# Why do you nock below the nock locator?



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

I'm starting to wonder if I don't know how to use the search function properly, because I'm sure this has been hashed and rehashed to death, but I wasn't able to find any threads addressing it, so...

Why do you nock below the nock locator? I realize that lots of people use two nock locators, but it seems like nearly everyone who only uses one nocks below the locator.

On the other hand, Howard Hill and John Schultz would nock their arrows above the nock locator, and I'm certainly not going to claim that they were doing it wrong.

So, is it just a matter of personal preference? I saw a video with John Schultz saying that Howard Hill taught him to nock above the nock locator because it was faster when using a back quiver. Okay, so there's an argument for nocking above the locator. Another argument for it would be the same reason lots of people use two nock locators -- to prevent the nock from sliding down the string.

So what's the argument for nocking below the nock locator? There's got to be a good reason, since so many top archers seem to be doing it that way these days... But what is that reason?


----------



## Dalton63841 (Oct 26, 2013)

If you shoot 3 fingers under, nocking under the nock locator prevents the arrow from sliding up. If you shoot split finger, then under or over doesn't matter, as long as it is set right.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Two nock locators is best - this has been proven time and time again with slow motion photography. I had never heard of Hill or Schultz nocking above the nock locator - that seems to make no sense because your natural tendency when drawing would be to push the arrow up - hence the reason for nocking above - but again - two nock locators is best and solves the whole issue and is also why nearly all Olympic shooters use two nock locators and nearly all top shooters even in 3D archery do as well.


----------



## JimPic (Apr 8, 2003)

Louie Armbruster(Zebra longbows) also recommended nocking above the locator.


----------



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Two nock locators is best - this has been proven time and time again with slow motion photography. I had never heard of Hill or Schultz nocking above the nock locator - that seems to make no sense because your natural tendency when drawing would be to push the arrow up - hence the reason for nocking above - but again - two nock locators is best and solves the whole issue and is also why nearly all Olympic shooters use two nock locators and nearly all top shooters even in 3D archery do as well.


If you're interested, here's where I heard that about Hill and Schultz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJKOZ6KfRRs He makes the statement about a minute into the video.

I would guess that since they both shot split fingers there wouldn't be as much of a tendency to push the arrow up, but that's nothing more than a guess.

I understand that two nock locators is best -- just trying to understand why most people seem to have switched over from nocking above to nocking below. Of course, for shooting 3 under it makes perfect sense because, like you said, you'd tend to push the arrow up the string without anything above it to hold it in place. But does it make a difference for somebody shooting split fingers?


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm with you and your question JD. I have found that another reason to nock above is that you can change shaft diameter and not have to reset your NP. When you nock below, a larger shaft (like going from 5/16 aluminum to 11/32 or 23/64 wood) lowers the bottom of the arrow and to get good flight again, the NP must be raised. Nocking above, keeps the bottom at the same place (with respect to the shelf/rest) with out the "reset." Unless you shoot 3 under, I see no reason to nock below.

Arne


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Moebow said:


> I'm with you and your question JD. I have found that another reason to nock above is that you can change shaft diameter and not have to reset your NP. When you nock below, a larger shaft (like going from 5/16 aluminum to 11/32 or 23/64 wood) lowers the bottom of the arrow and to get good flight again, the NP must be raised. Nocking above, keeps the bottom at the same place (with respect to the shelf/rest) with out the "reset." Unless you shoot 3 under, I see no reason to nock below.
> 
> Arne


Help me out here.... how does a larger diameter or a smaller diameter arrow shaft not change the angle with the string?


----------



## ArcherFletch (Jul 8, 2012)

because the bottom of the arrow is still resting on the same point.

I always have nocked below the arrow since as HH said its faster to nock. shooting split finger it makes no difference.


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

Not talking about angle to the string. Just the relative height of the very bottom of the arrow shaft at the nock end of the arrow in relation to the arrow shelf on the bow (visualize a second line from the arrow shelf to the string that is level). Wish I had "picture drawing" capability. But I'll try to "word picture." 

If you visualize the drawn bow and arrow from the side, the arrow could be considered to be two parallel lines representing the top of the shaft and the bottom of the shaft. MOST OFTEN when the NP is correct for the individual shooter, the bottom line's (bottom of the arrow shaft) location on the string is above the arrow rest (and that horizontal line from rest to string) on the bow shelf. It is finding this small amount of clearance that allows the arrow to clear the shelf on the shot (the arrow points slightly down as compared to the horizontal). I find that this small distance above the arrow rest is consistent for any shaft diameter. So by nocking the arrow above the NP, the height above the shelf is the same no matter the shaft diameter.

I know I'm not explaining the well but...

Arne


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Schultz used his method because you didn't have to look at the string to set the arrow on it when drawing from a back quiverand shooting. You did it by feel after learning to draw holding/touching only the nock..His videos explain why snd shows how he traps the string on the draw.It works well enough for what he is doing which is hunting with a back quiver. .

Mac


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

MAC 11700 said:


> Schultz used his method because you didn't have to look at the string to set the arrow on it when drawing from a back quiverand shooting. You did it by feel after learning to draw holding/touching only the nock..His videos explain why snd shows how he traps the string on the draw.It works well enough for what he is doing which is hunting with a back quiver. .
> 
> Mac


Bingo. That is the original reason for nocking below the string. Pull the arrow, slip in low on the string and slide up, all without looking or thinking so you can keep your eyes on the game.


----------



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

reddogge said:


> Bingo. That is the original reason for nocking below the string. Pull the arrow, slip in low on the string and slide up, all without looking or thinking so you can keep your eyes on the game.


Um... Not to be argumentative, but that's the opposite of what he was saying. Schultz said that he and Hill nocked _above_ the nock locator so they could put the arrow on the string and slide _down_ to the nocking point. Although I don't see why you couldn't do it the other way around. Apparently, Schultz and Hill believed nocking above the nock locator was faster when using a back quiver, and I'll defer to their experience.

Still sounds like a personal preference thing (unless you're shooting 3 under, in which case you really need something above the nock to hold it in place).

And I think most people agree that the extra insurance of 2 nocking points isn't a bad idea.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

JDBrown said:


> Um... Not to be argumentative, but that's the opposite of what he was saying. Schultz said that he and Hill nocked _above_ the nock locator so they could put the arrow on the string and slide _down_ to the nocking point. Although I don't see why you couldn't do it the other way around. Apparently, Schultz and Hill believed nocking above the nock locator was faster when using a back quiver, and I'll defer to their experience.
> 
> Still sounds like a personal preference thing (unless you're shooting 3 under, in which case you really need something above the nock to hold it in place).
> 
> And I think most people agree that the extra insurance of 2 nocking points isn't a bad idea.


If using Hills/Schultz's style. .2 nocks aren't needed. .

1 is a tournament style. .their's is a hunting style used with a back quiver...both ways work. .1 is just faster especially for follow up shots keeping your eyes on the animal. 

Which is used. ..is entirely up to the individual. 

Mac

It's all good. ....


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

I think Mac might have hit the closest to the X on this, 'tournament style'. But I still wonder if that's the reason it caught on instead of the Hill method. I always wondered about the nock sliding up the string at release with their method but it must not have been an issue for them. Those old boys did some fine shooting. Possibly the reason is that other people thought the same as me.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

JD - 

You are correct. It has been hashed to death - more than once.

Instead of listening to "he said/she said" crowd, why not just try a few combinations. Above, below, two, three - heck fill the whole string with nocking points and see what, if any, works better for you?

Kinda what I did, a few times - always the same result.

Viper1 out.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> I think Mac might have hit the closest to the X on this, 'tournament style'. But I still wonder if that's the reason it caught on instead of the Hill method. I always wondered about the nock sliding up the string at release with their method but it must not have been an issue for them. Those old boys did some fine shooting. Possibly the reason is that other people thought the same as me.


The reason is simple. .it requires more work than just grabbing the arrow and working it on the string..and it's works well for back quivers..something one doesn't see as much of at tournaments. The side quiver is the most seen from what I can see. .

Mac


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Shooting split, I never had an issue either way. Personally, I found I could shoot faster (back quiver/Hill style) nocking under, since the natural forward balance of the arrow helped the nock naturally kick up into the nocking point.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

It does seem the natural inclination for new shooters I see is to try to nock above - seems universal. I think they see it more as a shelf for the nock. Heck, even new compound shooters seem to always want to nock above the D-loop, when, the perfect gap for the nock is made inside the loop.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

ArcherFletch said:


> because the bottom of the arrow is still resting on the same point.
> 
> I always have nocked below the arrow since as HH said its faster to nock. shooting split finger it makes no difference.


I'm having trouble with this. If a shaft diameter of any size is established with a nocking point that is proper or 90 degrees lets say... the nock, I'm assuming is along the centerline of the arrow shaft. Have I missed something there? If you change the shaft diameter, are you not also changing the centerline plane and if you don't change the nock point set for another centerline isn't that angle changed?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Sanford said:


> It does seem the natural inclination for new shooters I see is to try to nock above - seems universal. I think they see it more as a shelf for the nock. Heck, even new compound shooters seem to always want to nock above the D-loop, when, the perfect gap for the nock is made inside the loop.


When I started shooting I used the nock to do just that, keep my arrow from slipping upwards. Now its a tuning point since I now serve my own strings and make my own nocks. :grin:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> When I started shooting I used the nock to do just that, keep my arrow from slipping upwards. Now its a tuning point since I now serve my own strings and make my own nocks. :grin:


Good nock fit and not crowding the nock takes care of it all, I think.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I'd read the same thing about the reason--it was supposed to be faster and could be an advantage in getting off a quick second shot when hunting.

I agree with two nock sets. It's been noted time and again that pretty much every archery who's made a name for themselves via accurate shooting uses two. 'Course some can't shoot the difference, but it's a confidence booster even if you can't.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

get a nock that is just slightly loose, nock above, nock below...you'll see why you nock below. It doesn't matter if you're split finger or 3 under, the result is the same...nock above you get an arrow that moves (less it hits your finger--seriously doubt you'll keep the exact same pressure on the nock every shot) which can influence the arrow flight.


----------



## Nekekal (Dec 25, 2012)

Good question. And good answers. I had wondered this point also and am glad you ask. 

From the answers it seems like people do what they feel is best, traditional, or what they have been told and so, in truth, it probably doesn't make any difference. 

I use two tied on or taped on nocking points. I shoot 3 under and all of the pressure seems to be on the lower point. The tape will be slowly moved down with shooting. The tied on points will also slowly screw their way down the serving. So if I were going to only use one point, I should have it under my arrow. That is probably why my shooting improved when I added the second nocking point, the bottom one.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> I'm having trouble with this. If a shaft diameter of any size is established with a nocking point that is proper or 90 degrees lets say... the nock, I'm assuming is along the centerline of the arrow shaft. Have I missed something there? If you change the shaft diameter, are you not also changing the centerline plane and if you don't change the nock point set for another centerline isn't that angle changed?


It's because when nocking above, the bottom of the arrow is on the rest and the bottom of the nock is on the nock point. Bottom to bottom. When you nock below, the bottom of the arrow is on the rest and the top of the nock is on the nock point. Bottom to top. This is why the angle of the arrow would change. 

Take it to the extremes. Lets say that you shoot a 1214 aluminum. Then you cut a groove in a 2x4 and nock that on your bow. The bottom of the arrow and the bottom of the 2x4 will sit on the same part of the rest but the top of the 2x4 will have to sit under that nock point so it will be severely angled upward.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

I believe you're incorrect in your statement...above or below, the angle relation to the rest is identical....you set your bow up so you have proper nock height---it makes no difference if you're above or below.

if you setup for a 2114, then you go and nock a 2x4--you have to move the nocking point accordingly. 

If you setup for a below nock then want to shoot above the nocking point...you'll need to move the nocking point as necessary.

If you nock above or below...the result is the same.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Doesn't it have something to do with positive or negitive tiller? If it was balanced and centered then it wouldn't matter? When I shot short AtoA compounds with fingers, the nock would slit down the string when the arrow was nocked under the nock. They would shoot fine but the serving would wear out faster. You could see the wear. About 1/4". Mono serving would take a set. didn't need a nock. We some times would just serve over the serving with very fine nylon tread once the arrow showed its wear mark.
DD


----------



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

Fury90flier said:


> I believe you're incorrect in your statement...above or below, the angle relation to the rest is identical....you set your bow up so you have proper nock height---it makes no difference if you're above or below.
> 
> if you setup for a 2114, then you go and nock a 2x4--you have to move the nocking point accordingly.
> 
> ...


I think his point was that, if you nock above the nocking point, you don't have to move the nocking point when you change shaft diameters -- because the bottom of the shaft is still properly aligned with the shelf/rest.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

My though on that is this...regardless of the reference used (upper or lower nock), what we're really doing is moving the center of the arrow...so even if you move to a larger/smaller shaft, you'll still have to move the nocking point if the arrow is centered on the berger hole.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Huntinsker said:


> It's because when nocking above, the bottom of the arrow is on the rest and the bottom of the nock is on the nock point. Bottom to bottom. When you nock below, the bottom of the arrow is on the rest and the top of the nock is on the nock point. Bottom to top. This is why the angle of the arrow would change.
> 
> Take it to the extremes. Lets say that you shoot a 1214 aluminum. Then you cut a groove in a 2x4 and nock that on your bow. The bottom of the arrow and the bottom of the 2x4 will sit on the same part of the rest but the top of the 2x4 will have to sit under that nock point so it will be severely angled upward.


I get that... but, is not the nock along the centerline of the shaft regardless of diameter? If the shaft diameter changes, how does the centerline of the shaft not change as well? If you want some real fun, experiment with tapered shafts sometime.... :grin: However.... back to the centerline....


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Fury90flier said:


> My though on that is this...regardless of the reference used (upper or lower nock), what we're really doing is moving the center of the arrow...so even if you move to a larger/smaller shaft, you'll still have to move the nocking point if the arrow is centered on the berger hole.


This is my thought as well.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

I'm not sure Howard Hill had a berger hole. Maybe a burger hole,,,:wink:


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

I will post this again, since we kind of got off track with why do we need to move the nock question.

Doesn't it have something to do with positive or negitive bow tiller? If the bow was balanced and arrow centered then it wouldn't matter as long as the arrow nock was tight. When I shot short AtoA compounds with fingers, the nock would slip down the string when the arrow was nocked under the nock set. The bow would shoot fine but the serving would wear down faster at that spot. You could see the wear. About 1/4" down from nock set with the really short bows. Mono serving would take a set. didn't need a nock set. We some times would just serve over the serving with very fine nylon tread once the arrow showed its wear mark. Hoyt told me to tiller the bow for fingers. See the bow was design to be center shoot. I suspect Trad bows are no different.
DD


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Sanford said:


> It does seem the natural inclination for new shooters I see is to try to nock above - seems universal. I think they see it more as a shelf for the nock. Heck, even new compound shooters seem to always want to nock above the D-loop, when, the perfect gap for the nock is made inside the loop.



Interesting, I have noticed the same thing, even need to remind some several times. I believe the whole issue is that Mr. Hill found that nocking the arrow above was simply quicker for him with his particular situation. The reason it never caught on is that most people don't use a back quiver and probably think the arrow will slide up on the string since it's already at an angle above ninety degrees,sometimes half an inch or more. That's how I see it, but I have put it above sometimes just playing around and don't really notice any difference.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I will post this again, since we kind of got off track with why do we need to move the nock question.
> 
> Doesn't it have something to do with positive or negitive bow tiller? If the bow was balanced and arrow centered then it wouldn't matter as long as the arrow nock was tight. When I shot short AtoA compounds with fingers, the nock would slip down the string when the arrow was nocked under the nock set. The bow would shoot fine but the serving would wear down faster at that spot. You could see the wear. About 1/4" down from nock set with the really short bows. Mono serving would take a set. didn't need a nock set. We some times would just serve over the serving with very fine nylon tread once the arrow showed its wear mark. Hoyt told me to tiller the bow for fingers. See the bow was design to be center shoot. I suspect Trad bows are no different.
> DD[/QUO
> ...


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I will post this again, since we kind of got off track with why do we need to move the nock question.
> 
> Doesn't it have something to do with positive or negitive bow tiller? If the bow was balanced and arrow centered then it wouldn't matter as long as the arrow nock was tight. When I shot short AtoA compounds with fingers, the nock would slip down the string when the arrow was nocked under the nock set. The bow would shoot fine but the serving would wear down faster at that spot. You could see the wear. About 1/4" down from nock set with the really short bows. Mono serving would take a set. didn't need a nock set. We some times would just serve over the serving with very fine nylon tread once the arrow showed its wear mark. Hoyt told me to tiller the bow for fingers. See the bow was design to be center shoot. I suspect Trad bows are no different.
> DD


Has nothing to do with tiller, and on a traditional bow you do NOT want the arrow to be tight on the string. It should fall from the string with just a tap on the string.


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

kegan said:


> Shooting split, I never had an issue either way. Personally, I found I could shoot faster (back quiver/Hill style) nocking under, since the natural forward balance of the arrow helped the nock naturally kick up into the nocking point.



kegan, I like the way you explained that. I've only known people who nock below (with a single nocking point) and I've only been shooting a bow since 1955. Nocking above must be west of the Mississippi trait or something.


----------



## Huntinsker (Feb 9, 2012)

rattus58 said:


> I get that... but, is not the nock along the centerline of the shaft regardless of diameter? If the shaft diameter changes, how does the centerline of the shaft not change as well? If you want some real fun, experiment with tapered shafts sometime.... :grin: However.... back to the centerline....


True. I guess if the nock is the same thickness, it wouldn't be a problem either way.


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

I nock my arrow below the nock locator for the reason that Kegan mentioned: the weight of the tip end naturally see-saws the arrow's nock upwards into the nock locator. I shoot woodies with large throats that easily slip up and down the string, and this under-the-nock location suits my tastes. When I have tried nocking the shaft over the nock locator, I end up wrestling with the nock's tendency to lift higher up the string. Some of the folk who nocked over the string, like Mr. Hill, in addition to their quiver-to-string needs, may also have been shifting their fingers from the nocking maneuver to the drawing position in such a way that this over-nocking seemed advantageous, perhaps preferring a downwards pressure of the index finger to hold the nock against the locator. 

In regards to the shaft diameter vs. over or under nocking: If the center of the arrow's nock is located at a *specific height* above the center line ... say at 1/2" ... whether laying either over the nock locator or under the nock locator (again, with the nock's center being the same 1/2" above center for either of the nock locations), as the shaft diameter increases, the downward angle of the shaft across the shelf will diminish due to the increased girth of the shaft (this assumes identically-sized shaft nocks). 

Take an overly crude example: If a very thin shaft is angled downwards across the rest at a 3 degree angle, a thicker shaft may be angled downwards only 2 degrees due to the thickened girth of the shaft lifting the shaft's center upwards. An ridiculously huge shaft may end up with a 0 degree angle and appear perpendicular to the string. The arrow's nock, whether resting above or below the locator (though at that same 1/2" height above center) doesn't matter, for the increasing thickness of the shaft will raise the shaft's center-line at the shelf area higher - no matter the manner in which the nock is affixed to the string.

In addition, the increasing girth of the shaft will also move the shaft's center line further away from the side plate, presenting a weak/stiff variable into the mix. 

All of this reverses if moving from thicker to thinner shafts. 

On a critically tuned setup, when switching between minimally differing shaft thickness, these variations may well be noticeable to the archer and require readjustment. Of course, switching thicknesses often implies a differently spined shaft - so retuning all the usual suspects within the bow/arrow configuration may well be in order, and (unfortunately) render my above discussion moot, to boot.


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

A very small adjustment in a nocking point height not only affects arrow flight and porposing but how the arrows impact at certain yardages. My friend and I shoot the same bow weights, arrows, similar bows, etc. He nocks lower and when I shoot his bows the arrows seem to leap higher off the bow and I shoot high with them. I nock higher and when he shoot my bows the arrows seem to come out lower and he shoots low. So nocking point do matter.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

kegan said:


> Has nothing to do with tiller, and on a traditional bow you do NOT want the arrow to be tight on the string. It should fall from the string with just a tap on the string.


Is that So. Please read this: http://omegalongbows.webs.com/tuningtips.htm
DD


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Totally different critter.[/QUOTE]

Totally Different? Read this. http://www.archersadvantage.com/TipSheets/TillerTuning.htm


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

reddogge said:


> A very small adjustment in a nocking point height not only affects arrow flight and porposing but how the arrows impact at certain yardages. My friend and I shoot the same bow weights, arrows, similar bows, etc. He nocks lower and when I shoot his bows the arrows seem to leap higher off the bow and I shoot high with them. I nock higher and when he shoot my bows the arrows seem to come out lower and he shoots low. So nocking point do matter.


I agree! And so does Tiller/Nock point. I can nock little high and tiller positive. The end results point of impact adjustment with good grouping. I see bow hand pressure as a problem. To much palm, high shot. Not enough, low shot. And if you have to loose nocks and only one nock set the nock can or will slide up or down the serving depending on what style of release. See If your tiller is adjusted correctly to your style, some of you poorly executed shots will group a little high and some will group a little low as long as they were aimed properly. This is why most trad archer's shoot with two nock point. IMO. Its very important to order the bow to fit your style or have one that you can adjust in case you don't know.
DD


----------



## rickstix (Nov 11, 2009)

I have a couple of reasons…

Firstly, been doing it a long time…and so if I were to change it I would have to go through a period where it slowed me down. I can absolutely find the nock point from below without looking…just a matter of what you get used to…so, in that regard, neither has an advantage. And, IMO, unless you were a hard core efficiency expert, there isn’t much difference in placing the arrow on the string by approximately one inch’s difference...and then moving it up or down. Again, this is just what you become used to doing…and negligible difference in speed, IMO.

BTW, I also prefer to use a backquiver…not that I can’t shoot for speed when using most other options than a bow quiver…but the real object becomes handling the arrow by the nock…and not from holding the arrow in front of the fletching and needing to watch what you’re doing when placing it on the string. I know that should seem obvious…but I always question speed between shots and not keeping the game in sight when I see the aforementioned being practiced. Anyhow, when hunting, I always have a follow up shot strategy…so the issue really favors the utilitarian/practical aspect of shooting and such calls for people to find what works best for themselves. I surely wouldn’t be wanting to carve what I do in stone.

The other reason I’m happy with nocking the arrow under…is that I can hang my bow on a hook or lean it against a tree with an arrow on the shelf…and the forward weight of the arrow keeps it right where I want it. And this can also bring the subject of nock tightness into view…because a very loose fit and nocking the arrow above invites a negative situation. “One-tap-fall-off” nock fit, arrow above nock point and bow on a nearby hanger, while in a treestand, can easily put an arrow on the ground without trying.

That’s all I got…personally, don’t have a reason to do things differently. Enjoy, Rick.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Is that So. Please read this: http://omegalongbows.webs.com/tuningtips.htm
> DD


Sorry, I forgot to add. IMO. That it better to start out with tight nock and loosen them to fit your liking than have them to loose. Nocks will find their fit after you have shot them a few times. There are some special one out there, that an Pro showed me, but I can not remenber the name. I like "G" for target and alittle heavier for hunting.
DD
DD


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I agree! And so does Tiller/Nock point. I can nock little high and tiller positive. The end results point of impact adjustment with good grouping. I see bow hand pressure as a problem. To much palm, high shot. Not enough, low shot. And if you have to loose nocks and only one nock set the nock can or will slide up or down the serving depending on what style of release. See If your tiller is adjusted correctly to your style, some of you poorly executed shots will group a little high and some will group a little low as long as they were aimed properly. This is why most trad archer's shoot with two nock point. IMO. Its very important to order the bow to fit your style or have one that you can adjust in case you don't know.
> DD


My point was neither of us has a problem with our own bows but we just can't shoot each other's bows due to different nocking points giving different angles of attack of the arrow. Neither of us need to change anything when we shoot our own stuff.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Is that So. Please read this: http://omegalongbows.webs.com/tuningtips.htm
> DD


You're using my own website to prove what? I never said on there that the fit should be tight, just enough so that it hangs until dilodged with a light tap, which is what I posted above.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Gents - 

One nock, two nocks, above / below... you guys are a bunch of wusses.

Here's how REAL trad guys do it:

http://leatherwall.bowsite.com/tf/lw/thread2.cfm?forum=23&threadid=253990&messages=66&CATEGORY=4

On a more serious note, for you guys who aren't afraid of sights, try one. 
It can be a real eye opener, on a lot of things.

Viper1 out.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

kegan said:


> You're using my own website to prove what? I never said on there that the fit should be tight, just enough so that it hangs until dilodged with a light tap, which is what I posted above.


Something about the sincerest form of flattery here somewhere.... :laugh:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Viper1 said:


> Gents -
> 
> One nock, two nocks, above / below... you guys are a bunch of wusses.
> 
> ...


Well thats true of course... but nocking sorta teaches form memory too doesn't it... so that after a while you don't probably need them?


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Tom - 

No. 

That's why I said try it with a sight or even worse, a sight and bare shafts. 
You might be surprised at the difference 1/16" in nocking point placement can make at 20 yds. 

But that wasn't the purpose of my post. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> Gents -
> 
> One nock, two nocks, above / below... you guys are a bunch of wusses.
> 
> ...


Thank you. My point too. My Anchor is to high on the trad bow. With that high of a anchor on the compound the sight scope only clears the broadhead at thirty yard, but seem to have a very fine adjustment. I have not investagated it to much, I am just having to much fun with the recurve.

Kegan, Great wep site and bows. You do say that on lighter bow to tighten it up by dental wrap ang glue. However, My first post. "If the bow was balanced and arrow centered then it wouldn't matter as long as the arrow nock was tight". I am not stating your wrong or how tight. It was about the arrow's nock could slip out of place if the bow wasn't balance to the shoot's style, I should of added without a nock. I have seen shooter dry fire bow's with too loose of nock and wrong nock location. I am sure you know the proper fit. 
I might add that if I let down I will always re-nock the arrow. I don't care if I lose a few FPS. I like to hear a click. But thats me. 
DD


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Reckon there's any correlation between nobody ever hearing of the no-nock guys--even the "very accurate" ones--vs. pretty much every traditional archer who's made a name for themselves by shooting a bow accurately using two nock sets?


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

There's a big to do on this same subject now on Leatherwall and one no nock guy, and a very argumentative and adamant no nock guy, claims he has killed 3 pigeons on the wing while riding a galloping horse. Of course on Leatherwall is another guy who claims to be able to kill running rabbits at 40 yards but he uses a nocking point.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Lol--that's funny right there, I don't care who you are! Sadly there's been claims made on this board that are on par with those. Just have to consider the source.


----------



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

Hang on a minute ... Are you guys suggesting that not everything on the Internet is true? :mg:


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

It's true. http://horsebackarchery.wordpress.com/
DD


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Viper1 said:


> Tom -
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


Gotcha..... I've never used sights, so I'm disadvantaged there as to that effect. I occasionally shoot without a nock-set on my string, especially when I've made a new string and I still seem to get them in the bucket most of the time by eyeballing it and I was curious.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

reddogge said:


> There's a big to do on this same subject now on Leatherwall and one no nock guy, and a very argumentative and adamant no nock guy, claims he has killed 3 pigeons on the wing while riding a galloping horse. Of course on Leatherwall is another guy who claims to be able to kill running rabbits at 40 yards but he uses a nocking point.


Thank you reddogge, I needed a laugh tonight and that thread right there did it...:chortle:

I mean come on, why would you not use a nocking point? Personally I can't figure out why anybody except a trick shooter or someone who has the need to nock an arrow extraordinarily fast or without looking at the string would only use one nock point when using two eliminates another variable. Yes I understand that many find they don't need a second, I only used one for at least twenty years but have come to use two since it's just one less thing to go wrong.

Oh well, since we don't worry about where on the string the nock ends up, why worry about point weight, spine, or brace height? Heck, who cares if the arrows are even straight or similar in weight. Consistent diameter? Posh...wasted attention on inconsequential details. Worrying about those silly little things only dilutes the transcendental experience of traditional archery.


----------



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

Easykeeper said:


> Thank you reddogge, I needed a laugh tonight and that thread right there did it...:chortle:
> 
> I mean come on, why would you not use a nocking point? Personally I can't figure out why anybody except a trick shooter or someone who has the need to nock an arrow extraordinarily fast or without looking at the string would only use one nock point when using two eliminates another variable. Yes I understand that many find they don't need a second, I only used one for at least twenty years but have come to use two since it's just one less thing to go wrong.
> 
> *Oh well, since we don't worry about where on the string the nock ends up, why worry about point weight, spine, or brace height? Heck, who cares if the arrows are even straight or similar in weight. Consistent diameter? Posh...wasted attention on inconsequential details.* Worrying about those silly little things only dilutes the transcendental experience of traditional archery.


Now you're talkin'! :wink:

Although, in all seriousness, I'm still new enough that the only things I've messed around with trying to figure out are a decent brace height and a consistent nocking point. I'll wait on all that other stuff until I've got something resembling consistent shooting form, thanks.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JDBrown said:


> I'll wait on all that other stuff until I've got something resembling consistent shooting form, thanks.


JD, one thing you will find about the Trad forums is that good "form" discussions don't always ring universal with folks - Trad being so individualistic and all, so, those topics die out pretty quick. 

But boy, whether you shoot with one or two nock locators, now that's imperative stuff worthy of many pages of discussion  You just gotta roll with it at times.


----------



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

Hey, it's all good. I'm actually really enjoying this. And really, when I say "consistent shooting form," my emphasis is on _consistent_. It's not that I'm trying to learn perfect Olympic style form or anything -- I'm just trying to get my draw length to be the same on every shot. Right now it's 26" on some days and 29-1/2" on others (and I'm anchoring in the same place every time). Just gotta remember to keep those shoulders down and back, I guess. But I'll get it one of these days.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

JDBrown said:


> Right now it's 26" on some days and 29-1/2" on others (and I'm anchoring in the same place every time). Just gotta remember to keep those shoulders down and back, I guess. But I'll get it one of these days.


That's great that you already know that about yourself! I'll video shooters' arrows at the shelf and show them that, just how much their DL varies from shot to shot even when their anchor is the same - most cannot believe that it can vary by so many inches.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

JDBrown said:


> Hey, it's all good. I'm actually really enjoying this. And really, when I say "consistent shooting form," my emphasis is on _consistent_. It's not that I'm trying to learn perfect Olympic style form or anything -- I'm just trying to get my draw length to be the same on every shot. Right now it's 26" on some days and 29-1/2" on others (and I'm anchoring in the same place every time). Just gotta remember to keep those shoulders down and back, I guess. But I'll get it one of these days.


JD, when I switched over to trad and since I had pretty good form shooting fingers, I figured that all I really needed was to really focus on was setting the bow and tuning the arrows. As I have stated above I also find that you can make adjustments that you can have reasonable good arrow groups with well aimed shots and poor executed form. What I mean is if the shot is strong "shoulders down and back ,back" then arrow groups are alittle high and if the shot is weak "shoulders up and back, open" then groups are alittle low. As long as I focus on a very well aimed shot. I think the longer I work on this the two will start to come together somewhere in the middle.
But as you have emphasis consistent shooting form is a must in order to hold a consistent draw lenght. DD


----------



## lowellhigh79 (Aug 3, 2012)

The answer may be found in the type of arrows used, specifically the diameter of the arrow's nock. 

1) Nock and arrow same diameter/ above nock point: increasing arrow diameter causes the center of arrow to rise further *above* the rest by the same amount as the center of the nock rises further *above* the nock point. No net angle change.

2) Nock and arrow same diameter/ below nock point: increasing arrow diameter causes the center of arrow to rise further *above* the rest by the same amount as the center of the nock drops futher *below* the nock point. Significant angle change.

3) Uniform nocks/ above nock point: Increasing arrow diameter causes the center of the arrow to rise further *above* the rest but center of the nock *does not change*: Angle change more than #1 but less (about half) than #2

4) Uniform nocks/ below nock point: Increasing arrow diameter causes the center of the arrow to rise further *above* the rest but the center of nock *does not change*: Angle change same as #3.

I don't know much about the arrows used by the icons from the past but I would not be surprised if they used notched wooden (for nocks) arrows of slight variations in diameter and straightness from withing the same batch. If so, #1 would give the most consistency because of the least (none) angular variation. With modern arrows and uniform nocks, I think below the nock point has the added benefit of securing the rear of the arrow (as the front tips forward at the beginning of the draw) with no difference in angle changes if shooting from above or below the nock point.

Regards.


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

Lowellhigh, 

Great breakdown. I had given no consideration to the wooden self-nocks and their equal diameter with the shaft. Above-the-nock makes quite a bit of sense if this is the realm in which one dwells, especially if shaft diameters are variable. My earlier post assumed changing shaft diameters with equally-sized nocks (which you covered well in #3 and #4), as is often the case in these modern times of G-Nocks, et al.

Glad to have these tidbits in the back pocket for future reference. Thanks.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Great observation. 

However, I suspect there is still more to it. 
A nock set is, in most cases a forced nock location.
DD


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Thin Man said:


> Lowellhigh,
> 
> Great breakdown. I had given no consideration to the wooden self-nocks and their equal diameter with the shaft. Above-the-nock makes quite a bit of sense if this is the realm in which one dwells, especially if shaft diameters are variable. My earlier post assumed changing shaft diameters with equally-sized nocks (which you covered well in #3 and #4), as is often the case in these modern times of G-Nocks, et al.
> 
> Glad to have these tidbits in the back pocket for future reference. Thanks.


Self nocks... which I use on my arrows are not necessarily the same diameter of anything else along the shaft. I've got shafts that are tapered to the rear, tapered to the front, and tapered both to the rear and to the front. Every arrangement requires a different tuning set up and involves both nock and new spine considerations... if you really don't want to be doing the lawn.... :grin:


----------

