Traditional Bows Not Efficient Enough
In northern VA there is an organization called Suburban Whitetail Management, they only allow compounds and crossbows, but they hunt year round on damage stamps. I went to qualify with them today and passed. Here's the rub, I ask the guy running the testing why only compounds and crossbows? His reply was that they feel that traditional bows are not efficient enough, what they are looking for is a quick clean kill with pass throughs. I said to him that I had been shooting recurves for 45 year and hunting with them for 30. I said if you shoot a 50 or 60 pound bow with a 500 or 600 grain arrows, pass throughs are the norm and a compound won't kill them any quicker. Well he got a real sour look on his face and before I ruined my chances of being accepted into the group I figured Rob you better shut up now! I guess it's their bat and ball and if I want to play in their game I have to follow their rules. Beside my wife was nice enough to go out and buy for me a nice compound, sights, quiver, rest, arrows and points just so I could get to go "play with some new friends". Got to LOVE that woman!
End of story...if I get accepted into the group I'll no longer be limited to Quantico Marine Base to hunt. I can still use my beloved recurves all hunting season and get a crack at some REALLY BIG urban bucks the rest of the time. I'll also be able to put a lot of venison in the Hunters for the Hungry program.
I can shoot a compound but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
ukey:
That sound like Quigley and pistols. :wink:
End of story...if I get accepted into the group I'll no longer be limited to Quantico Marine Base to hunt. I can still use my beloved recurves all hunting season and get a crack at some REALLY BIG urban bucks the rest of the time. I'll also be able to put a lot of venison in the Hunters for the Hungry program.
I can shoot a compound but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
ukey:That sound like Quigley and pistols. :wink:
1 - 20 of 163 Posts
Joined
·
145 Posts
She got a Bear TRX 400 for me and I should have added that she got a release for me too.
I agree with Red44. When I started shooting, I released with fingers. My first release was a 3 finger thumb trigger. I'm glad I never had the chance to shoot at a deer with it. Too much of an urge to let go of it. Switched to a wrist strap release soon after.
Steve
Steve
Joined
·
145 Posts
I don't want to turn this into a wheelie bow thread or condemnation of shortsightedness on their part. I would like to hear good sound discussion on how to logically convince them as to the effectiveness and accuracy of traditional tackle. So far the best advice I have gotten was from another site where I posted the same thread. It was said that when getting together with the group bring my trad gear too and show them just how well it does work. "It's easier to convince friends than to argue with strangers".
Joined
·
23,875 Posts
Hello VA,
I do understand what the fellow is saying, but I do not believe he is getting the correct point.
No matter what, A traditional bow is NOT as powerful as a compound. (I can't say for a crossbow, but I would say a it is not as powerful as a crossbow either, just because of the weight being drawn. But weight doesn't necessarily mean more energy!)
The typical Longbow has anywhere between (guesstimating here) 20 to 40 percent less energy than a compound of equal value on the same person. It is usually less efficient, and if it is a longbow, it is usually the least efficient of all the bows.
Now the rub....
We as traditional shooters do not go out and shoot just any old broadhead, and just any old arrow that sticks in the bow and flies out. We tune the arrows to the bow and vis versa. We hunt with "Cut on Contact" blades that we have little doubt will go right through a deer. Our shots are not 30, 40 or 50 yards out with sights either.
We strive to make every shot count, and every shot usually has the attitude that we have done everything we can to make our equipment efficient for the job needed to be done. I cannot say that about most compound shooters.
1. They use whatever arrow they can fling out of them... most any arrow will work.
2. They use sights, thus continually "stretch" their limits.
3. Most do not pick up a bow until the day of hunting season, fling a few arrows, and say "Lets go!"
4. Many use any broadhead they see that "Looks dangerous" and call it that.
Now with the above said, I am NOT paint brushing all compound hunters!! There are many many compound shooters that do the same as us Traditionals!
But the difference is....Those compound shooters that I am talking about are able to shoot decent enough with just a day or so of practice. Most *anyone* can be a very good shot at 20 yards within a few hours of picking up their compound first bow. That doesn't exist as easily with traditional equipment.
I do understand the guys thoughts, especially if he is shooting at the range and see half-way newbes shooting their first overbowed hunting bow that they bought last week in preparation for next weeks hunting season.
Dwayne
PS (edit part)... I tried not to make this a wheelie vs traditional, I tried to make it an "Attitude and capabilities of the shooters vs experience"
I do understand what the fellow is saying, but I do not believe he is getting the correct point.
No matter what, A traditional bow is NOT as powerful as a compound. (I can't say for a crossbow, but I would say a it is not as powerful as a crossbow either, just because of the weight being drawn. But weight doesn't necessarily mean more energy!)
The typical Longbow has anywhere between (guesstimating here) 20 to 40 percent less energy than a compound of equal value on the same person. It is usually less efficient, and if it is a longbow, it is usually the least efficient of all the bows.
Now the rub....
We as traditional shooters do not go out and shoot just any old broadhead, and just any old arrow that sticks in the bow and flies out. We tune the arrows to the bow and vis versa. We hunt with "Cut on Contact" blades that we have little doubt will go right through a deer. Our shots are not 30, 40 or 50 yards out with sights either.
We strive to make every shot count, and every shot usually has the attitude that we have done everything we can to make our equipment efficient for the job needed to be done. I cannot say that about most compound shooters.
1. They use whatever arrow they can fling out of them... most any arrow will work.
2. They use sights, thus continually "stretch" their limits.
3. Most do not pick up a bow until the day of hunting season, fling a few arrows, and say "Lets go!"
4. Many use any broadhead they see that "Looks dangerous" and call it that.
Now with the above said, I am NOT paint brushing all compound hunters!! There are many many compound shooters that do the same as us Traditionals!
But the difference is....Those compound shooters that I am talking about are able to shoot decent enough with just a day or so of practice. Most *anyone* can be a very good shot at 20 yards within a few hours of picking up their compound first bow. That doesn't exist as easily with traditional equipment.
I do understand the guys thoughts, especially if he is shooting at the range and see half-way newbes shooting their first overbowed hunting bow that they bought last week in preparation for next weeks hunting season.
Dwayne
PS (edit part)... I tried not to make this a wheelie vs traditional, I tried to make it an "Attitude and capabilities of the shooters vs experience"
Joined
·
22,135 Posts
VA -
Unfortunately, the only way to convince them is by proving the "efficiency" of a stickbow. Clearly the weapon IN THE RIGHT HANDS is more than efficient enough, it has been in modern form for over half a century. The problem isn't the bow or the arrows, from what I've seen it's a number of the guys behind it. The standard concern with the uniformed is "penetration", and that part really is bogus, the entire idea of wanting a pass through is also bogus, but with most modern equipment, it actually pretty hard not to.
Your only valid arguement has to be a reasonable shooting proficiency test as the determining factor. None of the "I'm accurate at 10 yds and promiss to keep all my shots at game under that distance" BS. No reasonable authority would ever accpet that. THEY have to determine the average shot distance in THEIR area and set up a test that matches that criteria. If a stickbow guy can pass it with a "legal weight bow", then there's no arguement.
In a very real sence, we did this to ourselves. Too many people are of the idea that any level of shooting proficiency is "good enough" if you stay within "YOUR effective range", even if that range id 5'. Well, clearly, is not is some poeple's eyes, and in reality THEY make the rules.
I really liked the test we used when I was teaching the BH Safetly course. 5 shots at varying angles from 5 to 25 yds with a required 3/5 in the vitals of a whitetail target. (4/5 or even 5/5 would have been better, but I digress...)
Anyway, you've got a tough road and IMHO, you're only course of action is to prove that a stickbow is efficient for the task at hand, and that the real qualifier is the shooter, not the weapon.
Viper1 out.
Unfortunately, the only way to convince them is by proving the "efficiency" of a stickbow. Clearly the weapon IN THE RIGHT HANDS is more than efficient enough, it has been in modern form for over half a century. The problem isn't the bow or the arrows, from what I've seen it's a number of the guys behind it. The standard concern with the uniformed is "penetration", and that part really is bogus, the entire idea of wanting a pass through is also bogus, but with most modern equipment, it actually pretty hard not to.
Your only valid arguement has to be a reasonable shooting proficiency test as the determining factor. None of the "I'm accurate at 10 yds and promiss to keep all my shots at game under that distance" BS. No reasonable authority would ever accpet that. THEY have to determine the average shot distance in THEIR area and set up a test that matches that criteria. If a stickbow guy can pass it with a "legal weight bow", then there's no arguement.
In a very real sence, we did this to ourselves. Too many people are of the idea that any level of shooting proficiency is "good enough" if you stay within "YOUR effective range", even if that range id 5'. Well, clearly, is not is some poeple's eyes, and in reality THEY make the rules.
I really liked the test we used when I was teaching the BH Safetly course. 5 shots at varying angles from 5 to 25 yds with a required 3/5 in the vitals of a whitetail target. (4/5 or even 5/5 would have been better, but I digress...)
Anyway, you've got a tough road and IMHO, you're only course of action is to prove that a stickbow is efficient for the task at hand, and that the real qualifier is the shooter, not the weapon.
Viper1 out.
Joined
·
145 Posts
The qualifing target is a 6" circle (about the size of a lid from a large coffee can) not a paper plate or the kill zone of a 3D. You must get 2 out of 3 arrows at 20 yards and at 30 yards using the broadheads that you will hunt with.
Anyone that wants a copy of the target can send me their e-mail address and I will send them the .pdf or .jpeg.
Make no mistake it's pretty tough.
Anyone that wants a copy of the target can send me their e-mail address and I will send them the .pdf or .jpeg.
Make no mistake it's pretty tough.
Joined
·
3,709 Posts
6 inch circle at 30 yards is a chip shot with a compound and sights..I would not be able to pass that confidently with my recurve. I am spot on to 20 then I am all over the place out to 30. Kill zone yes,but the groups are too loose for me to kill a deer at 30 traditionally as of yet. I hunt tight urban and we shoot for drop em in their tracks shots so they dont die in somones front yard. I would consider not trying to change their rules,too many non practicing guys will be winging arrows as soon as its passed. Just my .02
Dave
Dave
Joined
·
22,135 Posts
VA -
I know I'm gonna piss off a lot of people, but I like that test. And yes, with a compound, it should be a cake walk with a little training. Just yesterday, I was working with a new compound guy and got him from 12" at 10 yds to about 4" at 30 in under 2 hours. 2/3 at 30 on that size target ain't easy for a stickbow guy, but certainly do-able with good instruction (it's the 4 ring on the NFAA target). Like I keep saying, let's raise the bar to where it used to be.
Viper1 out.
I know I'm gonna piss off a lot of people, but I like that test. And yes, with a compound, it should be a cake walk with a little training. Just yesterday, I was working with a new compound guy and got him from 12" at 10 yds to about 4" at 30 in under 2 hours. 2/3 at 30 on that size target ain't easy for a stickbow guy, but certainly do-able with good instruction (it's the 4 ring on the NFAA target). Like I keep saying, let's raise the bar to where it used to be.
Viper1 out.
Joined
·
76,880 Posts
Well personally I think that if you were to go hunting with them for a bit and then come back and say, "you know, I hunt with a recurve, longbow, whatever, and you know, at the 20 and 30 yard ranges that we're shooting, we should open this up to recurve guys because of the fact that as far as "efficiency" goes, at these ranges the bows are very similar. Do you have a moment to come outside and let me demonstrate?" And then do your thing. I'd probably us a carbon arrow for my demonstration (and I've to admit I've never shot a carbon before... so grains of salt here) since that is what they are used to.
I can tell you this, my very first deer with a bow was an almost lengthwise shot from ham to shoulder.. breaking the the shoulder in the process and having the broadhead exit... maybe low efficiency but enough energy. Shooting is an accuracy sport anyway. Hit the spot, that is the issue, not the equipment.
But changing minds must be done with humor and patience.
Aloha... :beer:
I can tell you this, my very first deer with a bow was an almost lengthwise shot from ham to shoulder.. breaking the the shoulder in the process and having the broadhead exit... maybe low efficiency but enough energy. Shooting is an accuracy sport anyway. Hit the spot, that is the issue, not the equipment.
But changing minds must be done with humor and patience.
Aloha...
:beer:
Joined
·
10,066 Posts
Efficiency is a tricky thing. If you plotted the force/draw curve of all four bows (a compound, modern recurve, modern longbow, and a long selfbow), the modern recurve actually stores the most energy, where as the compound stores the LEAST, and if the selfbow is built well enough, it would actually store more than the modern longbow (though, it would be the lower with a good modern longbow, or poor craftsmanship). However, the compound's design allows it to crank out blistering speeds, which create high KE numbers. This is why an 80# compound can shoot 525 grain arrows and not need a stabilizer, sitting gently in the hand. It sotres less energy. Try this with a same weight recurve or longbow, and you would have to raise the rbace height to about 9" to lower the handshock and noise.
What's it all mean?
You need to use the right point and arrow weight. For traditional bows, you'd be best served, for hutning, with wooden arrows, or weighted carbon or aluminum arrows. The compound should be shooting arrows slightly heavier than some shoot (something aorund 400-500 grains will be better than a 300 grain, basically flight arrow).
Once you have the proper weight arrows, the point will be the final determining factor. Here, speed is what determines the point. Higher speeds produce, with similiar arrows, the higher KE. KE bascially means a harder "punch". So, for the extremely high KE compound, Muzzy points with chisel tips, very small, vented blades, and field-point type accuracy will be the best serve. These would destroy and should or bone they encounter, and the three or four blades would do a fair bit of damage passing though, despite their small diameter.
For the modern recurve, three blade points, especially the Wensel Woodsman and to a lesser extent the Snuffer, would work best. These points would land home very hard, and tear an incredible hole. With heavy arrows and cut on contact three blade heads, this bow would kill just as quickly, and possibly more so, than the same weight compound. The ony difference here would be the ease of accuracy.
Now for longbows. Faster modern longbows seem to float in limbo. They aren't usually as quick as modern recurves, but for the most part faster than the selfbows. So it will depend on your bow which points it would be better served with. Anyway, selfbows and lesser modern longbows should be shooting good, heavy arrows like the recurve, but their points must be better selected. Magnus, Zwickey, Razorheads, and Hill heads, as well as trade points and knapped heads, all have only two blades, a sharp cut-on-contact tip beign a must. Three blade points here would impede penetration too much to make up for the extra damage. A point that easily penetrates deeply, even at the cost of the extra damage of a third blade, would be the best choice. I don't have enough experience and haven't talked with enough people who've used them to know where they would pit in with all this. Perhaps they would be best with the limbo modern longbows?
This all just ties in with what Viper and DwayneR already said, and nothing makes up for good accuracy. Such a standard is perfect, and might be why they don't feel non-compounds can cut it. Most traditional archers accept their "limits" even when practicing, and set boundries, and don't push them even when practice. Hence the lack of Howard Hill type shots now. Not that we should emulate all of his ethics, but his accuracy and determination would help improve many a shooter. It's not our weapons, it's us.
What's it all mean?
You need to use the right point and arrow weight. For traditional bows, you'd be best served, for hutning, with wooden arrows, or weighted carbon or aluminum arrows. The compound should be shooting arrows slightly heavier than some shoot (something aorund 400-500 grains will be better than a 300 grain, basically flight arrow).
Once you have the proper weight arrows, the point will be the final determining factor. Here, speed is what determines the point. Higher speeds produce, with similiar arrows, the higher KE. KE bascially means a harder "punch". So, for the extremely high KE compound, Muzzy points with chisel tips, very small, vented blades, and field-point type accuracy will be the best serve. These would destroy and should or bone they encounter, and the three or four blades would do a fair bit of damage passing though, despite their small diameter.
For the modern recurve, three blade points, especially the Wensel Woodsman and to a lesser extent the Snuffer, would work best. These points would land home very hard, and tear an incredible hole. With heavy arrows and cut on contact three blade heads, this bow would kill just as quickly, and possibly more so, than the same weight compound. The ony difference here would be the ease of accuracy.
Now for longbows. Faster modern longbows seem to float in limbo. They aren't usually as quick as modern recurves, but for the most part faster than the selfbows. So it will depend on your bow which points it would be better served with. Anyway, selfbows and lesser modern longbows should be shooting good, heavy arrows like the recurve, but their points must be better selected. Magnus, Zwickey, Razorheads, and Hill heads, as well as trade points and knapped heads, all have only two blades, a sharp cut-on-contact tip beign a must. Three blade points here would impede penetration too much to make up for the extra damage. A point that easily penetrates deeply, even at the cost of the extra damage of a third blade, would be the best choice. I don't have enough experience and haven't talked with enough people who've used them to know where they would pit in with all this. Perhaps they would be best with the limbo modern longbows?
This all just ties in with what Viper and DwayneR already said, and nothing makes up for good accuracy. Such a standard is perfect, and might be why they don't feel non-compounds can cut it. Most traditional archers accept their "limits" even when practicing, and set boundries, and don't push them even when practice. Hence the lack of Howard Hill type shots now. Not that we should emulate all of his ethics, but his accuracy and determination would help improve many a shooter. It's not our weapons, it's us.
Joined
·
76,880 Posts
Accuracy in hunting is everything. Period. Longbows, crossbows, selfbows, recurves... oh... compounds... right... it doesn't matter.. accuracy is everything period... talk about force draw curves.. doesn't mean anything. You can either hit it or you can't. Period.
These guys are hung up on "efficiency" without concern for accuracy. It's going to take time to change any kind of bias such as this.
Aloha...
These guys are hung up on "efficiency" without concern for accuracy. It's going to take time to change any kind of bias such as this.
Aloha...
Joined
·
1,947 Posts
"I really liked the test we used when I was teaching the BH Safetly course. 5 shots at varying angles from 5 to 25 yds with a required 3/5 in the vitals of a whitetail target. (4/5 or even 5/5 would have been better, but I digress...)"
**That should be a standard test for ANYONE getting ANY hunting liscense that is going to use a bow.
"I know I'm gonna piss off a lot of people, but I like that test."
**I can second that thought. Wish more would do it.
I will also say this: I can understand them wanting the most effficant tool fo rthe job. I do applaud them for wanting "a quick clean kill" fo rnot only the animal, but for the public. If more strived for this, PETA wouldn't have as much ammo tu use against hunters.
**That should be a standard test for ANYONE getting ANY hunting liscense that is going to use a bow.
"I know I'm gonna piss off a lot of people, but I like that test."
**I can second that thought. Wish more would do it.
I will also say this: I can understand them wanting the most effficant tool fo rthe job. I do applaud them for wanting "a quick clean kill" fo rnot only the animal, but for the public. If more strived for this, PETA wouldn't have as much ammo tu use against hunters.
Joined
·
2,921 Posts
Let them borrow books or trad videos. Reading anything Fred Bear, Glenn St. Charles, or Howard Hill would be an eye opener for them. It certainly was for me! Hill's Hunting the Hard Way would be a good start. Another thing is just continue being an individual who is passionate about our style of archery and the history behind it. Maybe befriend some of the guys and shoot with them, bring along a few recurves for them too shoot and you will win them over....Give it time.......
Good luck!
I remember a conversation I once had with Mike Palmer, who builds one of the best bows in the country and has taken more trophy Whitetail deer than anyone I know. We were talking about equipment and the limits of a recurve. Mike proceeded to expound on his thinking... saying he did not hunt with a modern recurve because of some nostalgic notion...but because he considered it the best tool for hunting in his experience. He continued to describe a typical situation where a buck comes close enough for you to get a shot, and how with a recurve it only takes seconds to take a shot if the deer drops his head say for a couple seconds... regardless of dimming light, or angle of shot or canting of the bow, etc, etc... Simplicity and functionality...just requires ethics.
Thinking about these comments since then, I think they have much merit if the shooter just maintains his skill level up as a matter of SOP.
RodB
Thinking about these comments since then, I think they have much merit if the shooter just maintains his skill level up as a matter of SOP.
RodB
When ever I read of some thing like this I wonder how the people making the claim (traditional bows not efficient enough) think archery hunting seasons ever came about. Dedicated seasons came about by the efforts of people shooting longbows and recurves, long before the compound was thought of. How did that happen if they are so bloody inefficient? It is a specious argument to say the least.
Dave
Dave
Joined
·
1,861 Posts
Deer have evolved into having armor-plating since then, Dave. Some trad bowhunters today seem to have that same mentality. Heavier and heavier arrows, single-bevel heads, higher FOC, higher poundages.
VA bow - you aren't going to be able to convince them unless they allow you to use a recurve or longbow. I'd like to know how an arrow passing through with an x-bow or compound justifies their theory of quick clean kills, when a pass-through doesn't always happen with that equipment either. That reason doesn't hold water, because a hit to the lungs results in a quick kill.... regardless of the weapon used and regardless if it's a pass-through or not.
Seems to me, they need to do a bit of research on the following -
Arrows kill by puncturing the lungs. If both lungs collapse, the flow of oxygenated blood to the brain is halted, the animal becomes unconscious within seconds, and it dies before it can bleed to death.
VA bow - you aren't going to be able to convince them unless they allow you to use a recurve or longbow. I'd like to know how an arrow passing through with an x-bow or compound justifies their theory of quick clean kills, when a pass-through doesn't always happen with that equipment either. That reason doesn't hold water, because a hit to the lungs results in a quick kill.... regardless of the weapon used and regardless if it's a pass-through or not.
Seems to me, they need to do a bit of research on the following -
Arrows kill by puncturing the lungs. If both lungs collapse, the flow of oxygenated blood to the brain is halted, the animal becomes unconscious within seconds, and it dies before it can bleed to death.
1 - 20 of 163 Posts
