it is well to practice shooting from every conceivable position. One should shoot while sitting, squatting, kneeling on one knee and on both knees, and stooped over with the body leaning; as well as with the bow at every angle, from perfectly straight up and down at right angles to the ground, to a position with the bow parallel to the ground. To be able to shoot accurately from all these positions sounds impossible, but the fact is that its’s almost as easy to shoot from one position as another after a little practice, and it will pay handsome dividends to be able to shoot from all these positions when hunting in really rough country.”
- from “Hunting the Hard Way” by Howard Hill
copyright 1953 (page 79)

Enough said! I'm outa here....
- (the moron)

:D :cool: ;)
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top