# On target 2 sight tape help



## CPinWV (May 26, 2009)

pm Padgett, he might be able to help. He's helped me out a lot. Good Luck, CP


----------



## CGcook (Nov 25, 2012)

Awesome, thanks!


----------



## ThunderEagle (May 11, 2011)

A few things. First, get your 20 yard setting, but don't use it to calculate the tape. The author of the program also advocates not using your 20 yard mark. The first one you enter is the most important. It is VERY easy to get a crappy 20 yard setting. I always get one just to check what I get compared to what is calculated, always amazes me when I use the calculated mark and it is perfect despite what I shot in.

So, get 30, 40, 50 and 60. Also, use the cross check feature. If my cross checks don't match up well, I got and get new marks until they do.

The Sight Radius, Peep Radius and DL were all measured at full draw, correct? Also measure your ATA, brace and draw weight, put them in exact, don't discount even a 1/16 of an inch. Finally, weigh your arrows, do not just take the calculated weight you get from the software.

One last thing, don't get marks by shooting at a bullseye, shoot at the edge of a piece of tape across the target, it will result in more accurate settings.


----------



## Praeger (Jan 7, 2011)

It is probably one or more of your sight marks. If you measured the Peep Height and Sight Radius at full draw, you did it correctly, but I believe they are primarily for sub-yardage marks. The draw length does not factor into the calculations. This all comes down to calculating the speed of your arrow based on the number of clicks between sight marks.

You mention you sighted in at 20, 40, and 50. The shortest distance to sight in is 30 yards. Reason being, at 20 you can be several clicks off and still have the arrow hit the X. Get sight marks for 30 and use your 40 and 50. In the Calibration Tab, select Sight Scale Marks. Enter your marks for 30, 40, and 50 - and check the Cross Check box. This will check your 30 to 40, 30 to 50, and 40 to 50; and calculate the speed necessary to make those marks. One or more could be wrong. See the attached image.









In the row of blue boxes below the Sight Scale Marks is the Cross Check review. The top left box is the speed necessary to produce the difference in sight scale marks between 30 and 40 yards, 262.66 fps. 
Next is 30 and 50 yards, 262.03 fps. 
Next is 30 to 70 yards, 259.85 fps. 
Next is 30 to 80 yards, 255.94 fps. 
Bottom left is 40 to 50 yards, 262.03 fps. 
Next is 50 to 70 yards 257.66 fps. 
Last is 70 to 80 yards, 242.97 fps. 

This calculation is not the speed at that distance, it is the speed at the shot which would produce the difference between the two sight marks. So, what does this tell me? My 70 and 80 marks are off. Why? Because 30 to 40, 30 to 50, and 40 to 50 are all within .63 fps of each other. The lower the difference the better. More than 4 or 5 fps and one of the two numbers are off.

To confirm, I uncheck the 70 and 80 yard marks and all the cross checks are very close and the calculated arrow speed is 262.24 fps. 








You don't have to re-shoot the 70 and 80 at this point. If you have three good marks that cross check within 1-2 fps, just print the sight tape (or use the chart) and use what the calculated 70 and 80 yard marks are. I bet they'll be on. If the actual trajectory matches three (even two) good sight marks, the remainder will be correct. Many archers struggle with computer generated tapes because the programs rely completely on good sight marks. Shoot at the smallest dot you can repeatably hold steady. Take your time, discount bad shots. If you can only shoot a softball size group, use the center of the grouping. Can't shoot well past 40, don't. Just use 30 and 40.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

find where you can shoot your arrow in the same hole repeatedly, 13 to 20 yds this is your indexing point. from there 40 50 60, work on shooting xs. push enter. this will give you the average fpm of each shot. and push export(>) ., go to make marks compare what you entered to the make marks reference chart . u can use the fpm to fine tune your tape , go back to calibration and method then coronagraph in method. using the feet per min you can change your tape to fit by adding or taking away from the arrow speed .just keep your indexing(sighting in from make marks page) mark and your 1st range marks are the same it works real easy when this is done .print out a page of tapes going 1 up and 1 down if your actual shots are off try and get a tape that is close, from here you can break it down more say .1-.5 I do my fine tuning by adjusting my limb bolts.the speed on the tape may not me your actual speed don't worry. a lot of things play a factor in this sight radius peep height cams. you can address this later, don't forget to save your work , I cant stress this enough your sight in /index have to be accurate its what the program builds off of
use plain paper with double sided scotch tape,


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

the sight in range should be a range that you can shoot the arrow in the same hole repeatedly mines I believe 13 or 14 yds. 30 is way too far this should coincide with the make marks -sight in


Praeger said:


> It is probably one or more of your sight marks. If you measured the Peep Height and Sight Radius at full draw, you did it correctly, but I believe they are primarily for sub-yardage marks. The draw length does not factor into the calculations. This all comes down to calculating the speed of your arrow based on the number of clicks between sight marks.
> 
> You mention you sighted in at 20, 40, and 50. The shortest distance to sight in is 30 yards. Reason being, at 20 you can be several clicks off and still have the arrow hit the X. Get sight marks for 30 and use your 40 and 50. In the Calibration Tab, select Sight Scale Marks. Enter your marks for 30, 40, and 50 - and check the Cross Check box. This will check your 30 to 40, 30 to 50, and 40 to 50; and calculate the speed necessary to make those marks. One or more could be wrong. See the attached image.
> 
> ...


----------



## ThunderEagle (May 11, 2011)

60435 said:


> the sight in range should be a range that you can shoot the arrow in the same hole repeatedly mines I believe 13 or 14 yds. 30 is way too far this should coincide with the make marks -sight in


I'm not sure what you are talking about, but the author of the program prescribes your first distance to be 30 yards. 

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2226313&p=1069874922#post1069874922

That link is to a post where the author of the program describes how to make a sight tape.


----------



## Praeger (Jan 7, 2011)

60435 said:


> find where you can shoot your arrow in the same hole repeatedly, 13 to 20 yds this is your indexing point. from there 40 50 60, work on shooting xs. push enter. this will give you the average fpm of each shot. and push export(>) ., go to make marks compare what you entered to the make marks reference chart . u can use the fpm to fine tune your tape , go back to calibration and method then coronagraph in method. using the feet per min you can change your tape to fit by adding or taking away from the arrow speed .just keep your indexing(sighting in from make marks page) mark and your 1st range marks are the same it works real easy when this is done .print out a page of tapes going 1 up and 1 down if your actual shots are off try and get a tape that is close, from here you can break it down more say .1-.5 I do my fine tuning by adjusting my limb bolts.the speed on the tape may not me your actual speed don't worry. a lot of things play a factor in this sight radius peep height cams. you can address this later, don't forget to save your work , I cant stress this enough your sight in /index have to be accurate its what the program builds off of
> use plain paper with double sided scotch tape,


Sight marks at 13 yards? Fine tuning marks by adjusting limb bolts? The speed on the tape may not be your actual speed? Feet per minute? I can't find a single point in your post with which I agree. OK, using double sided tape does works. The remainder is flat out wrong. If you got an accurate sight tape this way, it was by sheer luck. 

Using short range sight marks is incorrect and has been addressed numerous times. The OT2 author has clearly explained why distances closer than 30 yards (certainly not 20 yards or below) will likely create inaccurate sight marks at longer distances. You need not have arrows grouping in the same hole, simply consistent groups.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

Excellent explaination Praeger, some people just have a hard time getting out of their own way....


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

live and learn, it works exceptionally well for me. if you want extremely accurate tapes this is the way to go ,


Praeger said:


> Sight marks at 13 yards? Fine tuning marks by adjusting limb bolts? The speed on the tape may not be your actual speed? Feet per minute? I can't find a single point in your post with which I agree. OK, using double sided tape does works. The remainder is flat out wrong. If you got an accurate sight tape this way, it was by sheer luck.
> 
> Using short range sight marks is incorrect and has been addressed numerous times. The OT2 author has clearly explained why distances closer than 30 yards (certainly not 20 yards or below) will likely create inaccurate sight marks at longer distances. You need not have arrows grouping in the same hole, simply consistent groups.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

I know that's how they recommend to do it. like anything as a product gets used other methods are developed by its authors often better than the others, its probably good for most because most have to depend on groups, for averages, if you can shoot a couple exact points you can get an exact tape,


ThunderEagle said:


> I'm not sure what you are talking about, but the author of the program prescribes your first distance to be 30 yards.
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2226313&p=1069874922#post1069874922
> 
> That link is to a post where the author of the program describes how to make a sight tape.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> I know that's how they recommend to do it. like anything as a product gets used other methods are developed by its authors often better than the others, its probably good for most because most have to depend on groups, for averages, if you can shoot a couple exact points you can get an exact tape,


No, just because you get a couple of exact marks does not mean you will get an exact tape. What they are attempting to explain to you is that with today's, by comparison, high speed bows, there is too much cushion inside of thirty yards to know for certain that your tape will be accurate. You may have your tape set at 20 yards but it should be at 18. Due to the speed of the bow you would still be in the X and think it is accurate. However, at 40 yards, that 2 yard discrepancy will be amplified to the point you are no longer in the X. Why don't you give it a try and see if helps you get over a hump in your shooting?


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

yes it does the math does not lie, the program trys to average the marks you enter if you enter - A- 14yds 26+12 and B- 30 yds 35+3 these are 2 points im able to shoot hole for hole. push => in doing this it gives me a perfect tape out past 110 yds . now for most you need to shoot 50,60 ,80 your now at the point of averaging your shots your weaker shots will actually cancel out your accurate shots, instead of slamming this take the time to try it. the 2nd thing u achieve is a index point that can be used to check your needle settings at the beginning of a tournament, if my 14 is exact then I know the rest is right on the money, if im shooting high or low at 50 then I pay attention to my form and adjust my form not the needle , if you want to shoot consistently high scores in field you have to start off exact then your 80 is no longer luck , shooting groups ? what arrow is the right most exact arrow at 80? is the one in the center it or is it a 6 inch miss? by starting out exact you will know what it is , its simply ballistics, what do you think what happens by using a coronagraph to make tapes , it uses 2 feet to determine the same thing exact speed then its up to u to determine your point of index


tuckerjt07 said:


> No, just because you get a couple of exact marks does not mean you will get an exact tape. What they are attempting to explain to you is that with today's, by comparison, high speed bows, there is too much cushion inside of thirty yards to know for certain that your tape will be accurate. You may have your tape set at 20 yards but it should be at 18. Due to the speed of the bow you would still be in the X and think it is accurate. However, at 40 yards, that 2 yard discrepancy will be amplified to the point you are no longer in the X. Why don't you give it a try and see if helps you get over a hump in your shooting?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> yes it does the math does not lie, the program trys to average the marks you enter if you enter - A- 14yds 26+12 and B- 30 yds 35+3 these are 2 points im able to shoot hole for hole. push => in doing this it gives me a perfect tape out past 110 yds . now for most you need to shoot 50,60 ,80 your now at the point of averaging your shots your weaker shots will actually cancel out your accurate shots, instead of slamming this take the time to try it. the 2nd thing u achieve is a index point that can be used to check your needle settings at the beginning of a tournament, if my 14 is exact then I know the rest is right on the money, if im shooting high or low at 50 then I pay attention to my form and adjust my form not the needle , if you want to shoot consistently high scores in field you have to start off exact then your 80 is no longer luck , shooting groups ? what arrow is the right most exact arrow at 80? is the one in the center it or is it a 6 inch miss? by starting out exact you will know what it is , its simply ballistics, what do you think what happens by using a coronagraph to make tapes , it uses 2 feet to determine the same thing exact speed then its up to u to determine your point of index


The math doesn't lie you are correct. However, you're only seeing half the picture. It's been laid out for you, you chose to ignore it, so have a nice day.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

again I see the whole pic ,you guys with your blinders on , what kind of scores do you shoot? if your way is the only way then it should be reflected in your scores


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> again I see the whole pic ,you guys with your blinders on , what kind of scores do you shoot? if your way is the only way then it should be reflected in your scores


It doesn't have to be reflected in my scores to be the correct way. Imagine if someone who shoots as good as yourself were to do it the correct way how much better your scores would be.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

how do you get screenshots like this posted on here


Praeger said:


> It is probably one or more of your sight marks. If you measured the Peep Height and Sight Radius at full draw, you did it correctly, but I believe they are primarily for sub-yardage marks. The draw length does not factor into the calculations. This all comes down to calculating the speed of your arrow based on the number of clicks between sight marks.
> 
> You mention you sighted in at 20, 40, and 50. The shortest distance to sight in is 30 yards. Reason being, at 20 you can be several clicks off and still have the arrow hit the X. Get sight marks for 30 and use your 40 and 50. In the Calibration Tab, select Sight Scale Marks. Enter your marks for 30, 40, and 50 - and check the Cross Check box. This will check your 30 to 40, 30 to 50, and 40 to 50; and calculate the speed necessary to make those marks. One or more could be wrong. See the attached image.
> 
> ...


----------



## JawsDad (Dec 28, 2005)

60435 said:


> again I see the whole pic ,you guys with your blinders on , what kind of scores do you shoot? if your way is the only way then it should be reflected in your scores


One of the guys you discredit so often here as a troll, one of your 4 haters as you've pointed out, has been on the verge of shooting clean field rounds. And he's one of those guys that find the best preprinted shoot in tapes that you claim can't work.

Again, if it's not your way, it's wrong. SSDD.


----------



## rohpenguins (Dec 2, 2012)

Often the tapes at 80 yards are not bad. Shooters tend to try to line up the sight and peep which in most cases will not work due to the distance. the other thing I notice is shooters tend to change their anchors a little to compensate for the increased angle need to shoot the distance.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

that's why its important to reset your peep for 50 yds for field , your 100 yard becomes a lot more natural.


rohpenguins said:


> Often the tapes at 80 yards are not bad. Shooters tend to try to line up the sight and peep which in most cases will not work due to the distance. the other thing I notice is shooters tend to change their anchors a little to compensate for the increased angle need to shoot the distance.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

wait a minuet I never said they do not work lets get that clear right now . any tape system will work they all use the same basic math, the way I do it its just another way and for me the best way. if your just going to show up to start a conflict id appreciate you going some where else its not going to be tolerated


JawsDad said:


> One of the guys you discredit so often here as a troll, one of your 4 haters as you've pointed out, has been on the verge of shooting clean field rounds. And he's one of those guys that find the best preprinted shoot in tapes that you claim can't work.
> 
> Again, if it's not your way, it's wrong. SSDD.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> wait a minuet I never said they do not work lets get that clear right now . any tape system will work they all use the same basic math, the way I do it its just another way and for me the best way. if your just going to show up to start a conflict id appreciate you going some where else its not going to be tolerated


That's the problem, your math is too basic in this instance. You are eliminating significant variables for the sake of convenience.


----------



## JawsDad (Dec 28, 2005)

60435 said:


> wait a minuet I never said they do not work lets get that clear right now . any tape system will work they all use the same basic math, the way I do it its just another way and for me the best way. if your just going to show up to start a conflict id appreciate you going some where else its not going to be tolerated


How am i showing up to start conflict? I responded to a post you made about scores and the method of achieving said scores. I think you'll read your posts, the one making efforts toward conflict is you... telling people they're narrow minded, YOU calling people out regarding scores to justify their methods.

I simply made a response in a tone similar to yours.


----------



## JawsDad (Dec 28, 2005)

60435 said:


> wait a minuet I never said they do not work lets get that clear right now . any tape system will work they all use the same basic math, the way I do it its just another way and for me the best way. if your just going to show up to start a conflict id appreciate you going some where else its not going to be tolerated


Ok, so maybe you didn't say they CAN'T work... But.......

View attachment 2202355


----------



## JawsDad (Dec 28, 2005)

When i used OT2 to make sight scales, I shot mine in at 30 and 70. If i spent the time to ensure my 30 was dead nuts, and the measurements were sound, I could make my click& count cards and never had to adjust them. But I'm personally not a consistent 550 shooter. More of an average 535-540, so take from that what you might.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

get it right , lp tapes 2.5 yard incs that's what I was referring to , on taret 1 yd incs much more precise and accurate , my way of doing this may not work well for others but some will understand and for them it will work I have proven this technique over and over to work not one person has proven it not to work. its a simple proof . some of you people are so closed minded to anything new your only way of dealing with it is through character assassination in innuendoes I argue my points based results backed up by facts ,


JawsDad said:


> Ok, so maybe you didn't say they CAN'T work... But.......
> 
> View attachment 2202355


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> get it right , lp tapes 2.5 yard incs that's what I was referring to , on taret 1 yd incs much more precise and accurate , my way of doing this may not work well for others but some will understand and for them it will work I have proven this technique over and over to work not one person has proven it not to work. its a simple proof . some of you people are so closed minded to anything new your only way of dealing with it is threw character assassination in innuendoes I argue my points based results backed up by facts ,


It has been proven mathematically, and referenced in this very thread, as a potentially, outside of blind luck guaranteed even, inaccurate way of doing things. This is due to the linear relationship of error size to distance.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

if you can shoot 540s you can shoot 550s you just got to want it bad enough ,you probably have the same skills as me , the only difference my be in the mechanics . did u ever think about that?


JawsDad said:


> When i used OT2 to make sight scales, I shot mine in at 30 and 70. If i spent the time to ensure my 30 was dead nuts, and the measurements were sound, I could make my click& count cards and never had to adjust them. But I'm personally not a consistent 550 shooter. More of an average 535-540, so take from that what you might.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

and again you say that without even trying.
that's absolutely a ridicules statement to make,


tuckerjt07 said:


> It has been proven mathematically, and referenced in this very thread, as a potentially, outside of blind luck guaranteed even, inaccurate way of doing things. This is due to the linear relationship of error size to distance.


----------



## JawsDad (Dec 28, 2005)

60435 said:


> if you can shoot 540s you can shoot 550s you just got to want it bad enough ,you probably have the same skills as me , the only difference my be in the mechanics . did u ever think about that?


I have no doubt I COULD shoot 550's. I've been there before, years ago. But for one shoot a year, it's not worth the effort. That's why I primarily only shoot a recurve and hunting bow now.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> that's absolutely ridicules ,


No, it's not, it's far from "ridicules". It's actually concrete in both the laws of mathematics and physics, which is slightly redundant since physics is applied mathematics, but there you have it. In fact, as distance increases it approaches and exceeds an exponential relationship.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

your exponential factor is right if your off at close range it will be exponentially wrong the farther you go, by starting off perfect your error rate its greatly reduced


tuckerjt07 said:


> No, it's not, it's far from "ridicules". It's actually concrete in both the laws of mathematics and physics, which is slightly redundant since physics is applied mathematics, but there you have it. In fact, as distance increases it approaches and exceeds an exponential relationship.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> your exponential factor is right if your off at close range it will be exponentially wrong the farther you go, by starting off perfect your error rate its greatly reduced


You're starting to get there. Now, how obvious is it that you're off a fraction of an inch at close range? What will happen to that fraction of an inch as you move further and further away? Shooting the same hole is irrelevant as same hole in the wrong location is still the wrong location.


----------



## JawsDad (Dec 28, 2005)

60435 said:


> your exponential factor is right if your off at close range it will be exponentially wrong the farther you go, by starting off perfect your error rate its greatly reduced


How do you verify your "short distance" basis is absolute 0 deviation? Using a .25" arrow hole as the basis is a fairly large margin of error. If you double/triple that short distance and use a slightly larger basis of deviation as your zero, it's still more accurate in the long run. The father you are out on the x axis to find your deviation on the y axis, the more accurately you can calculate further points on that y axis.

But, end of the day, no convincing you, just as you'll not convince me. It's not about considering "new methods" vs the old way. This discussion is not that unlike the topic of modified French tuning. It's vectors on a horizontal plane vs vertical. It will get you close, but it's not THE finite solution.

Math doesn't lie...if you consider ALL the variables.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

by using a short range(an exact point where the arrow as broken the sight plane) to begins with (as long as you can hit the same hole without luck)you can still do a 20 30 60 80 it has room for 5 entries of these five it will determine an average, in my case I can use only 2 one perfect and another as close as possible, 2nd entry if its not exact or very close you may have to adjust the speed to get it right on at all ranges . your way will get you their also but its sloppy, you may end up playing with it through out the season trying to get it right or maybe you can get lucky and get it the first time.
another thing you get is all your short ranges fall in line(bunnies) not just hitting the bull but dead nuts center. again you should be able to put the arrow in the arrows hole.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> by using a short range(an exact point where the arrow as broken the sight plane) to begins with (as long as you can hit the same hole without luck)you can still do a 20 30 60 80 it has room for 5 entries of these five it will determine an average, in my case I can use only 2 one perfect and another as close as possible, 2nd entry if its not exact or very close you may have to adjust the speed to get it right on at all ranges . your way will get you their also but its sloppy, you may end up playing with it through out the season trying to get it right or maybe you can get lucky and get it the first time.
> another thing you get is all your short ranges fall in line(bunnies) not just hitting the bull but dead nuts center. again you should be able to put the arrow in the arrows hole.


You yourself just acknowledged why this way isn't as accurate as moving the initial point out to thirty yards.


----------



## JawsDad (Dec 28, 2005)

We're, to a degree, arguing the same point. I'm just saying you can't get an absolute short range zero, you say you are. You say I/we can't get an accurate short range zero at 30. I'm saying we can, because the margin of error is greater. 

Tagging out


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

this may be a little easier for me my arrows are .177 , but if you can put it in the same whole repeatedly, or center punch the arrow in a 1/4 inch spot over clean paper it will be good, you have to try it before you throw the baby out with the bath.


JawsDad said:


> How do you verify your "short distance" basis is absolute 0 deviation? Using a .25" arrow hole as the basis is a fairly large margin of error. If you double/triple that short distance and use a slightly larger basis of deviation as your zero, it's still more accurate in the long run. The father you are out on the x axis to find your deviation on the y axis, the more accurately you can calculate further points on that y axis.
> 
> But, end of the day, no convincing you, just as you'll not convince me. It's not about considering "new methods" vs the old way. This discussion is not that unlike the topic of modified French tuning. It's vectors on a horizontal plane vs vertical. It will get you close, but it's not THE finite solution.
> 
> Math doesn't lie...if you consider ALL the variables.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

no I did not,


tuckerjt07 said:


> You yourself just acknowledged why this way isn't as accurate as moving the initial point out to thirty yards.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> no I did not,


Yes you did. You acknowledged that there could be a linear to exponential deviation due to error from any given range to another. Ergo, the further you move the initial range out, to a reasonable point, the more you can minimize this deviation.


----------



## CGcook (Nov 25, 2012)

60435 said:


> that's why its important to reset your peep for 50 yds for field , your 100 yard becomes a lot more natural.


I think this could be one of the solutions to my problems. Along with I'll go out an redo all my marks and get one for 30 40 50 and 60 as these are the only distances that I can sight in on that are relatively flat. Thanks for the info


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

by finding one exact point to start with, and all your other entries are correct(peep height, sight radius) its just one of either 2-3-4or5 entries. its really not much different from what your doing now without changing anything else add a 13-15 yd point to your program dropping your last entry, now compare it to the speeds you will find that it will be real close to the same numbers you are using, => compare make marks chart


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

another thing to watch for is printer error, I had this on an older printer, the tapes were actually a little longer, compare your make marks chart to the actual tape to verify


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

So, we know why several users use the method they choose. The arguments have been spelled out for each. Let everyone decide for themselves which method will work better for them.

Do NOT be insulting each other.


----------



## CGcook (Nov 25, 2012)

For all the measurements, what points do you measure from? Im assuming center of peep to the face of the pin, and center of peep to center of arrow at 90*.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

yes center to center , the sight radius is at full draw be as accurate as possible these play heavily on your bunny shots


----------



## wolf44 (Mar 31, 2009)

At 13yds how many clicks does it take to move your POI .25"

At 30yds how many clicks?

If you're theory is correct, why not shoot 5 yds to get you hole in hole mark? I'd say you'd probably be way more accurate at 5 than 13yds

If you slightly move your peep and "re zero" your 30 mark will your hole in hole 13yd mark be the same mark(on the tape) as it was before you moved your peep? will your 60 mark be the same mark on your tape before you moved your peep?

I've been using the method that I described in Padgetts thread for years and its been the most accurate of any method that I've used.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

wolf44 said:


> At 13yds how many clicks does it take to move your POI .25"
> 
> At 30yds how many clicks?
> 
> ...


Five is too far, go to point black, leave no room for error.


----------



## pointndog (Jul 14, 2005)

wolf44 said:


> At 13yds how many clicks does it take to move your POI .25"
> 
> At 30yds how many clicks?
> 
> ...


What do you know Wolffie???? I heard you suck at Field..:wink::wink:


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

its the farthest point you can shoot dead nuts accurate its just for me 14 works , dont nock it till you have tried it, and like I have been saying this method may not be for every one same as a modified French not everybody's cup of tea


wolf44 said:


> At 13yds how many clicks does it take to move your POI .25"
> 
> At 30yds how many clicks?
> 
> ...


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> its the farthest point you can shoot dead nuts accurate its just for me 14 works , dont nock it till you have tried it, and like I have been saying this method may not be for every one same as a modified French not everybody's cup of tea


You didn't answer the question about clicks...

It's a mathematically verifiable fact, the further away, again to a point, your initial distance the more accurate at range it will be.


----------



## 60435 (Mar 20, 2012)

all your doing is trying to cause trouble I am not responding to you


tuckerjt07 said:


> You didn't answer the question about clicks...
> 
> It's a mathematically verifiable fact, the further away, again to a point, your initial distance the more accurate at range it will be.


----------



## Padgett (Feb 5, 2010)

When wolff44 talks I listen.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Dec 18, 2014)

60435 said:


> all your doing is trying to cause trouble I am not responding to you


No one is attempting to stir up trouble. What they are attempting to do is to help you improve your scores. You yourself, after they were reiterated several different ways, agreed with the validity of the simplistic mathematical equations everyone else has been referencing in this thread. You agreed with them but now you don't?


----------



## vftcandy (Nov 6, 2009)

Very Informative thread...


----------



## Cdpkook132 (Jul 8, 2009)

In for my own viewing pleasure


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

Closed (temporarily)so you guys can cool off


----------



## Mahly (Dec 18, 2002)

So... Back to the topic then?


----------



## Hoyt'Em10 (Sep 14, 2014)

mark


----------

