# Target shooting vs Stump shooting



## ArcherFletch (Jul 8, 2012)

Try sticking some sagebrush branches on the sides of your bag/paper targets before you shoot.


----------



## vulcan12 (Oct 9, 2007)

Its focus and concentration. Some buckle a little at game, some at foam, and some at paper. I know a world famous hunter that cant shoot at bullseyes.

I love to stump, or rove. I also shoot a 3d course from time to time, and I shoot a 300 round every Sunday. The 300 round gives me a consistent grading tool. The 3d course helps me with hunting confidence, and the roving gives me my fun!

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Based on my own experience I'd say part of it is the mental game but I also think that paper does a little better job of measuring. Some things that look like a "hit" while out roving aren't so impressive on a paper target. 4's and 3's relative to a 40 cm target might look pretty good on stumps but don't add up to a very good score when shooting paper. You need a bunch of 5's to get the score up and the 5 spot is pretty small.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I think also, when you're focused on having a good time and aren't stressed out about not hitting your target, it's not so bad. You might be focusing much more on where you're hitting than form.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Archerfletch- Not a bad idea haha, but then I'd have no excuse when I miss 
Vulcan- Makes sense, I think when I shoot target I have a tendency to overthink things and get impatient when I'm not shooting as good as I'd like. With sage shooting, I'm just out to have a good time, and don't care if I hit or miss by a mile, so no overthinking and impatience to mess up my shot.
MGF- Good point, its easy to count myself as a better shot with sagebrush when all I have to do is hit the plant or hit close enough for it to appear as a hit. With paper, you have to accept near hits for what they actually are, misses . 
CF-Thats totally it, when I'm shooting sage for fun there is no stress, no overthinking, no impatience, just me and the bow having fun, which is what I wanted to start learning archery for, so it works for me. I don't plan on ever becoming a competition shooter, though I might attend shoots that are for charity if I ever get good enough. I wanted to learn archery so I could have something active and enjoyable to do during my free time, sage shooting fits that bill perfect so it works for me . Just call me the Sagebrush Assassin


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Bytesback: You might be surprised. I originally got into this for hunting and stumping (or sage shooting depending on region ), but as you get better and your form develops, competing becomes more appealing. I originally had 0 interest in it, but now I'd happily do it for fun provided I stay consistent.
I'm the same way though, my first try on a 300 round was about 150 something. Pretty bad considering how long I've been shooting. I realize now though how much of that is mental, and how I started giving myself target panic as a result of poor focus.


----------



## Castmaster (May 2, 2013)

There are many valid points being posted on this thread. I might add that if you want to be a better bowhunter I would keep brush/stump shooting. If you are looking to compete against others keep practicing with the bale and paper face. The added benefit of stump shooting and 3-D shooting is that each shot is new and fresh; your mind doesn't get worn out focusing on one spot as with the paper. Every new target you approach brings a new and revitalized concentration. That is not to say that anyone would never be good at shooting paper and bale it just takes a different kind of concentration, one of endurance.

I have quite a competitive streak in me as well, but can't shoot paper very well. I shoot a bow that is for hunting weight and can hit the 10 ring consistenly for about 2 ends of 4 arrows. After that i need a break, or i just shoot all over the paper. If you are really trying to compete in 300 rounds, get a bow that pulls 35# and use it just for that.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

For me, there's something fundamentally different between stump/sage shooting and formal target shooting. Paper is a repetitive activity involving multiple arrows and unless I miss badly, stump shooting is usually a one shot and move on thing. It comes down to concentration, and like MGF said, since there are no scoring rings on stumps I probably tend to be less critical of my bad shots and forget them sooner. Make a bad shot on a paper target and the mark is still there after I pull the arrow. Make a few bad shots and pretty soon I'm trying too hard or tying correct some perceived (or real) flaw in my form. Roving is more relaxing and the fact that each new target is different keeps the boredom down and concentration up, so I think in many ways I shoot better wandering around, even if wandering around is just moving around a stationary bale and shooting at little spots instead of actually hanging up a real paper target.

That said, if I can't shoot a decent group on a target frame, it's likely I'm just not shooting well that day. In the long run a good shooter can do both. I still remember guys I used to run into on the trap/skeet range going on about _"I can't hit these darn clay birds, but put something with feathers in front of me and I rarely miss"_. In the long run I think they were fooling themselves, but I honestly think they believed it, and it was probably somewhat of the same phenomenon we are talking about here. They remember the good shots on game and forget the bad. The thing is, _sometimes you do shoot better_ when the big rooster scares the crap out of you and you don't have time to play all the head games with yourself that can happen in a more formal target shooting situation.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Great points above. The mental game is an interesting one to say the least.
It does indeed seem very difficult to try competing indoors with a heavier weight bow. I like bale and paper for form and skill, where stumping becomes my "outside time" and a way to apply those skills and see where I need work.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Bytesback said:


> Hey guys, just got back from another sagebrush shoot (our version of stump shooting because we have no stumps soft enough to shoot) and I am curious about something. This was my 4th sage shoot session, and each time I go out, I get better and better. I am able to consistently hit the sagebrush where I want to from 5-25 yards, and am always on target horizontally, though sometimes I shoot a little low. Now when I shoot a paper target, or a bag target, I am only accurate out to about 5-10 yards, though I am slowly improving with the bridge method. I guess my question is why am I shooting more accurately at a larger distance when I'm shooting at sage, vs when I'm shooting at a bag or paper target? When I go sage shooting my main focus is just to have a good time and get a nice hike in, where as when I shoot target, I'm all about focusing on my form, so I would think it would be the other way around.


Because when you are "Target Shooting"?: You are all up in your head..."THINKING"...about the shot and your form.

and when...

You are "Sage Shooting"?: You're out for a stroll...completely relaxed...NOT up in your head nor "thinking" about shooting but just..."Shooting".

and these earmark traits indicate to me that you are naturally wired to be an instinctive archer..and this doesn't mean that solid, consistant form isn't important..as it most certainly is...but if you think about the shot?....you just missed..unless..

You are willing to undergo an ultra-serious training regimen to re-wire yourself to become a target archer...where you will get much worse before you get better but...in the long run?...for the longer shots?..it pays off big time...and i know cause that's right about where i'm at myself..somewhere in limbo between the two...i laughing refer to it as "Purgatory" :laugh:

And i find it to be somewhat of a psychotic state where often times i'm battling what seems to be a dual-personality complex....where the guy in the back is messing with the instinctive archer up front..as part of me wants to just look at it and shoot and actually hit where i'm just looking (and can up close out to 20yds or so) while the other part of me knows i could shoot better, further if i'm willing to undergo this serious, highly disciplined...uhm......"alternative training program"? :laugh:

anyways..after typing that?...i'm not sure which one of us should take a seat and brace ourselves the most...

for the flurry of responses that will surely come of that! :laugh:

But always remember..keep it fun first. 

Hope that helps and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

CF- Yeah, when I first bought the bow, I had never heard of stump shooting. I bought it to be a backyard archer, just something to kill time with. When I had stump shooting explained to me, it sounded to me like archerys version of golf, after my first session I was hooked. Stump shooting is definitely more fun for me than flinging arrows at a stationary target. However I do realize the importance of getting consistent accurate hits on the paper so I shall continue to work my bag target. 
Cartmaster- Thanks for the advice. As it sits now, I don't think competitive shooting or bowhunting is in the cards for atleast a year. I'm pretty new to this and have a long ways to go yet, if I ever decide to pursue either of those. I do notice I am willing to shoot alot longer stump shooting, and I believe it is because I do not get mentally fatigued. As you said, with stump shooting, each new shot is exactly that, a NEW shot. For now, I shall roam the hills and enjoy my new occupation as the Sagebrush Assassin 
Easykeeper- That makes sense. I know to be a good archer I need to be capable of hitting a variety of target types in a variety of environments, be it paper targets at an indoor range, or sage shooting outdoors. I look at sage shooting as a way to get outside and have a good time, where as I look at target shooting as a way to work on my form. Its like one is a "field trip" where your excited to go, and you know you'll enjoy yourself, and the other is "homework" where you know you have to do it, and you know its good for you, but it just isn't as appealing haha. 
Jinkster- I've only been on this and a few other archery forums for a little under a month, but it did not take me long to realize that I will stick to simply saying I shoot traditional haha. I have seen way too much debate on what is and isn't instinctive, and how it is and isn't possible to learn instinctive before learning another method. I have not been in archery long enough to know if I shoot instinctive. I know that when I nock the arrow, I pull back, anchor, and release all while focusing only on the target and no inside distractions such as the arrow, bow, hand, etc. Could I be subconsciously using one of those as a point of reference? Sure, thats possible, though if I am doing it I am definitely not aware of it. However, like you said, my goal when I started was to have fun, so no matter how I am shooting or what I am shooting at, I shall endeavor to have fun


----------



## ripforce (Feb 15, 2010)

My wife is a new shooter, she started in the winter outside on my bale target as spring FINALLY arrived here in Michigan we then moved to stumping we have a dirt 2 track that we walk every nite and we shot stumps from both sides of the road (lots of dead Birch) she loves it and shoots real well! She shot her first 3D rounds at my neighbors range the other nite she did fairly well at that too! I just finished a target using 2 straw bales covered them w heavy plastic then compressed them ratchet straps and nylon rope put cardboard pizza boxes etc as targets now she works on her form on the that target!


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Bytesback: Wise decision! For me, my joy of shooting will always come out of being outside and applying it - again the reason I got into it was for stumping and hunting in the first place. I have realized though, that in order for me to be joyful, I need to not be worried about my shooting, and that means being consistent with form and accuracy. Like it was said, think of your bag/form work as your "practice" for stumping. Get that form down, work out kinks, then go have fun. It's a world of a difference when you can take those longer 40m shots and nail what you're shooting at as opposed to missing your target and arrow hunting. Granted, you'll likely have your own line of what's "good enough" - I personally can get somewhat perfectionistic, but keep doing your practice and "homework" and it'll become more and more fun. Can't say how satisfying it is to shoot now compared to when I first started, even at a bag. And you might be surprised about wanting to compete - doesn't mean you have to switch to an Olympic rig, I know Kegan and Urban Deer Slayer shoot competitions with their Omega longbows against guys with recurves and do decently well.
And VERY wise not getting into the whole "instinctive" debate. A ridiculous amount of misinformation there. Don't define yourself too quickly by your aiming style - if your form is priority, it's not that important in the end. I don't have tons of experience - I've only been shooting since November, so I don't want to give you that impression - but having some coaching made a big difference in my mental game too. I originally started out wanting to shoot intuitive (makes more sense than "instinctive" but we won't get into that), but soon realized that a) it's a slow learning process, poorly understood, and b) I switch back and forth. When I'm shooting in my back yard, I don't focus on gapping because it's become subconscious at that distance. When I'm out in a field, or stumping, there's a little more yardage estimation, and a little more "I should hold over abouuuut....here".
And Jinks, if that were the criteria for being wired as an instinctive shooter, wouldn't 99% of new people that get into "trad" shooting fit into that category?


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Ripforce- Thats awesome. I actually bought my girlfriend a bow to learn with me, but the addiction hasn't hit her like it hit me haha. She's content to shoot a few arrows at a target once a week, whereas I have to be out every day shooting. Just too much fun to put the bow down! 
CF-Thanks, yeah I am too new to be worried about defining my shooting style. I do know that I set a tie on nock point on my new string about a finger width (or 3-4 nocks) higher than it was set before. This doesn't put it right below my eye, but rather between my eye and mouth, sitting against my cheekbone. My accuracy immediately improved and stayed consistently better, so I kept it. I don't look at anything but the target when I shoot, but I am willing to bet that subconsciously I am using the line of the arrow as a "sight" to determine where it will go, which is probably why my accuracy improved when I raised my nock point.


----------



## Bowmania (Jan 3, 2003)

You're not shooting any better at sage. It only appears that you are. Look at a target, 3d or paper, it stands in a vertical plane. When your arrow hits that vertical plane that's where it is. But when you shoot at a clump of sage, you score a "hit" a hit weather the fletches or the point is in the spot you picked. Those two shots would not score the same on a 3d or paper target.

Bowmania


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Bowmania- No I am definitely shooting better at sage. I can hit the sage, regardless of where, consistently at 20-25 yards, can't hit my bag target at all once I get out past 15-18 yards, and my bag target is bigger than most sage. I do get what your saying though, I understand with something like sage i'm probably nowhere near as accurate as it appears. I do know I'm actually hitting the sage though, where I'd miss my bag completely. I think I over think and hesitate on my bag shots, whereas I don't do so with sage as I'm just out to have fun.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Bytseback: Indeed, having an arrow closer to your eye/higher anchor will reduce your "point on distance", thereby making it more forgiving when you mess up yardage. Kegan (bowyer) helped me with that one - shooting 3 under is highly conducive to this, and as resistant as I initially was, I ended up switching over to it. Picture shooting a rifle from the shoulder vs shooting it from the hip; even without a sight, your miscalculations will be much less glaring from the shoulder.
And yes that's basically how your sight picture works. Regardless of what some would like to believe, "instinctive" shooting is based on your brain learning sight picture and proprioception (body awareness in space). I still don't quite get why some define themselves religiously by gap shooting or instinctive shooting, but good work not getting attached to an idea.


----------



## CLASSICHUNTER (May 20, 2005)

when you say 5-25 yds outside are you using a range finder.. you might find your distances aren`t as you say ..and the target thing is a marked distance ..just a thought ...


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I think it largely has to do with mentality too - relaxed, not caring if you miss vs. worrying about score and seeing how small errors make for poor shot placement. Harder to deal with mentally I think.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

CFGuy said:


> And Jinks, if that were the criteria for being wired as an instinctive shooter, wouldn't 99% of new people that get into "trad" shooting fit into that category?


No...in fact what i witnessed and recall of working with a fine gentlemen by the name of Burt Barber (as i was his asst. coach and demo shooter) for training the local Boy Scout Troops to qualify for their "Archery Merit Badges"?..

I would say that about 1/3rd of the students (and that's being generous pending the class and "if we were lucky") had the gift of what i would term as actually being "Natural Instinctive Shooters" where they had the physical hand/eye coordination to pull through their first shots smoothly and at least hit in the general vicinity and within a few groups be hitting pretty much where they were looking...and needed very little coaching assistance to meet the criteria for earning their archery merit bages..these also seemed to be the same students that were "Comprehensive Learners"...we simply described the basics of form and they were off to the races with many hitting very close to center on their first shot..

The middle 1/3rd?: Seemed to be the "Auditory Learners"..where they would struggle through the first few groups until we got in their ear and verbally talked them through it as they did it for a few groups with an emphasis on describing what the window should look like and the importance of maintaing a consistant sight picture..they were not exactly what i'd term "naturally instinctive"...but close..and once we had them up and running?..which usually didn't take much..

It was onto..

The last 1/3rd: The "Tactile Learners"...and we'd run through everything we did with the auditory crew with forming the window and sight picture and all and they'd "hafta do it" a bunch of times before they got settled in as we kept asking them..

"Okay...where were you holding your arrow point the last time ya saw it that time?"

and then tell them where to hold it for the next one...and eventually get them keeping most shots on target as well.

But no...definantly not how 99% start out...some eventually get there but..not everybody...

especially those who think 99% of others experience things the same way they do.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks for the elaboration. Learning styles are definitely an interesting thing.

I see what you mean - what I meant was that I think the word "instinctive" is somewhat misunderstood and can get confusing for new guys (certainly did for me). Having shot slingshots, rifles, shotguns, and damn near anything that flings a projectile (being somewhat obsessed with it from a young age), I found myself in the first category the first time I shot a recurve - not to say I was "good", but I could "hit the balloon on the further target" that my other classmates couldn't. Not bragging in any way, just a hand-eye coordination/experience thing.

I just don't think it's a good idea to put labels on which category guys should fall into - likely not what you meant, but I think it's dangerous sometimes to say "you should shoot instinctive", as the word can get confusing. If you meant that "you're a natural", great, ignore what I said; but if you mean "you should shoot instinctively as opposed to aiming", I think this can set people back sometimes (it did for me). There's plenty more to explore in terms of what goals are and methods to get there, and labels can be constrictive.



> especially those who think 99% of others experience things the same way they do


In my original post I meant that you have very little information to say which group to identify someone with (assuming you meant aiming style), and based on the information given, you could easily categorize a large percentage of people interested in bows that way . Didn't mean to sound snide however, the internet can have that effect.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

How big is a sage brush?

I can say that when shooting under pressure, it doesn't work as well.

When thinking about what you're doing, it doesn't work as well.

The thing is, though, when you think about what you're doing, you tend to learn better, even if you don't perform at the same level, and when I say 'you', I don't mean specifically _you_, but people in general. The 'easy' thing about 'instinctive' shooting is that you don't have too many mental processes clogging up the shot process. The difficult thing is that that if things go wrong, it's difficult to diagnose what's not working. Mixed bag either way. Do both. Both will make you better at the other, in my opinion.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

CF- Thats exactly how I felt when I raised that nock point and started shooting, like someone who has been shooting the wrong way this whole time and finally figured out what it was haha. Made a world of difference in both my longer range shots, and in my confidence, which should be shattered again tomorrow as I go out in the morning to shoot them dreaded targets  haha. Honestly though, this will only be the second time i've shot at a target since raising my nock point, so I do think i'll begin seeing an improvement .

ClassicHunter- When I first went stump shooting, I was eyeballing the targets, until I found out just how poor I was at judging distance haha. When I went sage shooting with my coach, he had me tell him which sage I was shooting at beforehand, and how far away I though it was. He'd let me take my shot, and then tell me how far away or close it really was. Let me tell you, I am a HORRIBLE judge of distance haha. After that session, I borrow my brother in laws rangefinder, and If I cannot take it, my coach taught me how to measure out my strides several times, and average it out and use it as a general guideline. By no means perfect, but alot more accurate than my eye 

BarneySlayer- I'm shooting at assorted shapes and sizes, I try to go for the smaller secluded ones, but if there is no small ones, I'll go for the big bushy white ones just so its easier to keep track of where my arrow is in the midst of thousands of sagebrush plants that all look alike haha. The smaller ones are probably 8-10 inches high and 6-8 inches wide. Bigger ones are generally a couple feet tall and a couple feet wide. When I shoot sage, I shoot for the base of the plant so I can gauge whether I'm high or low easily. If it went through the plant, I'm high. If it bounced off the ground before hitting the plant, i'm low. And if its hit the sage base and stops, we've got a bullseye


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Great to hear! Definitely stick with it for a while. Archery is somewhat "slow-burn" in terms of skill (for myself anyway). Great lesson in patience - takes a while for things to work sometimes. And keep shooting paper too, you'll conquer it eventually . Better to be entirely honest about your shooting, much easier to progress that way or notice changes.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Hey all, after some consideration on your guys advice and opinions, I decided to go a month without sagebrush shooting , and only working my bag target so I could really work on my form and consistency. Last time I went out shooting sage was back in early May. For a month I've been using the bridge method with my bag target, and am now grouping my arrows in a paper plate size area all the way back to 20 yards. If you read my earlier posts, you will be aware that a month ago I could not even hit my bag at 15+ yards. My form has come a long way, since learning to properly use my arms, shoulder, and back in my shot sequence. I've found a comfortable anchor point that is producing consistency and accuracy that i'm satisfied with, and i'm getting better with my release, though I still pluck from time to time. 

Well today, I decided to finally go ahead and go out for a hike and some sage shooting. I shot my first sagebrush just after sunrise, and was a little low. The second sage I shot a little high. From the 3rd sage on, I was nailing them exactly where I was aiming. In fact, I was doing so well, halfway through my hike, I quit aiming for those big sagebrush, and began aiming at sticks and pinecones that were laying around on the ground. So I wanted to thank those who recommended spending time with my bag working on my form. It may not be as much fun as shooting sagebrush, but it sure paid off. I'm still not confident enough to compete in any shoots, but that is now something that could be a possibility down the road. Thanks again guys


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

BB;

Good that you took some time to focus on form and consistency, regardless of your primary archery interests. One way or another, consistency is key.

If you seriously intend to improve as a bowhunter, stumping is a grand exercise. You describe yourself as a "...horrible judge of distance". Here's the scoop on that: nobody's born with the ability to accurately judge and report distance, down to the fly's eye. It's an acquired skill; a knack. Practiced in the manner your coach has had you doing, stumping is an excellent method of acquiring that skill.

How do you think we used to range shots, _before_ the days of rangefinders? Ranging was no less critical in those days...

Keep on stumpin', brudda; it's not only fun, but it's great practice for the day the laser breaks down!

:smile:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

That's fantastic! It's well worth putting the work in because it makes everything else so much more fun.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Shooting for groups. ..vs...shooting for fun. ..

I'll wager that the fun will go further in improving your shooting abilities. ..than all of the target shooting you will do. ..provided it remains informal. 

I grew up with a bow. ..and learned without any formal type of training. ..except to see some movies of the great shooters of the 50's & 60's....way back then. ..doing just as you have done stump shooting. ..bush shooting. .and at any and all things. I learned my bow. ..and what it takes to shoot it. Small game hunting was a way of life then. .and what most people who I knew did with a bow. 

To me. ..and just to me. ..there's 2 types of archers these days. ..those who think that the scores are the most important. ..and the only way one can judge a person's skill set and then the other side. ..who knows otherwise. 

Learning how to be accurate. ..one must first decide, just how accurate they need to be. Then decide what path they should start down....For hunting. ..shooting for fractions of inches is not necessary and in many cases. .detrimental. ..but never for pure target shooting. For hunting one does not need perfect form to be successful. ..but for target shooting. ..one's scores will only get better. 

Enjoy

Mac


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> To me. ..and just to me. ..there's 2 types of archers these days. ..those who think that the scores are the most important. ..and the only way one can judge a person's skill set and then the other side. ..who knows otherwise.


You got that backwards. You can THINK you are accurate when you are out stumping. But you will KNOW if you are shooting at a target.

Subjective vs. objective analysis. Subjective will always be subject to your own perception.

-Grant


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

+1 to what Grant said. If you're truly happy about roving in the forest and just shooting, and don't really care about accuracy, have at it. If you want to get better, you need objective measurement. I honestly don't get why this apparent phobia of targets perpetuates, I think it's silly really. There isn't anything "un-trad" about shooting at a target. I do understand the struggle with TP for some, or the lack of desire to compete, but unless all you do is shoot aerial targets and trick shots like Byron does (exception, not the rule), subjective assessment of shooting at stumps will not necessarily or at all reliably equate to skill. There's a reason good target shooters can generally do very well at 3D and hunting, though the inverse isn't always true.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Bytesback said:


> Hey guys, just got back from another sagebrush shoot (our version of stump shooting because we have no stumps soft enough to shoot) and I am curious about something. This was my 4th sage shoot session, and each time I go out, I get better and better. I am able to consistently hit the sagebrush where I want to from 5-25 yards, and am always on target horizontally, though sometimes I shoot a little low. Now when I shoot a paper target, or a bag target, I am only accurate out to about 5-10 yards, though I am slowly improving with the bridge method. I guess my question is why am I shooting more accurately at a larger distance when I'm shooting at sage, vs when I'm shooting at a bag or paper target? When I go sage shooting my main focus is just to have a good time and get a nice hike in, where as when I shoot target, I'm all about focusing on my form, so I would think it would be the other way around.


Roving... you should do this while you're hunting too. I spot and stalk hunt and rove all the time and truth be known, I've seen more game from roving than by just walking around... :grin:

Roving helps and develops lots of skills, estimation, trajectory in the bush (well here anyways)... and if you're looking.. you'll spot game sign.

Aloha.. :beer:


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Jusolddave-Thanks, and you make a valid point about learning range through stumping. Not sure I'll ever be good enough to hunt with the bow, but I sure am going to have fun learning to be as good as I can 

CFGuy-Thanks, and yes it does. Once I put my nose to the grindstone, my form reallly started to come together. Stumpings always been fun, but its alot more fun now that I know i'm hitting what i'm aiming for  . I now see why people talk about target shooting as a way to improve skill level in every aspect, whether its stumping, 3d, or hunting. It might not be as fun, but it pays off in a big way when things come together. 

Mac-Shooting for fun has gone a long way towards improving my skill level, but at this point, I really think putting some effort into form and consistency on my target bag really went a long way towards improving the skills I had already developed. 

Grant- I'd of argued that point a month ago, but I have seen the result of working on the target bag, and its definitely improved my shots when i'm out stumping. Instead of hitting near the sagebrush i'm shooting at, I'm having direct hits. I know I'm hitting them now, instead of only thinking i'm hitting them, because I'm watching the sticks and pinecones I shoot at explode into the air when I hit them, and i'm finding my arrows drilled into the base of the sagebrush i'm shooting for.

Rattus-Thanks, I've spotted a few game signs, and run into actual game from time to time. Seen bear markings on a tree when I went out stumping at camp yesterday, and came over a rise into a few head of elk the very first time I went stumping. Its always fun to get a hike in while shooting, and if I see game, all the better


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

grantmac said:


> You got that backwards. You can THINK you are accurate when you are out stumping. But you will KNOW if you are shooting at a target.
> 
> Subjective vs. objective analysis. Subjective will always be subject to your own perception.
> 
> -Grant


No afraid not...and you completely missed my meaning. 

I know I know exactly where I am aiming. .and I know I know exactly when I hit my mark.

There's no 2 ways about this. 

I practice for what I hunt...and my mark is the kill zone of what I am shooting at. 

See...I'm the type of person who is honest with myself. .and have no need to fudge for some score.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

MAC 11700 said:


> No afraid not...and you completely missed my meaning.
> 
> I know I know exactly where I am aiming. .and I know I know exactly when I hit my mark.
> 
> ...


There definitely are two ways about that, and that's incredibly assuming. The fact of the matter (indeed fact) is that while some may do what you say (I don't have any means to verify that you hit what you aim at 100% of the time), I would bet money that the majority of people who purely rove and never shoot at targets do not shoot as accurately as those who are able to objectively evaluate their shooting level. Obviously this doesn't *have* to be done on a competitive level, but scoring can really help people - it certainly has myself and others. However, the inverse applies to target shooters - the majority who shoot well at targets can do well at other things. I.e. Jimmy can nail small targets at 90+m, Steve can shoot aerial targets thrown by himself, one of the top Oly shooters on the US team is a very successful bowhunter, etc.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

CF...

I never said I hit what I am aiming at 100% of the time...I said that I don't lie to my self about it. Also. .I will say to you. ..go back and actuality read what I wrote. ..

I can say this with most certainty. ..you don't need to shoot at a "formal" target for score to become proficient or successful at hunting or roving. .and that isa fact.

Mac


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I like to use some kind of a target face to measure my shooting because it makes it easy to quantify all the shots, even the misses. It puts a number to it. 

More often I'm shooting at a tin can hung in front of my bag of rags. I get a hole in the can and/or bag for every shot. It's easy enough to see how you're shooting, though, it doesn't translate into a number that will tell somebody else how you are shooting.

Last week I had a couple of days that were real busy so I only took a couple of shots each morning. Over two mornings I took 5 shots from 15 yards and 3 shots from 20 yards. 7 of the 8 shots went in the can with the 15 yard shots being a bit high in the can and the 20 yard shots being a bit low in the can. The one shot that missed the can was dead center and a hair left. Look at the size of beer can compared to the 5 spot on an NFAA 40 cm target. All 8 shots were 5's and 4's and while the groups drifted a bit high/low, each group was under 2 inches. I think that's a useful measurement of my shooting.

A club I used to belong to had what hey called a judo jug shoot. It took place on the 3-d course only the targets were various types of plastic jugs at various distances that were shot at with judo points. You got points for a hit and no points for a miss. That works but it doesn't tell you how bad the misses were.

I don't see why you can't do the same thing out in the woods. You hit what you're shooting at or you don't. You miss really close or your arrow goes wild, whatever.

I like using paper sometimes but I think you can learn to shoot without it.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

There's another issue for a hunter...at least for me. That is that hunting shots can be very different from standing up and shooting on the range.

I've been trying to take all that I've learned over the last many months out to my deer stand and see how it shakes out. You know what the hardest shot is? Shots under 10 yards from my tri-pod. Close shots are almost straight down. The only way I can get the bow to clear the platform is to SEVERELY cant the bow. Worse, I can't physically get into a position where my alignment is good. There's no place to stand on the platform because there's a seat bolted to it, but, even standing, I can't bend far enough at the waist to get lined up on a shot like that and the lower limb will hit your leg anyway unless you cant the bow.

On a good day I can put 4 or even 5 arrows in a 40 cm target 5 spot but from my tri-pod, I was shooting 6 and 8 inch groups (not centered on the bull) at 3 yards. Why practice that shot? Because opening morning last year I had a deer standing exactly on that spot. 

Once the shots get out past 12 yards or so, it just like shooting on the range except I'm sitting and I'm fine. If the shot is close, and it happens, I suck.

My hang on tree stand is even worse. It seem like the stand or the tree is in the way for almost any shot except a shot straight to the left. It's a little better if you're standing but my size none cold weather boots barely fit in the platform so it just doesn't make for comfortable standing.

Anyway, you can't measure these things shooting at a paper target on the range. You have to get in the woods or simulate the shot somehow.

I'm sure that lots of good target shots are good hunting shots but I don't think that just shooting paper on the range is what got them there.

Can you tell that this shooting from a tree stuff has me pretty frustrated? I'm really close to deciding to just stay on the ground and take my chances. At least I can shoot from the ground.


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

Shooting for groups and shooting for fun are the same for me...I have a lot more fun and enjoyment when I am shooting groups rather than spraying arrows everywhere...your mileage may vary.....


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

MGF- Thanks for that explanation. I think you were able to successfully put into words what Mac was trying to say. If I was hunting, I definitely would want to practice in an environment that simulated those shots I'd be taking in the field. I don't think there is one type of training that is the end all of training. I think shooting target, shooting stump, shooting 3d, and shooting paper all have their benefits and all will help to make me a better shooter. I do think that shooting target can go a long way towards setting someone up to be successful at shooting 3d, or shooting stump but it certainly isn't the only way to be successful. For me personally, I think that I will continue to work my blank bag, my paper targets, and go stump shooting in an effort to gain the benefits of all of them. I'd like to be able to do some of the shoots here in Montana if I ever get confident enough in my abilities to do so, and I'm sure that if I do, shooting 3d will go even further to improve my skills. All this is just my 2 cents, I'm still new and don't know much, but it seems the more challenges you offer yourself, the better off you'll be in the long run.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

MGF: Definitely appreciate such a scenario. It really goes back to skills coaching. You start with basic, static training, which is integrating basic movements and practicing them over and over in order to to turn them into a subconscious movement pattern (this actually transfers to a different part of the brain). Hence the reason you start riding a bike with training wheels, until you learn to balance. Or, perhaps more relevantly, practicing hockey - first while, you take 100 shots at a net, practice stick handling, etc. Similarly with archery, learning basic form, then shooting at different yardages, etc.
Phase two, after those patterns are developed (i.e. good form starts to happen), chaos training comes into play - mixing all those aspects that will eventually come up. I.e. in hockey, instead of taking 100 shots at a net, practice stick handling around a bunch of cones and skating by the net and shooting. Essentially incorporating the movement and skills into a reactive, situationally adaptive pool. Again in archery, this is where roving and 3D would likely be most beneficial, incorporating those skills of shooting well, shooting at different ranges, and estimating yardage. Essentially mimicking what would happen during hunting.
The problem with this, is that if you start incorporating chaos training before basic skills are down, it becomes very difficult to progress because it's harder to know what you're doing wrong. This isn't to say it can't be done, but if you're genuinely looking to get measurably better, it's not the best choice to rely heavily on that initially.

Mac, that's basically my point. You definitely don't have to shoot at targets, but I would bet actual money that someone working on form and basic skills first would very easily outshoot someone who only ever shoots stumps, given all variables are accounted for. Again, doesn't mean you can't do it, but it will most likely be more beneficial to rely on shooting at something measurable to gauge progress. Didn't mean to straw-man you, but I am starting to develop a pet-peeve for "trad" archers who slam paper shooting rather unreasonably, as if it holds no value to what they're doing. Not saying you do this, but I'm noticing it more and more and recently witnessed a conversation full of logical fallacies related to it. I originally got into archery for hunting and roving, which is what I will be doing all I possibly can this fall, but I see the value in the other forms. The kind of stuff that passes for "good form" in some circles is often rather curious.


Rattus: Great advice, I'll keep that in mind, thanks!


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

Since this has sorta developed into another "two opposing camps" discussion, or could easily descend into that state, I should clarify something from my earlier post encouraging the OP to continue stumping should he so desire, and explaining my reasoning for my opinion.

That post certainly isn't meant to imply or infer that he should abandon more regimented target archery/form practice, in favor of stumping.

Each has its place for a bowhunter; neither, in my opinion, replaces the other. I failed to say that earlier; I apologize for the omission.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Well said Dave. Couldn't agree more, Bytseback I think you've got a great balance of practice and fun which is exactly what I'm aiming for.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

CFGuy said:


> MGF: Definitely appreciate such a scenario. It really goes back to skills coaching. You start with basic, static training, which is integrating basic movements and practicing them over and over in order to to turn them into a subconscious movement pattern (this actually transfers to a different part of the brain). Hence the reason you start riding a bike with training wheels, until you learn to balance. Or, perhaps more relevantly, practicing hockey - first while, you take 100 shots at a net, practice stick handling, etc. Similarly with archery, learning basic form, then shooting at different yardages, etc.
> Phase two, after those patterns are developed (i.e. good form starts to happen), chaos training comes into play - mixing all those aspects that will eventually come up. I.e. in hockey, instead of taking 100 shots at a net, practice stick handling around a bunch of cones and skating by the net and shooting. Essentially incorporating the movement and skills into a reactive, situationally adaptive pool. Again in archery, this is where roving and 3D would likely be most beneficial, incorporating those skills of shooting well, shooting at different ranges, and estimating yardage. Essentially mimicking what would happen during hunting.
> The problem with this, is that if you start incorporating chaos training before basic skills are down, it becomes very difficult to progress because it's harder to know what you're doing wrong. This isn't to say it can't be done, but if you're genuinely looking to get measurably better, it's not the best choice to rely heavily on that initially.
> 
> ...


_Mac, that's basically my point. You definitely don't have to shoot at targets, but I would bet actual money that someone working on form and basic skills first would very easily outshoot someone who only ever shoots stumps, given all variables are accounted for.Again, doesn't mean you can't do it, but it will most likely be more beneficial to rely on shooting at something measurable to gauge progress._

What relevance does this have to do with anything I stated to the OP...???????? The OP is talking about stump/brush shooting here.Not learning how to shoot.

_but it will most likely be more beneficial to rely on shooting at something measurable to gauge progress_

What...are you saying a person can not gauge wither they actually hit their mark or not...unless it is at a paper target...BULL...That notion that a person can not learn to hit their mark at various unknown distances with out being at a paper target is Bull...The whole aspect of truly instinctive archery in this setting is totally different.Any carry over of formal target training _can be_...detrimental...and if you want to discuss this aspect I will gladly state my reasons for it.Now...if you are the type of shooter who relies on this type of training because that is how you first learned...that is totally different...but you have to remember what I am talking about is a totally different aspect to how a person goes about shooting...1 that learned starting out and is used to having to stand a certain way...a certain distance..to hold the bow a certain way...to release the arrow a certain way..as opposed to one who has learned to shoot their bow in multiple ways from multiple angles and at any distances...and at multiple types of targets.Who is going to most proficient in a stump shooting setting as opposed to say shooting a 300 round...This isn't rocket science here...lol.

We aren't talking about any type of formal competition here...In this setting...we are only talking about a person competing with himself while stump or brush shooting...This is a totally different learning scenario here...and up to the individual if they can learn in this type of situation...Competing against someone else for pure accuracy is another matter completely....why...*because it is a completely different discipline to be proficient at it*..as the majority of folks know...but...as I said before...it is not the only way to learn to shoot a bow and be proficient at it in certain settings....and to say one way is better or a person will do better by doing one way over another in all aspects of this sport is total rubbish.The individual themselves are the deciding factor here...not what a bunch of folks thinks...The individual must decide how accurate they want or need to be and then take the best path for them..just as they must decide on what type of shooting they want to learn..and how they will use their bow in that setting.

We can make this sport as technical or as simple as a individual needs it to be...but again...the individual is the deciding factor...and what works well for one...may not work well or even best for another. My pet peeve is the majority of target archers I know make things way too technical for many people just starting out.Not everyone chooses to compete in formal settings...Not everyone has a desire to walk up on a podium for a trophy or belt buckle..Most target archers do have...and to them anyone else who doesn't compete or shoot for score is "just flinging arrows" and aren't any good at what they are doing...That is total rubbish...and what is wrong with this place.Don't get me wrong...there is nothing wrong with competition...it's just the mind set of many folks who live for it that I disagree with...There is more to instinctive archery than competition.How much effort a person chooses to exhort to learning the different aspects of this sport is paramount.That takes time and thousands of arrows...regardless of what type of shooting they elect to do.

Mac


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

> What relevance does this have to do with anything I stated to the OP...???????? The OP is talking about stump/brush shooting here.Not learning how to shoot.


Because of this:
"_I'll wager that the fun will go further in improving your shooting abilities. ..than all of the target shooting you will do. ..provided it remains informal. 
......
To me. ..and just to me. ..there's 2 types of archers these days. ..those who think that the scores are the most important. ..and the only way one can judge a person's skill set and then the other side. ..who knows otherwise. _"
Nope, not saying that if a person isn't shooting at paper they can't gauge it. I'm saying that if they want to gauge their progress over time they'd be better suited to objective evaluation which very few people are capable of honestly doing while stumping, myself included.

I don't really want to go through everything I typed before as I'd really just be re-explaining why I think the way I do, it's really just simply neuroscience but: sure, it's not the only way. But again, from the little time I've spent in the archery world, I've seen far more excuses for crappy shooting coming from guys who have a phobia of paper than from paper shooters shooting 3D. Again, the guys that shoot paper seem to do real well on 3D or at hunting, but not always vice-versa.

All I really saw here was this: 1. New shooter comes to board, asks about stump shooting. 2. Gets recommended to work on form and make adjustments. 3. Actually listens to advice. 4. Shooter works on form and grouping accurately. 5. Stumping is dramatically improved, shooter is happy. So you're going to say that this is incorrect, and that he should go back to only stumping?


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Mac- I think you are misreading what CF is saying. He isn't saying those who don't shoot target will never be proficient. I believe he is simply saying for the majority, shooting target will help beginners be more proficient at shooting stump, 3d, or game. This certainly isn't a rule for everyone, and I don't believe that any one type of learning holds all the answers. To me, shooting in many different situations and scenarios will not only be more beneficial to abiding by one specific regimen, it also keeps one from getting bored, and therefore maximizing the amount of fun that goes into my shooting. Again, this is how it is for me, and certainly this will not apply to everyone else. Was I able to shoot stump before shooting target? Yes. Am I shooting stump better now after working on targets? Yes. I'll also add that there are probably plenty of accomplished archers who learned without ever resorting to the target. I just think its important to explore all avenues to gain the most benefits. This discussion seems to have turned into defending one type of shooting against another, and it shouldn't be that way. No specific type of shooting needs defending because they all offer something beneficial, and most importantly, they are all enjoyable, and that is what archery is about


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Well said! I essentially followed the same path as you, starting out with messing around and stumping, paying attention to form and "seeing the light" (i.e. getting some instruction and target shooting), and now I shoot much better.
My point is, I don't understand extremes or the phobia of paper. Very little logic behind it really, as far as I can tell anyway, except if someone simply says "I don't want to" and is content with just messing around. Just because it works for some doesn't mean there's a more effective way, depending on what you're after - again, if you're truly content with shooting at stumps and your goals are different than simply getting better, it doesn't really matter. I really do think that saying target shooting has no value to other applications because of unmarked distances, different sizes, etc is fallacious.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

CFGuy said:


> Because of this:
> "_I'll wager that the fun will go further in improving your shooting abilities. ..than all of the target shooting you will do. ..provided it remains informal.
> ......
> To me. ..and just to me. ..there's 2 types of archers these days. ..those who think that the scores are the most important. ..and the only way one can judge a person's skill set and then the other side. ..who knows otherwise. _"
> ...


No...never said that..nor implied it in that context.

Just because your incapable of evaluating your progress while stump shooting...doesn't mean the majority of folks are the same.

There is nothing I have said that indicates any phobia of any kind...merely a preference of 1 type of shooting over another..A individuals talent can be judged in many different ways...but the primary judgment comes from the individual themselves..and if they are happy with their shooting..Gauging their ability over time is simply a matter of making mental notes or written down...Like I said...this doesn't have to be made difficult...unless that is your preference.

While you have only spent a short amount of time in this sport...I can assure you I have spent many years in it...more than many on this forum..less than some of the real old timers as well...and I assure you I have seen all kinds of shooters too. Everyone is different..I know this...How one goes about learning is directly up to the frame of mind of the individual taking up this sport...The fact remains that OP was improving while stump shooting...was he not ? Do you not think he is capable of continuing to become more accurate without formal target shooting for score? By your own admission you are of the opinion this is so...and no...you don't need to repost all you have written...I am fully capable of understanding your opinion and thoughts on this...lol

How one starts off in this sport determines many things..but I know this for a fact...without a complete understanding of what that individuals bow can do under all circumstances is learned from the get go..then that archer will never fully comprehend *all aspects* of shooting that particular bow,under all situations of shooting afield...and this is something that can not be solely learned for shooting for score..as many suggest here.

Transitioning from 1 aspect of this sport to another is irrelevant..this is about stump/brush shooting and my personal opinion that was given..and the fact that you have taken some umbrage of it. The OP asked why since he became better in a short time just stump shooting vs some type of formal shooting...remember..to me...this is a individual who does better quicker in a informal setting...vs a formal type..



> Hey guys, just got back from another sagebrush shoot (our version of stump shooting because we have no stumps soft enough to shoot) and I am curious about something. This was my 4th sage shoot session, and each time I go out, I get better and better. I am able to consistently hit the sagebrush where I want to from 5-25 yards, and am always on target horizontally, though sometimes I shoot a little low. Now when I shoot a paper target, or a bag target, I am only accurate out to about 5-10 yards, though I am slowly improving with the bridge method. I guess my question is why am I shooting more accurately at a larger distance when I'm shooting at sage, vs when I'm shooting at a bag or paper target? When I go sage shooting my main focus is just to have a good time and get a nice hike in, where as when I shoot target, I'm all about focusing on my form, so I would think it would be the other way around.


The simple answer is because it is a informal setting and he may do better with 1 way of learning as opposed to another...regardless what anyone thinks.Please Please don't miss understand...I am not saying he can't learn additional ways or become better learning different ways...but...by what he posted it is clearly evident what worked better for him...in that situation and as such why I posted what I did..

Many here would encourage him to solely stay on the bag and improve in that manner...for this type of shooting I don't...I encourage him or anyone who chooses to shoot in this manner and already knows how to shoot a bow to go out and shoot at different objects,at various angles,under as many of different conditions and to place the majority of practice shooting thusly...this is where they will improve the most because they can see immediately how they are shooting and take any corrective action they need to to continue improving,just as I would encourage anyone who chooses to shoot for score to shoot in the best manner to improve their chances of doing the best..To me...these are 2 totally different aspects to the sport...not the same..and as such require 2 totally different approaches to success.

Mac


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

grantmac said:


> You got that backwards. You can THINK you are accurate when you are out stumping. But you will KNOW if you are shooting at a target.
> 
> Subjective vs. objective analysis. Subjective will always be subject to your own perception.
> 
> -Grant



Not to be contrarian, because scores definitely don't lie, but they also only tell a limited picture. A fixed distance target score will tell you how well you can make a repetitive shot. That is useful information. However, as you move across the other side of the spectrum, a wider range of skills are required, most of them involving either judging the shot required, or setting up the shot from a relatively awkward shooting position/environment. When it comes to most most 3D shoots, including marked 3D shoots, in my opinion, assuming reasonable shooting skill, the greatest determining factor in scores is elevation adjustment, be it determined by 'instinctive' methods or other more explicit processes. After that, a significant factor is knowing where on the target you actually want to land your arrow. I've had time when my arrow went exactly where I wanted it, but it was outside of the 'kill' either because I didn't know my anatomy, or somebody drawing the kill ring didn't know theirs.

Regardless, when it comes to shooting for fun or shooting for groups, or shooting for score, I don't think that they are mutually exclusive. It can all be fun, if we let it. The wider the range of experience, in my opinion, the better. That being said, I think we should each do what we enjoy. If it's a matter of a metric, well, scoring is probably the most effective method for that, but you have to keep in mind what that score actually reflects, and why we're even looking at it. It can be useful, but it can also be misleading.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Bytesback said:


> Mac- I think you are misreading what CF is saying. He isn't saying those who don't shoot target will never be proficient. I believe he is simply saying for the majority, shooting target will help beginners be more proficient at shooting stump, 3d, or game. This certainly isn't a rule for everyone, and I don't believe that any one type of learning holds all the answers. To me, shooting in many different situations and scenarios will not only be more beneficial to abiding by one specific regimen, it also keeps one from getting bored, and therefore maximizing the amount of fun that goes into my shooting. Again, this is how it is for me, and certainly this will not apply to everyone else. Was I able to shoot stump before shooting target? Yes. Am I shooting stump better now after working on targets? Yes. I'll also add that there are probably plenty of accomplished archers who learned without ever resorting to the target. I just think its important to explore all avenues to gain the most benefits. This discussion seems to have turned into defending one type of shooting against another, and it shouldn't be that way. No specific type of shooting needs defending because they all offer something beneficial, and most importantly, they are all enjoyable, and that is what archery is about


I know...

Becoming better for beginners requires learning how to shoot..I'm sorry I didn't understand that you were a beginner :wink:

This isn't about defending 1 approach over another..it is about finding out what best for you.Judging from your OP is what I based this on..nothing more...nothing less..but was immediately attacked for my opinion..thus showing the 2 sides was relatively easy if you knew what you were looking at.

Continue to explore all approaches..and don't ever be shoehorned into only 1 way of looking at shooting..It will do more for your shooting than not.

Regarding your windage issue in your op...the reason your having it is quite simple...you are allowing your focus to shift to see the whole and not the point of impact..or your not allowing for actual wind drift.You don't need to have a bull's eye to correct this issue..but perhaps just a smaller target..or something in the whole that you can discern a difference somehow be it a horizontal/vertical line or some color variation...something that you can completely focus on. If actual wind drift..then you must take that into account as well..and prepare for it on the draw.

Good Luck

Mac


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I find it funny how those who have done both say they is value mostly in target shooting. Those who have avoided target shooting say there isn't much value in it.

I'll take the opinions which are informed.

-Grant


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

> No...never said that..nor implied it in that context.
> 
> Just because your incapable of evaluating your progress while stump shooting...doesn't mean the majority of folks are the same.


Sorry but if you're going to deny what you've typed out on a forum, unless I'm really misunderstanding something, and making that rather conclusive assumption, I don't think I have anything else to add. Happy shooting.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

MAC 11700 said:


> I know...
> 
> Becoming better for beginners requires learning how to shoot..I'm sorry I didn't understand that you were a beginner :wink:
> 
> ...


The great thing about this site is there is such an abundance of skilled shooters, there is always going to be more than a few opinions. My game plan is to continue to explore all aspects of shooting in an effort to gain experience in all areas, and to ensure I keep having fun. I really think you've nailed it with me focusing on the sage/stumps as a whole, and not focusing on where I want the arrow to make contact. I know I don't need a bullseye for this, but in my case learning to focus on a specific area was easier when that specific area was a bright red circle that stood out from the rest of the target. After working my bag target for a month, I am now able to go back and focus on where I want that arrow to hit on the sage/stump/stick/pinecone, etc. Accounting for wind drift is still something I need to learn, haven't really shot in the wind enough to learn how to incorporate it into the shot. I also want to point out that I appreciate your viewpoint. You and CF might not agree on some issues, but the fact that your both posting on here means you both wanted to help me, and I appreciate it no matter the viewpoint.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

BarneySlayer said:


> Not to be contrarian, because scores definitely don't lie, but they also only tell a limited picture. A fixed distance target score will tell you how well you can make a repetitive shot. That is useful information. However, as you move across the other side of the spectrum, a wider range of skills are required, most of them involving either judging the shot required, or setting up the shot from a relatively awkward shooting position/environment. When it comes to most most 3D shoots, including marked 3D shoots, in my opinion, assuming reasonable shooting skill, the greatest determining factor in scores is elevation adjustment, be it determined by 'instinctive' methods or other more explicit processes. After that, a significant factor is knowing where on the target you actually want to land your arrow. I've had time when my arrow went exactly where I wanted it, but it was outside of the 'kill' either because I didn't know my anatomy, or somebody drawing the kill ring didn't know theirs.
> 
> *Regardless, when it comes to shooting for fun or shooting for groups, or shooting for score, I don't think that they are mutually exclusive. It can all be fun, if we let it. The wider the range of experience, in my opinion, the better. That being said, I think we should each do what we enjoy*. If it's a matter of a metric, well, scoring is probably the most effective method for that, but you have to keep in mind what that score actually reflects, and why we're even looking at it. It can be useful, but it can also be misleading.


That is the conclusion I've come too. Everyone should shoot that which they enjoy. I personally enjoy them all, and plan to use them all to gain the experience that will help me learn and grow as an archer.


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

There is no comparing target archery to hunting, they're two different animals. I don't even know how big the white on a 300 round target is, honestly don't care. It's absolutely of no use to me but y'all have at it, enjoy archery as you will...as I do. I shoot at 1" plastic tab nails on a backyard bale press or spots on a deer-sized feedbag full of old clothes suspended from a frame. I shoot from 5 to 45 yards and figured that if I can hit within a couple of inches of those I could hit a white spot on a blue target at 20. And BTW, I know when I miss. 

Credentials? Limited. I can tell you that for fun I shot 4 3D tournaments this season. Not a lot of big shooters in some, a good showing in others. Just local talent. Won a couple, second in another, with scores of 190/181/166 respectively on a 3 different 20 target courses. I've been shooting a little over a year...pretty much every day. 

I need to make an accurate, ethical shot on an animal from wherever I'm standing to wherever it's standing. I don't care about twenty yards, I care about every one of them from it to me out to about 25 yards...30 if the wind's right and it's totally unalarmed. I will tell you for a fact that target shooting, even 3D shooting, is apples and oranges to hunting. Even the 3D courses I've seen, while enjoyable to shoot, are bowling alleys. I don't have to be a good target shooter to be a good archer and you're not gonna make me believe that standing at a marked yardage and shooting Xs makes you a better shot in the rest of the world. 

Add a bunch of trees, some briars, and maybe a snake or two, to something that knows you're trying to put an arrow through it and then YOU think about squaring both shoulders to target, feet shoulder width, checking your grip, finger positioning on the string, and drawing in a J motion to get good back tension, etc., etc.. At about step 2 you'll watch a large white flag exiting at Mach 1. I work on form constantly and employ it to the best of my ability on the range whenever practical but I vary that form tremendously when hunting.....and I have to know how that will affect my shot. 

Becoming proficient with the stick and string is tough enough...hunting is a tad more than that.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I just don't see where the argument is. I think it's all useful....the target range is a great way to minimize variables and work on your shot. The woods is where we hunt so it seems to make some sense to spend time shooting there.

And I still shoot a lot better on the range than I do from that nasty tree stand. LOL the range work is proving of limited value on this one. I'm going to have to work it out in the tree.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

CFGuy said:


> Sorry but if you're going to deny what you've typed out on a forum, unless I'm really misunderstanding something, and making that rather conclusive assumption, I don't think I have anything else to add. Happy shooting.


I do believe that you have missed something here and that is unfortunate

Mac


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

grantmac said:


> I find it funny how those who have done both say they is value mostly in target shooting. Those who have avoided target shooting say there isn't much value in it.
> 
> I'll take the opinions which are informed.
> 
> ...


I don't know about folks not putting value in target shooting. ..it has its time and place,

Mac


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

The point of shooting stumps is to see if you can hit them. The point of shooting a target is to see if you can hit it. Seems the only difference is in counting how many times you do hit your mark. Some care to know, some don't. Still, though, somehow i think the mental math of hits v. misses is inevitable whether you write it down or not.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Long Rifle said:


> There is no comparing target archery to hunting, they're two different animals. I don't even know how big the white on a 300 round target is, honestly don't care. It's absolutely of no use to me but y'all have at it, enjoy archery as you will...as I do. I shoot at 1" plastic tab nails on a backyard bale press or spots on a deer-sized feedbag full of old clothes suspended from a frame. I shoot from 5 to 45 yards and figured that if I can hit within a couple of inches of those I could hit a white spot on a blue target at 20. And BTW, I know when I miss.
> 
> Credentials? Limited. I can tell you that for fun I shot 4 3D tournaments this season. Not a lot of big shooters in some, a good showing in others. Just local talent. Won a couple, second in another, with scores of 190/181/166 respectively on a 3 different 20 target courses. I've been shooting a little over a year...pretty much every day.
> 
> ...


Long Rifle, I have hunted all over the world, been an outfitter for many years, and have killed a passel of big game animals with stick and string.

I have also ran a huge archery club for nearly 2 decades, and competed nationally in archery tournaments.

I mention these things so you know that hunting with a bow is my main reason for owning a bow, actually several bows, but I like to shoot 3-d`s, spots, etc. when not hunting.

In all of my travels, both in hunting camps and tournaments across this country and beyond, it is crystal clear to me that archers who shoot at targets are head and shoulders better shooters than archers who stump shoot only……its not even close.

Also, bow hunters do face challenges that target archers do not for sure. Getting wary critters in range is much more often a result of skill rather than luck.

One thing bow hunters do NOT have to do beyond target shooters is thread arrows through brush, limbs, etc. A hunter either has an open shot or he/she does not.

Having an animal in range does not mean we must launch an arrow. Mistakes happen without forcing a bad situation.

Stump shooting/roving is a ton of fun, I do it fairly regularly. It is never going to match punching paper where every single shot shows you whether some part of your routine, form, release, etc. is wrong or not.

If I had a nickel for every client that told me they were better shooting at fur than at paper I could buy us both a steak dinner, and more often than not, those were the guys that had me following a 400 yard blood trail.

BTW, learning to shot from awkward positions sometimes required while hunting are a whole lot easier to master AFTER one has learned the right way to shoot consistently.

Nothing ingrains the right way to consistently shoot a bow than quality repetition with a measurable result.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

MGF said:


> I just don't see where the argument is. I think it's all useful....the target range is a great way to minimize variables and work on your shot. The woods is where we hunt so it seems to make some sense to spend time shooting there.
> 
> And I still shoot a lot better on the range than I do from that nasty tree stand. LOL the range work is proving of limited value on this one. I'm going to have to work it out in the tree.


That's the viewpoint I have. It is ALL useful and beneficial, and its all enjoyable. Shoot what you enjoy, and if you don't want to limit yourself to one type of shooting, why should you?


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

I can see where I was misunderstood on my first post.

When I said the op would gsin more from stump shooting than all of the target shooting....I also ened that with. .."as long as it remains informal"...

I do think this is where the confusion comes from. 

Keeping in the same train of thought. ..I was trying to covey to the op fun vs some actual training for some type of competition. ..as what many folks here do. Which is why I said this.

Learning how to shoot a bow....from the start of a person's life. ..is much different than a person who already knows how to shoot taking up stump shooting. 

The basics must be mastered regardless how or where or on what type of target. 

Keeping the learning process informal for people who are already stressed out about shooting is not going to add more stress. It will be easier to learn and master a new skill. 

I take for granted a lot of things. .and know what works for me. .which is why I said"to me and only to me".......How Illearned and do things with my bow certainly is not the easiest way to go about shooting. ..nor is it the only or best way. ...

I shoot every day. .sometimes it may be just a few arrows. ..other days it may be 100 arrows...but I am shooting never the less to stay sharp...When I hunt. .I am not worried about my ability with my bow. .because to me hunting is serious......and not a time for practice. My practice is for killing game. ..not for score. If I were to be a target shooter in a formal setting. ..then my practice would be for winning competitions...not killing game. I was brought up to never consider killing game as a type of competition....ever. This is why I have always said that there was 2 different disciplines. ..

My reality here is this. ..target shooting is not hunting. ..A person can target shoot to learn how to shoot. ..but if they want to be a hunter. ..they must learn a new skill set. ..to become a hunter. Stump shooting is a preferred method of practice for me to hone my skills as a hunter. It puts me in a hunting setting. ..not a target shooting setting. 

I apologize if I offended anyone with my posts....

Mac


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

Mac, I'm glad you posted to clarify your original; I never took your original to mean "stump, and only stump; never, ever target"... but I've been wrong before, and was seriously starting to wonder what I'd missed!

:smile:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Would a competitive NFAA 300 round target archer benefit from stump shooting?

If so...how and by how much?

What training routine would be more beneficial for that type of archer?

Ray :shade:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Would a competitive NFAA 300 round target archer benefit from stump shooting?
> 
> If so...how and by how much?
> 
> ...


Ray, I know that you're pointing out that everybody's goals are different, but, even with that understood, I would say, yes, they would, in that they would be trying something different, perhaps gain some perspective, one way or another, even if that knowledge was that stump shooting was something they had no interest in.

But, yes, to the point you're making, you're right. It would not be an effective training tool to most efficiently improve their 300 round shooting. Still, I think it would give them something additional as an archer, if only a bit of variety


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Would a competitive NFAA 300 round target archer benefit from stump shooting?
> 
> If so...how and by how much?
> 
> ...


I've never competed in a competitive 300 round target match. So I have no working knowledge of the requirements to do so. I can only give my perspective from a hunting standpoint if any type of stump shooting practice would benefit a competitive archer... so...

Personally..I don't believe it would benefit a competitive archer to do this other than the fact of him shooting his bow and keeping in shape. I am pretty sure for my self it wouldn't if I were ever to undertake such an event. From a mental aspect ( at least mine)..competitive archery is about out shooting your opponent..and in that sport..it is done either inside or outside. Shooting inside with lane restrictions..and with some type of time limit..no way resembles anything I do while outside while hunting. Shooting inside the visual/sound perceptions are completely different (to me )..and so to my way of thinking and planning would be to take this into account and so my shooting would be done in the same environment as what I was competing.. My preferred style of hunting would also give some conflicts. Since I spot & stalk mostly..and normally shoot from various body positions...while standing side by side with a competitor..may not be allowed or acceptable ( I don't know the rules about this )... 

So...in my minds eye..competing in this type of match has other physical and mental requirements as well as the various equipment requirements to take into account for any type of planning. If one was going to utilize their stump shooting as a practice of sorts for a competitive event...I feel they would be better served shooting as they would in a environment that comes as close to mimicking the events environment and in a manner that they will be shooting in as well. 

While some may say just going out and stump shooting for no other purpose but as a stress reliever of some sorts is a good thing...I completely disagree with that notion..To me..if I were going to shoot competitively in any type of event..the last thing I would do is just to shoot for no purpose..Then..I would be shooting at the whole as I already explained to the OP in his shooting..instead of for a particular spot within the stump..If I am going to shoot X's...then I will shoot X's...to keep my mental memory on those..not looking for color variations amongst a sea of greens and browns..I will look for the color variation of the X's on the background colors of the target face..

As I said...I don't compete in this type of event...so I can only explain how I would try to attempt going about practicing for one..bring what I do know as a hunter first and foremost..

Mac


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Ray, I know that you're pointing out that everybody's goals are different, but, even with that understood, I would say, yes, they would, in that they would be trying something different, perhaps gain some perspective, one way or another, even if that knowledge was that stump shooting was something they had no interest in.
> 
> But, yes, to the point you're making, you're right. It would not be an effective training tool to most efficiently improve their 300 round shooting. Still, I think it would give them something additional as an archer, if only a bit of variety


:thumbs_up :wink:

The way some people push formal target archery onto others...you'd think it was the 'only' way to legitimately practice and pursue your goals as an archer. Heaven forbid if an archer doesn't shoot a 300 round :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MAC 11700 said:


> Personally..I don't believe it would benefit a competitive archer to do this other than the fact of him shooting his bow and keeping in shape. I am pretty sure for my self it wouldn't if I were ever to undertake such an event. From a mental aspect ( at least mine)..competitive archery is about out shooting your opponent..and in that sport..it is done either inside or outside. Shooting inside with lane restrictions..and with some type of time limit..no way resembles anything I do while outside while hunting. Shooting inside the visual/sound perceptions are completely different (to me )..and so to my way of thinking and planning would be to take this into account and so my shooting would be done in the same environment as what I was competing.. My preferred style of hunting would also give some conflicts. Since I spot & stalk mostly..and normally shoot from various body positions...while standing side by side with a competitor..may not be allowed or acceptable ( I don't know the rules about this )...
> 
> So...in my minds eye..competing in this type of match has other physical and mental requirements as well as the various equipment requirements to take into account for any type of planning. If one was going to utilize their stump shooting as a practice of sorts for a competitive event...I feel they would be better served shooting as they would in a environment that comes as close to mimicking the events environment and in a manner that they will be shooting in as well.
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Wayko (Dec 22, 2011)

Me thinks you shoot what makes you happy, I started punching paper for the first time this year since the '70's, after about 4 weeks the center of my block classic target was blowed out & I've been stuffing foam sheets & duct tape to it (yes I do shoot a lot in the summer). For me I'am finding value in paper punching, would I have done so last year, who knows? After reading all the 300 round stuff I just figured I give it a try again after all these years, I tried to keep a open mind about it, for me this is want I've found:

I have found for me there is value in doing both, targets & stumping.

As a hunter for many years, punching paper does not replace roving/stump shooting, but for me it sure enhances it. My stump shooting has never been about just hitting the stump, it's about hitting my spot on the stump, at unknown yardage & though branches (ya better know the arch of arrow out of the bow your using in the area's I go stumpen).
Now as for this paper punching stuff. I see it as a very fast way to compare things, you know what may need alittle more work here or there, bow, arrows, etc. Because of the way I hunt, I practice shooting seated, kneeling, standing, leaning, etc. & I also practice my form of snap shooting, (but it's more what I would call dynamic shooting, I guess, touch the same spot were I anchor but no stopping during the draw, with a same release point), holding at anchor for a count of 2 to 8, & everywhere in between, just about every type of shot I feel I need for where & how I hunt. I feel for me, I'am getting great value from punching paper added to what I normally do. After all these years I know where I need to be at certain points during the summer to be ready for the fall, I feel & my own personal test show me that punching paper this years has me ahead of where I need to be at this time of the year, so this means I have more time for stumping (fun)& less time at the blank bale (boring).
But I feel if your not ready to punch paper with a open mind, then I think it would be some what of a waste of time for that person. I have added the 300 rounds at 20 to 30 yards, to my normal shooting & for me I'am very glad I did, but everyone needs to follow there own path.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

MAC 11700 said:


> I can see where I was misunderstood on my first post.
> 
> When I said the op would gsin more from stump shooting than all of the target shooting....I also ened that with. .."as long as it remains informal"...
> 
> ...


I think you did an excellent job clearing up any misunderstandings here and you also raised a good point.

When an beginner is just starting out, it can be very intimidating and very overwhelming. The day I got my bow, I was excited, really really really excited and I spent the next few days flinging arrows and having a blast regardless of where they landed. After the initial excitement wore down, it became time to learn how to actually put that arrow where I wanted it to land, and for a beginner that is where the stress of learning can kill any enthusiasm for learning the sport. I was very lucky to have a friend who had shot traditional for years offer me help. I had been shooting for a few weeks and getting more and more impatient with myself as I just could not seem to make the arrows go where I wanted them too. I had watched a hundred videos and read a hundred posts on learning, and while I felt like I was doing everything right, it just wasn't coming together.

Then came the day to go stump shooting with my friend. We drove out into the hills, got set up, and picked out our first target. He shot first and I did my best to focus on everything he did to find what I was not doing. When it came my time to shoot, as soon as I drew back he called me to a halt. He could tell how tense I was the moment I drew. He told me to take a breath, lighten up, and remember this is for fun and not for any type of competition. I shot better that session than I had at any point up until then and it was all because someone told me to relax. I've come a long way since that session, but I've tried never to forget that its all about having fun, and I should always be relaxed and enjoying myself, otherwise whats the point?


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Wayko said:


> Me thinks you shoot what makes you happy, I started punching paper for the first time this year since the '70's, after about 4 weeks the center of my block classic target was blowed out & I've been stuffing foam sheets & duct tape to it (yes I do shoot a lot in the summer). For me I'am finding value in paper punching, would I have done so last year, who knows? After reading all the 300 round stuff I just figured I give it a try again after all these years, I tried to keep a open mind about it, for me this is want I've found:
> 
> I have found for me there is value in doing both, targets & stumping.
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up Well Said


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

When I meet or hear of an accomplished target shooter saying that his form work hasn't paid off in hunting, I'll believe that target shooting has no application to hunting - something that has come up frequently is what I like to call "the fallacy of specificity", namely the notion that when, at first glance, one type of practice/training doesn't resemble the desired activity, it is deemed irrelevant or unhelpful, and beginners approach their sport with an idea that they will be entirely different and the absolute exception to basic principles. I have yet to see anyone push someone into competitive target shooting, or saying that stumping/3D has no value - the extreme seems to fall with the trad/bowhunter's angle more often than not unfortunately (keep in mind I myself fall into that side of things). Don't do it if you don't want to, it's a tool like any other (albeit a very useful one at that).

Kinda funny, had my first 3D shoot about two weeks ago which was an absolute blast, wasn't thinking about scoring or really shooting well at all, simply having fun, not losing arrows and hitting targets, in that order. Grant shot with me and won in the recurve division by +/- a hundred points (IIRC), and was actually berated by some later on for stringwalking when a) it is legal to do so, and b) other people could have done the same thing, not to mention using it as a crutch for why he did much better than them. Not that he was bragging about it in any way - the competition was local, casual and fun - but some just make too many excuses; there would be more peace in this sport if people were open minded (depending on what they want to do/accompish) and if everyone just shot without excuses. Not directed at anyone in particular but just towards the unfortunate attitude that occurs at times.

Mac, thanks for the clarification. However I think "target shooting" and "competitive target shooting" may be getting confused here in terms of what's useful and what's not. I shoot 300 rounds to gauge progress and shoot at a bag target at home, but I haven't competed in anything serious before.

Well said Wayko. And happy all is going well Bytesback!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

EVERY archer needs to shoot at a target/targets if they want to improve...BUT...it does NOT have to be an NFAA 300 round or any other 'formal' type of target and/or circumstance.

Ray :shade:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I have yet to see an instance where someone said it has to be something. The most extreme has been that standardizing would be easiest, and shooting a 300 round would be the easiest to standardize.


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> EVERY archer needs to shoot at a target/targets if they want to improve...BUT...it does NOT have to be an NFAA 300 round or any other 'formal' type of target and/or circumstance.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Thank you, I absolutely agree. I never said that I don't shoot targets, I said that I don't shoot a big white circle. From what I understand(as I said, I've never shot at a formal 300 round target) the 10 ring is approximately 3" in diameter, correct? If my targets are one third that size and I shoot them from ranges of 5 to 45 yards and do well with them, what need do I have for a paper target and why would I base my results off of a larger target if I'm striving for the most accuracy? Aim small, miss small ring a bell? That being said, I'd have to believe that once I've found the gap and my point of aim for twenty yards all I'd have to do is put point on to the same spot every time and with good form expect to hit the ten ring or very close. Also correct?

I know when I'm working on gaps for different bow/shaft combinations I smack arrows to the point where I wince almost every shot. Do any of you honestly believe that a white circle on a piece of paper is that much more of an indication of correct form and/or skill?

Edit: I apologize CFGuy, we were apparently replying at the same time. But since you brought it up I'd like to remind you that "300 round" and "credentials" have very much been your mantra for the past few weeks. I obviously disagree with a forum member having to "pass muster" before asking a question, I believe it inhibits learning, so I won't be asking this forum for any more help. I do appreciate the assistance I've gotten to date........


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Long Rifle said:


> Thank you, I absolutely agree. I never said that I don't shoot targets, I said that I don't shoot a big white circle! From what I understand(as I said, I've never shot at a formal 300 round target) the 10 ring is approximately 3" in diameter, correct? If my targets are one third that size and I shoot them from ranges of 5 to 45 yards and do well with them, what need do I have for a paper target and why would I base my results off of a larger target if I'm striving for the most accuracy? Aim small, miss small ring a bell? That being said, I'd have to believe that once I've found the gap and my point of aim for twenty yards all I'd have to do is put point on to the same spot every time and with good form expect to hit the ten ring or very close. Also correct?
> 
> I know when I'm working on gaps for different bow/shaft combinations I smack arrows to the point where I wince almost every shot. Do any of you honestly believe that a white circle on a piece of paper is that much more of an indication of correct form and/or skill?


Try it and get back to us. I think you'd be surprised.


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

My two cents is I enjoy both. Instead of stumping I take out either my home made roving bag or a target ball I have. I actually prefer my home made one. Toss it out on the ground or prop it up in a tree. I also shoot a more formal 300 practice round at home which I score. I have even made modifications to that on occasion. I will walk out to different distances at different angles and shoot as well. Just last week someone here had posted about shooting 1st arrow at 10yds and moving back 5yds for each of the remaining 4 arrows. I found that to be a fun alternative. This summer I also joined a fun league that will be shooting a combination of 3d and paper targets.
I do not deer hunt but enjoy small game hunting in the fall, especially grouse. So I think this year I will be giving the bow a try as well. 
I believe the different kinds of shooting I do help me become a better archer. Am I going to tell someone they need to shoot the same way, no. I figure each to his own. They know what there own goals and objectives are and I know mine.


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

grantmac said:


> Try it and get back to us. I think you'd be surprised.


Sir, out of respect for your accomplishments I will do just that. But I don't expect a lot of surprises, I do it every day, just using a smaller target.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Long Rifle said:


> I apologize CFGuy, we were apparently replying at the same time. But since you brought it up I'd like to remind you that "300 round" and "credentials" have very much been your mantra for the past few weeks. I obviously disagree with a forum member having to "pass muster" before asking a question, I believe it inhibits learning, so I won't be asking this forum for any more help. I do appreciate the assistance I've gotten to date........


Actually if you follow what I say I'm often somewhat "anti-credential", in that I don't care about your piece of paper, I care about what you know and what you do with that.

I disagree with that too, and credentials weren't my idea, not sure where you got that from? If it's referring to Viper's thread, it was simply a matter of making known who you are and what you do/where you've been in the archery world, so that new guys don't take opinions as verbatim from inexperienced individuals. I agree with making that more known but nothing about 300 rounds being mandatory or "clearing" credentials by any means. I most often pay close attention to what you say in fact, if that's any sort of testament to how I want to learn.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Long Rifle said:


> Sir, out of respect for your accomplishments I will do just that. But I don't expect a lot of surprises, I do it every day, just using a smaller target.


Just remember:
You only get 2 ends of warm up.
After 30 arrows you must change the height of the target (top to bottom of bale or vice versa) usually either shoulder and waist height as a reference, then shoot the next 30.
The is no "resight" once you change the target height.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Oh and Big Country, thanks for the info, missed your post earlier.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Long Rifle said:


> Sir, out of respect for your accomplishments I will do just that. But I don't expect a lot of surprises, I do it every day, just using a smaller target.


Rifle, if you're using a typical hunting rig like most trad guys use, I'd bet anything you could not break 240 the first time you shoot a regulation 300 round. In fact I'd be impressed if you topped 200 the first time. I don't care how small the targets are you currently shoot. Once you see every shot you make get recorded for score, you'll understand how selective your memory is of making those good hits on your small targets at home. We tend to recall only the good hits while roving and none of the bad. It's human nature.

The 300 round does not let you forget the bad shots. Go try a 300. You can come back and tell us you shot a 277 if you like. But all of us who are familiar with this event will giggle to ourselves and understand the truth.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

I can't break 240 with my hunting rig, don't have the stamina.

But that bow sure "feels" accurate when I'm just messing around with it.

-Grant


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Just remember:
> You only get 2 ends of warm up.
> After 30 arrows you must change the height of the target (top to bottom of bale or vice versa) usually either shoulder and waist height as a reference, then shoot the next 30.
> The is no "resight" once you change the target height.


The hard part is stopping the wind from blowing and getting the temperature just right if you're shooting outside. LOL

I did most of my 300 round type shooting a few months back when it was cold and windy. I didn't change the target height because it was frozen to the ground. LOL


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

grantmac said:


> I can't break 240 with my hunting rig, don't have the stamina.
> 
> But that bow sure "feels" accurate when I'm just messing around with it.
> 
> -Grant


I don't know how heavy your hunting rig is but my hunting bows are all I have and I can break 240. I don't change target height and I never timed it but I also do it out in the weather. The 4 ring is pretty big. If the best I could do was hit the 4 ring at 20 yards, I'm not sure I would hunt.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Oh, I would have trouble breaking 240 at 5 yards from my tree stand/tri-pod, especially, wearing heavy clothing. The tree stand is really giving me fits!


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

BLACK WOLF said:


> EVERY archer needs to shoot at a target/targets if they want to improve...BUT...it does NOT have to be an NFAA 300 round or any other 'formal' type of target and/or circumstance.
> 
> Ray :shade:


I agree here. I do think that depending on the person, and their goals, shooting certain types of targets may or may not be more beneficial than others, but they all do have benefits.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Arron said:


> My two cents is I enjoy both. Instead of stumping I take out either my home made roving bag or a target ball I have. I actually prefer my home made one. Toss it out on the ground or prop it up in a tree. I also shoot a more formal 300 practice round at home which I score. I have even made modifications to that on occasion. I will walk out to different distances at different angles and shoot as well. Just last week someone here had posted about shooting 1st arrow at 10yds and moving back 5yds for each of the remaining 4 arrows. I found that to be a fun alternative. This summer I also joined a fun league that will be shooting a combination of 3d and paper targets.
> I do not deer hunt but enjoy small game hunting in the fall, especially grouse. So I think this year I will be giving the bow a try as well.
> I believe the different kinds of shooting I do help me become a better archer. Am I going to tell someone they need to shoot the same way, no. I figure each to his own. They know what there own goals and objectives are and I know mine.


Hey Aaron- If you don't mind, would you PM me with how you made your homemade roving ball/bag? I'm made a few DIY target bags, but all are fairly big and really heavy. I'd like something to rove with. At the moment i'm using a 16oz milk jug that i painted and filled with plastic bags. Wouldn't mind something that I could toss up in trees, and that would be a little more durable.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

A while back I discovered a disadvantage to shooting the same target too much. When I was shooting a block target, I go conditioned to hit the center of the block. If I gave myself some other aiming point, I still tended to shoot the center of the block. That didn't work out too bad when I hung a 40 cm target face on the block.

From here on out to hunting season, I'll be making it a point to shoot targets of different sizes and shapes that are set in different surroundings.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

MGF: Had a similar thing happen to me at my first 3D shoot, except it was related to distance/sight picture (hard to aim higher on the longer shots). Worked itself out though and I did better than I originally hoped so it was fun.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Boy I can't believe I read almost every post. This is my take Bite's you say you hit the sage stumps better than your big bag target. Then when you shoot at pinecones you hit them well it is easier to get close to a small target than a big one. When we refine our aiming on a small target we seem to get a little more accurate. You put a big target up and shoot a group then take the target down put a small cap or paper and shoot a group. I'll bet the small target will have a tighter group. The same as a small sage.

That being said I'll put my money on a field / 3d /hunter shooter up against a stump shooter / hunter for accuracy anywhere anytime any shot. 
Gary


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

2413gary said:


> Boy I can't believe I read almost every post. This is my take Bite's you say you hit the sage stumps better than your big bag target. Then when you shoot at pinecones you hit them well it is easier to get close to a small target than a big one. When we refine our aiming on a small target we seem to get a little more accurate. You put a big target up and shoot a group then take the target down put a small cap or paper and shoot a group. I'll bet the small target will have a tighter group. The same as a small sage.
> 
> That being said I'll put my money on a field / 3d /hunter shooter up against a stump shooter / hunter for accuracy anywhere anytime any shot.
> Gary


Gary- If you read all the posts, you'll see that originally i believed i was hitting sage/stumps better than my bag, but after working my bag for a month I realized the importance of shooting target, and that shooting target had improved my sage/stump shooting. I originally fell into the group of people who didnt see a need for target shooting, but after giving it a chance, i'll say that target shooting is an excellent way to improve form and overall shooting capability. I still think that every type of shooting, whether its 3d, stumping, target, or competition offers every shooter some type of benefit.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Bytseback: Great summary of where I'm currently at as well. Glad to see new guys learning with me and keeping open minds (Arron you're in there as well)!


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

BLACK WOLF said:


> :thumbs_up :wink:
> 
> The way some people push formal target archery onto others...you'd think it was the 'only' way to legitimately practice and pursue your goals as an archer. Heaven forbid if an archer doesn't shoot a 300 round :wink:
> 
> Ray :shade:


Ray, show me one archer who does not want to be the most accurate they can be………..

Some folks goal is to compete in paper tournaments, some want to excel in 3-D tournaments, others just want to be bow hunters. The way for all three groups to be the best they can be is to put in quality time punching paper. Not paper exclusively, but punching paper will get you where nothing else will. Even an instinctive aimer like yourself.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

CFGuy said:


> Bytseback: Great summary of where I'm currently at as well. Glad to see new guys learning with me and keeping open minds (Arron you're in there as well)!


:thumbs_up


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Big Country said:


> Ray, show me one archer who does not want to be the most accurate they can be………..


'Most accurate they can be' can mean different things to different archers depending on their goals and abilities.

Most archers I know dream of being able to hit any target dead center at any time under all circumstances and distances...but is that realistic?

Some archers set more realistic goals or set their bar based on their goals.

One goal/bar for most bowhunters is to be able to put all of their arrows into the kill zone of a deer at typical hunting distances under typical circumstances...which is NOT the same as a competitive target archer trying to put all of his arrows into the 5 spot on a 300 round target standing in line under ideal shooting conditions.



Big Country said:


> Some folks goal is to compete in paper tournaments, some want to excel in 3-D tournaments, others just want to be bow hunters. The way for all three groups to be the best they can be is to put in quality time punching paper. Not paper exclusively, but punching paper will get you where nothing else will.


You have your right to your opinion but I strongly disagree. It doesn't matter if the target is paper, foam or shrubbery :wink: As long as an archer is honest with themselves they can see if they are improving or not. I know I don't need to shoot at a paper target to know if I'm improving or not. I can tell by how consistently I hit my target or get close to it if I'm improving.

Based on personality...some archers need numbers to compare while others don't to recognize progress...and than you have those archers who aren't very honest with themselves or ignorant about their shooting and should be shooting a target with a scoring system to bring reality into the picture.



Big Country said:


> Even an instinctive aimer like yourself.


I'm not sure why alot of people believe or imply I'm primarily or only an Instinctive shooter. I only aim Instinctively when the shot calls for it...otherwize I'm Gap aiming for most of my shots at a lower level of conscious awareness than most other Gap shooters aim. I personally like to call it Gapstinctive :wink:

I NEVER said or tried to imply that an archer could not learn something from shooting at paper.

I just said an archer does NOT need to...to fulfill their personal goals...unless it fits specifically into their goals and personality.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Ray this seems to goes back to my first post on this thread. ..

I honestly don't understand why a person"has" to shoot for score in some folks routine. ..unless they are only target shooting. ...Perhaps (just musing here)...some of them can't or don't differentiate between the two?


I guess if I had started on paper in the beginning. ..perhaps I would feel the same as them. ..going with what you are most comfortable with. 

Different strokes for different folks and all that stuff. ..


BTW Ray. ..I prefer not calling how I shoot anymore instinctively. ..I chose to call it "reflex shooting"...because in all reality for me...it is more akin to a learned reflex than any "instinct" I have.....on any given level. ..


Mac


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

I learned pretty early on in the game not to label my shooting as "instinctive". That just seems to be a big can of worms thats more trouble than its worth. I believe I've seen it labeled "intuitive" on here, and I like that. I also like your idea of "reflex". For me, I do not consciously use the riser, arrow, or any marking as a reference point when I shoot. In fact, I have to make sure that from the time I start to draw, to the time I release that the target is the only thing I look at, because if I focus on the arrow, string, riser, etc for even a split second, my shot goes to heck. When I first started shooting like this, I wasn't doing much more than hitting the target, but I believe that I've subconsciously trained/training myself to know where to hold the bow when taking the shot to accurately hit what I'm aiming for. "Instinctive" is a dangerous label to use because I've seen 3 types of people in the "instinctive" debate: Those who believe there is no such thing, Those who believe only they could possibly be shooting instinctive, and Those who believe everyone is shooting instinctive on some level. Relabeling seems the best way to avoid that issue.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Yup. ..

I'm in one of those camps. ..along with the subconscious debate as well. Had many a good argument. ..as well as some great discussion

Again. ..different strokes for different folks as the old saying goes. 

Mac


----------



## BassinBowhunter (May 6, 2011)

Ray, I'm right there with ya after reading your posts. It sure has felt lately that the standardized target archery is getting pushed a lot here lately. Does it have a purpose? Yep. Does every NEED to do it? Nope. I personally have no desire to shoot a 300 round. Part of me see it as boring. Part of the reason I shoot trad and stump shoot is just to get outside, because I go crazy being inside too long. Also, I know I am overly competitive. Once I begin assigning numbers and scores to something, another side of me shows and everything becomes about scores. So I don't shoot 300 rounds, and know that it would simply be a deja vu of sorts. Does that make me a bad archer? No. I'm not the best shot, but I still bust nocks and shaft arrows (often with bareshafts, and not by shooting 35 arrows at the same 2" dot haha) with regularity. It is kind of ironic, talk of having an open mind to target archery has been brought up... What about having an open mind in regards there being other ways to measure progress? There is never one set of rules that work for everyone and the more we try to make such things, the more exceptions to the rule surface. Lets just shoot and have fun doing it.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

MAC 11700 said:


> Yup. ..
> 
> I'm in one of those camps. ..along with the subconscious debate as well. Had many a good argument. ..as well as some great discussion
> 
> ...


Mac-Out of curiousity, which camp are you in?


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

BassinBowhunter said:


> Ray, I'm right there with ya after reading your posts. It sure has felt lately that the target archery is getting pushed a lot here lately. Does it have a purpose? Yep. Does every NEED to do it? Nope. I personally have no desire to shoot a 300 round. Part of me see it as boring. Part of the reason I shoot trad and stump shoot is just to get outside, because I go crazy being inside too long. Also, I know I am overly competitive. Once I begin assigning numbers and scores to something, another side of me shows and everything becomes about scores. So I don't shoot 300 rounds, and know that it would simply be a deja vu of sorts. Does that make me a bad archer? No. I'm not the best shot, but I still bust nocks and shaft arrows (often with bareshafts, and not by shooting 35 arrows at the same 2" dot haha) with regularity. It is kind of ironic, talk of having an open mind to target archery has been brought up... What about having an open mind in regards there being other ways to measure progress? There is never one set of rules that work for everyone and the more we try to make such things, the more exceptions to the rule surface.* Lets just shoot and have fun doing it*.


:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Stone Bridge said:


> Rifle, if you're using a typical hunting rig like most trad guys use, I'd bet anything you could not break 240 the first time you shoot a regulation 300 round. In fact I'd be impressed if you topped 200 the first time. I don't care how small the targets are you currently shoot. Once you see every shot you make get recorded for score, you'll understand how selective your memory is of making those good hits on your small targets at home. We tend to recall only the good hits while roving and none of the bad. It's human nature.
> 
> *The 300 round does not let you forget the bad shots. Go try a 300. You can come back and tell us you shot a 277 if you like. But all of us who are familiar with this event will giggle to ourselves and understand the truth.*


Was reading through all the posts again and must of missed this one. Curious what is meant by the highlighted section of your quote? Does this mean that if someone has never shot a 300 round, there is no possible way they could do well on it their first time? Even if they've shot archery for years and trained using other methods? Just wondering why it is that it would just not be possible for an accomplished archer to do well on the "300" on his/her first try? I've never shot the 300, and fully intend to once my skill level is at a place where I'm not likely to embarrass myself.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bytesback said:


> Was reading through all the posts again and must of missed this one. Curious what is meant by the highlighted section of your quote? Does this mean that if someone has never shot a 300 round, there is no possible way they could do well on it their first time? Even if they've shot archery for years and trained using other methods? Just wondering why it is that it would just not be possible for an accomplished archer to do well on the "300" on his/her first try? I've never shot the 300, and fully intend to once my skill level is at a place where I'm not likely to embarrass myself.


I never even heard of a 300 round before the last year or so on this forum.

I suspect that there would be good archers even if the 300 round had never been invented.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

MGF said:


> I never even heard of a 300 round before the last year or so on this forum.
> 
> I suspect that there would be good archers even if the 300 round had never been invented.


Thats kinda what I was thinking haha, which is why I'm confused that someone shooting a decent score on the 300 would be laughable if it was their first time.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

:thumbs_up


Bytesback said:


> Gary- If you read all the posts, you'll see that originally i believed i was hitting sage/stumps better than my bag, but after working my bag for a month I realized the importance of shooting target, and that shooting target had improved my sage/stump shooting. I originally fell into the group of people who didnt see a need for target shooting, but after giving it a chance, i'll say that target shooting is an excellent way to improve form and overall shooting capability. I still think that every type of shooting, whether its 3d, stumping, target, or competition offers every shooter some type of benefit.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Instinctive aiming, Gap aiming, Gapstinctive, Point of Aim, String Walking, Face Walking, Split Vision, Squat and Cant, PokeNHope and Reflex aiming are all JUST names given to aiming techniques. 

I've never fully understood why some people try to say any of those aiming techniques don't exist. 

People should only label their aiming technique for educational purposes. A label shouldn't be used to brag, make an excuse for loosing or to belittle someone else's aiming technique. 

So what if an aiming technique is not an instinct or reflex as taught in high school biology. 

When someone tells me they aim Instinctively, Point of Aim or any of the other aiming techniques...I know what they mean and don't feel the need to get into a semantics argument trying to tell them their aiming techniques doesn't exist. 

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MGF said:


> I suspect that there would be good archers even if the 300 round had never been invented.


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

BassinBowhunter said:


> Ray, I'm right there with ya after reading your posts. It sure has felt lately that the standardized target archery is getting pushed a lot here lately. Does it have a purpose? Yep. Does every NEED to do it? Nope. I personally have no desire to shoot a 300 round. Part of me see it as boring. Part of the reason I shoot trad and stump shoot is just to get outside, because I go crazy being inside too long. Also, I know I am overly competitive. Once I begin assigning numbers and scores to something, another side of me shows and everything becomes about scores. So I don't shoot 300 rounds, and know that it would simply be a deja vu of sorts. Does that make me a bad archer? No. I'm not the best shot, but I still bust nocks and shaft arrows (often with bareshafts, and not by shooting 35 arrows at the same 2" dot haha) with regularity. It is kind of ironic, talk of having an open mind to target archery has been brought up... What about having an open mind in regards there being other ways to measure progress? There is never one set of rules that work for everyone and the more we try to make such things, the more exceptions to the rule surface. Lets just shoot and have fun doing it.


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

MAC 11700 said:


> Ray this seems to goes back to my first post on this thread. ..
> 
> I honestly don't understand why a person"has" to shoot for score in some folks routine. ..unless they are only target shooting. ...Perhaps (just musing here)...some of them can't or don't differentiate between the two?
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up :thumbs_up

Personality plays a HUGE roll in how an archer pursues their goals.

For any one person or a group of people to say or imply that their way is the 'only' way, the 'best' way or the 'smartest' way regarding archery may be true for them...BUT NOT for everyone.

Ray :shade:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bytesback said:


> Thats kinda what I was thinking haha, which is why I'm confused that someone shooting a decent score on the 300 would be laughable if it was their first time.


I think he meant that he wouldn't believe that the score was honest.

You know? You can't possible be any good unless you show up to the shoots and put your score on record with some association.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Bytesback said:


> Was reading through all the posts again and must of missed this one. Curious what is meant by the highlighted section of your quote? Does this mean that if someone has never shot a 300 round, there is no possible way they could do well on it their first time? Even if they've shot archery for years and trained using other methods? Just wondering why it is that it would just not be possible for an accomplished archer to do well on the "300" on his/her first try? I've never shot the 300, and fully intend to once my skill level is at a place where I'm not likely to embarrass myself.


Bytes, I do not think it is possible to shoot a great 300 score on the first try no matter how good you think you are. By good I mean over 240 with hunting weight bows (over 50#) or better than 250 with a target specific barebow set up with a plunger and elevated rest. Many guys online claim all kinds of wildly good scores but those of us who actually compete and shoot this event a lot understand they are fibbing online.

A good example of what a 250 means: Recently the NFAA indoor 300 championships were shot in PA. Many of the best shooters in the country were there. Included was the superb John Megara who was shooting barebow. Megara was a member of the 2004 Olympic archery team. A shooter far better than you and me and 99.9% of the readers of this forum.

Yet with all his skill and past experience shooting under pressure before witnesses, he barely broke 250. I think he shot scores around 254 for both days of competition. He was using specialized equipment and gave it his best effort. Yet he was not even competitive compared to the ultimate winners who shot into the 270s.

When I read of guys shooting 270 online with their hunting bows I always laugh out loud. I can only think of one shooter (Dewayne Martin) who can pick up a Black Widow recurve of decent weight and shoot over 260 when it counts. But Martin is so rare he almost doesn't count. LOL I've never seen another man shoot off the shelf with a short hunting bow and get anywhere near 250. I've been shooting forever, can break 250 with a Spig 650 and light limbs (32#) but I cannot shoot 250 with any regularity with my hunting bows. I average around 230-235. And that's on a good day. Very few hunting archers using their hunting bows and arrows can break 200 for this event. From my observations watching first time shooters trying this event, most cannot even keep all 60 arrows on the scoring surface of the target. And that's a fact.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> Bytes, I do not think it is possible to shoot a great 300 score on the first try no matter how good you think you are. By good I mean over 240 with hunting weight bows (over 50#) or better than 250 with a target specific barebow set up with a plunger and elevated rest. Many guys online claim all kinds of wildly good scores but those of us who actually compete and shoot this event a lot understand they are fibbing online.
> 
> A good example of what a 250 means: Recently the NFAA indoor 300 championships were shot in PA. Many of the best shooters in the country were there. Included was the superb John Megara who was shooting barebow. Megara was a member of the 2004 Olympic archery team. A shooter far better than you and me and 99.9% of the readers of this forum.
> 
> ...


You can call me a liar if you want but I shot 3, 300 rounds this morning with one of my hunting bows. The bow is a 45 pound PSE stalker. It's a 60 inch bow and I shoot off the shelf.

I took 3 warm up shots and hung the target. Nobody was watching and there was no pressure except the mosquitos were chewing me up and I was drenched in sweat. I shot all 180 arrows without a break except retrieving my arrows and one trip to the latrine.

I shot a 247, a 259 and a 260. The 247 is lousy for me and the 260 isn't my best but I think it's the best I'm going to get today.

You can call me a liar all you want but you're more than welcome to come here to shoot anytime and we'll see if I can do it with you looking on. Just give me some warning and I'll practice up and try to break 270 for you. I've only done that once so far.

I think a lot of people probably shoot those scores at home. I don't know what percentage of archers travel around to compete but I'll bet it's a relatively small percentage.

I'm a bit of an extreme case. I rarely leave my property unless it's to visit my grandkids, travel to the woods to hunt or fish or if I'm working and being paid to go. There's no interest at all in traveling a long way to shoot my bow in a crowded place. I do a lot of shooting though.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I think a 300 round is unique in regards to the focus it takes, mentally and physically. Doesn't mean you're a bad archer if you don't shoot one, but the likelihood of doing spectacular on your first if you're not used to shooting that way probably isn't that high, as with everything else. The inverse is also true - there are good indoor shooters who attempt 70m FITA shoots and do poorly at first, it's a different game that takes some adjustment. However, I would wager that even those doing "poorly" while switching between different matches would still do far better than the stumper who has never shot at paper. I think I get what Stone Bridge is saying, if your conditioning is taking 20 shots out in the forest with a hunting bow and that's your max weight, you're likely way overbowed anyway. Shooting 60 focused, accurate shots means having to dominate the bow at least to some degree. For someone used to punching paper 60 shots shouldn't be too big of a deal.

I think the essence of the point is that shooting at paper will make you better, and often times people will think they're a good shot based on their skill as hunters or stumpers, and be surprised by it. Regardless of what that target may be, unless you're a far more honestly objective person than most, measuring progress vs "hit" and "not hit" while stumping is difficult. This what many well respected/experienced shooters seem to say, especially after spending time in both circles. I have yet to hear someone who's been extensively in both worlds say that hunters are the better shots or that paper punching is useless. Not that hunters can't be good shots; I'm referring to those that absolutely refuse to shoot at paper and call string walking in barebow events "cheating" (when it's within the rules).
Funny thing is that the OP didn't talk about any sort of need or pressure to do a 300 round and fit in, nor did he ask "is target shooting necessary", and yet somehow it came up. And unfortunately, the extreme other side of this unfortunate and tired debate is often layered with platitudes and straw-men. More basic form guidance would have served me much better when I started out than telling me archery is a completely subjective skill. I can see where goals and physical structure come into play but I really do think the effect is more minimal than people are sometimes led to believe. Thanks to those who have given generous, helpful advice to me the short time I've been shooting.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

CFGuy said:


> I think a 300 round is unique in regards to the focus it takes, mentally and physically. Doesn't mean you're a bad archer if you don't shoot one, but the likelihood of doing spectacular on your first if you're not used to shooting that way probably isn't that high, as with everything else. The inverse is also true - there are good indoor shooters who attempt 70m FITA shoots and do poorly at first, it's a different game that takes some adjustment. However, I would wager that even those doing "poorly" while switching between different matches would still do far better than the stumper who has never shot at paper. I think I get what Stone Bridge is saying, if your conditioning is taking 20 shots out in the forest with a hunting bow and that's your max weight, you're likely way overbowed anyway. Shooting 60 focused, accurate shots means having to dominate the bow at least to some degree. For someone used to punching paper 60 shots shouldn't be too big of a deal.
> 
> I think the essence of the point is that shooting at paper will make you better, and often times people will think they're a good shot based on their skill as hunters or stumpers, and be surprised by it. Regardless of what that target may be, unless you're a far more honestly objective person than most, measuring progress vs "hit" and "not hit" while stumping is difficult. This what many well respected/experienced shooters seem to say, especially after spending time in both circles. I have yet to hear someone who's been extensively in both worlds say that hunters are the better shots or that paper punching is useless. Not that hunters can't be good shots; I'm referring to those that absolutely refuse to shoot at paper and call string walking in barebow events "cheating" (when it's within the rules).
> Funny thing is that the OP didn't talk about any sort of need or pressure to do a 300 round and fit in, nor did he ask "is target shooting necessary", and yet somehow it came up. And unfortunately, the extreme other side of this unfortunate and tired debate is often layered with platitudes and straw-men. More basic form guidance would have served me much better when I started out than telling me archery is a completely subjective skill. I can see where goals and physical structure come into play but I really do think the effect is more minimal than people are sometimes led to believe. Thanks to those who have given generous, helpful advice to me the short time I've been shooting.


I've said all along that I think both are useful. I do both, although, all my shooting is in the woods or in the yard. I would go so far as to say that to be the best hunting shot that you can be, you almost have to do both somehow. It doesn't have to be a 300 round but you have to somehow measure your performance in a way that includes all your shots. I'm an instrumentation guy (was). You can measure a thing using discrete data...yes/no, hit/miss go/no-go. It just takes more data to do it.

However, I don't think you can become a good hunting shot by only shooting paper. At least I can't and I gave specific examples...and started a separate thread to discuss it further.

I posted 3, 300 round scores from this morning but it doesn't really tell the whole story. I tend to group a bit high at 15 yards and a bit low at 20 yards. That's because I essentially use the same gap (measured at the target). I think that makes sense for hunting. If I shoot a 40 cm target from 20 yards for a while, my eye kind of gets calibrated for that and I bring the groups up into the 5 spot. I haven't shot a 40 cm target for a while but, today I was shooting some really nice groups at 6 O'clock on the 5 spot. A two or three inch group that barely clips the 5 ring doesn't score that well but it would be deadly on deer.


For me, the target is for measuring progress and working on form...maybe the head game too because I tend to freak a little over the score. I have to practice hunting shots (like shooting from the tree stand) to be any good at that. Target shooting just helps me know if I have the basic tools to work with.

For me a bow is a weapon. Shooting targets is fun and it provide valuable feed back but it doesn't really count for anything else. I hit a lot of targets last year but only shot at one deer and missed. My score for last year is ZERO.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Stone Bridge said:


> Bytes, I do not think it is possible to shoot a great 300 score on the first try no matter how good you think you are. By good I mean over 240 with hunting weight bows (over 50#) or better than 250 with a target specific barebow set up with a plunger and elevated rest. Many guys online claim all kinds of wildly good scores but those of us who actually compete and shoot this event a lot understand they are fibbing online.
> 
> A good example of what a 250 means: Recently the NFAA indoor 300 championships were shot in PA. Many of the best shooters in the country were there. Included was the superb John Megara who was shooting barebow. Megara was a member of the 2004 Olympic archery team. A shooter far better than you and me and 99.9% of the readers of this forum.
> 
> ...


So from what I understand, a 277 isn't a decent score, but rather a really exceptional score? If thats the case, I can see how you might believe that someone who has not shot it before couldn't shoot that score. I understand being skeptical of scores over 240/250 from people shooting the 300 for the first time, but to say anyone who says they did is a liar I feel is extreme. I think that theres probably archers out there who have shot their entire lives, perfected their form and their shots out to 30 yrds, but have never shot a 300. I think that someone in that situation has a pretty good chance to score decent on the 300. I don't like the "elistist" view that someone whose never shot a 300 couldn't possibly be as good as someone who shoots it regularly, regardless of how long they've shot and how much work they've put in on other targets


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

CFGuy said:


> I think a 300 round is unique in regards to the focus it takes, mentally and physically. Doesn't mean you're a bad archer if you don't shoot one, but the likelihood of doing spectacular on your first if you're not used to shooting that way probably isn't that high, as with everything else. The inverse is also true - there are good indoor shooters who attempt 70m FITA shoots and do poorly at first, it's a different game that takes some adjustment. However, I would wager that even those doing "poorly" while switching between different matches would still do far better than the stumper who has never shot at paper. I think I get what Stone Bridge is saying, if your conditioning is taking 20 shots out in the forest with a hunting bow and that's your max weight, you're likely way overbowed anyway. Shooting 60 focused, accurate shots means having to dominate the bow at least to some degree. For someone used to punching paper 60 shots shouldn't be too big of a deal.
> 
> I think the essence of the point is that shooting at paper will make you better, and often times people will think they're a good shot based on their skill as hunters or stumpers, and be surprised by it. Regardless of what that target may be, unless you're a far more honestly objective person than most, measuring progress vs "hit" and "not hit" while stumping is difficult. This what many well respected/experienced shooters seem to say, especially after spending time in both circles. I have yet to hear someone who's been extensively in both worlds say that hunters are the better shots or that paper punching is useless. Not that hunters can't be good shots; I'm referring to those that absolutely refuse to shoot at paper and call string walking in barebow events "cheating" (when it's within the rules).
> Funny thing is that the OP didn't talk about any sort of need or pressure to do a 300 round and fit in, nor did he ask "is target shooting necessary", and yet somehow it came up. And unfortunately, the extreme other side of this unfortunate and tired debate is often layered with platitudes and straw-men. More basic form guidance would have served me much better when I started out than telling me archery is a completely subjective skill. I can see where goals and physical structure come into play but I really do think the effect is more minimal than people are sometimes led to believe. Thanks to those who have given generous, helpful advice to me the short time I've been shooting.


CF- If thats what Stone meant, thats understandable. Saying that the likelihood of them doing that well is low, thats understandable. Saying that its impossible and they'd have to be lying, well thats not understandable. I agree that shooting at paper will make you a better archer, just as I believe shooting at any target with regularity will make you a better archer. I myself plan on shooting paper in an attempt to further my skill. I just don't think shooting paper is the only way to get better. The honest objectivity with Sage/stump shooting is something I myself understand. Before I shot target for a month, I thought I was doing really good at stumping. Seeing how I shot stumps AFTER working my target bag for a month had shown me how much progress I made, and how poorly I was doing before without even realizing it. Again, I think shooting paper is an awesome way to perfect things. I just don't think those that shoot paper are superior to those who don't. To me, if your shooting and having fun, then your winning, because to me that is what archery is about, having fun. There are extremes on both sides of this debate that I disagree with, those who believe your only good if you shoot paper, and those who refuse to acknowledge that shooting paper is an excellent way to gain skill. However, I do appreciate everyones opinion on here. I'm still really really new and still have alot to learn, but I've only come as far as I have thanks to the excellent men and women on this forum.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bytesback said:


> So from what I understand, a 277 isn't a decent score, but rather a really exceptional score? If thats the case, I can see how you might believe that someone who has not shot it before couldn't shoot that score. I understand being skeptical of scores over 240/250 from people shooting the 300 for the first time, but to say anyone who says they did is a liar I feel is extreme. I think that theres probably archers out there who have shot their entire lives, perfected their form and their shots out to 30 yrds, but have never shot a 300. I think that someone in that situation has a pretty good chance to score decent on the 300. I don't like the "elistist" view that someone whose never shot a 300 couldn't possibly be as good as someone who shoots it regularly, regardless of how long they've shot and how much work they've put in on other targets


I don't know how good somebody could do on their first 300 round and I'm not sure how important it is. Having shot a few I'd say there are certainly some challenges associated with it. I tend to freak about keeping score and it's 60 shots. I know that I tend to fall apart on a couple of ends. To look at those, you wouldn't even think they were shot by the same person.

Hunting is very different. It's not the 8th end that makes or breaks you. It's usually the first shot after you've been sitting a while and are frozen solid. One shot. Take it or pass. Hit or miss. It's like a one shot tournament with no warm up.

Who here want to dump a bunch of time and money to travel across the country to take one shot for the money? LOL I think we should have an Olympic event like that.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

MGF: You're one of those helpful people, don't worry . I agree, both are useful, but I think for different purposes. I see paper punching as kind of the "first step" to getting form and whatnot figured out, and stumping as a more "real world" type of practice where you apply your skills, depending on what you plan to do with archery. I think it's great practice for hunting, and I think you need to shoot unmarked distances or at least shoot a variety of marked distances often to get an idea of what your gaps/sight picture should be. In my mind the paper is more the foundational zone, whereas stumping becomes more of a refining of multiple skills, if that all makes sense.

Bytesback: Good stance. Can't speak for Stone Bridge but that's how I read it - hard to interpret on here sometimes.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Shooting over 240 for your first effort at the 300 with hunting tackle is about as possible as a weekend jogger going out and turning sub four-minute miles on the track. Many will claim it but none can prove it. 

And, yes, MGF, I do believe you to be a liar regarding your scores. Not only do you claim to shoot great scores with short recurves but you have the gall to say you shoot 180 arrows at a time and go UP in score as you go.

Those of us who shoot the 300, and understand it, know this is not quite right. (and that's saying it nicely) Fatigue plays a huge element in archery. I don't care how strong you are, nobody shoots back-to-back-to-back 300s with a 60" hunting bow and gets better as they go. Just like no runner puts 4-minute miles back-to-back-to-back and gets faster.

You do not understand what you're talking about and it shows. I would suggest you go post your shooting results over on the FITA forum and see what happens. That would be amusing. Those guys over there understand what's going on if the trad guys on this forum do not.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

CFGuy said:


> MGF: You're one of those helpful people, don't worry . I agree, both are useful, but I think for different purposes. I see paper punching as kind of the "first step" to getting form and whatnot figured out, and stumping as a more "real world" type of practice where you apply your skills, depending on what you plan to do with archery. I think it's great practice for hunting, and I think you need to shoot unmarked distances or at least shoot a variety of marked distances often to get an idea of what your gaps/sight picture should be. In my mind the paper is more the foundational zone, whereas stumping becomes more of a refining of multiple skills, if that all makes sense.
> 
> Bytesback: Good stance. Can't speak for Stone Bridge but that's how I read it - hard to interpret on here sometimes.


I think you explained it exactly how I see it. Shooting target can be an excellent foundation, but that doesn't mean you only have to use that to build skill


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Stone Bridge said:


> Shooting over 240 for your first effort at the 300 with hunting tackle is about as possible as a weekend jogger going out and turning sub four-minute miles on the track. Many will claim it but none can prove it.
> 
> *And, yes, MGF, I do believe you to be a liar regarding your scores. Not only do you claim to shoot great scores with short recurves but you have the gall to say you shoot 180 arrows at a time and go UP in score as you go.
> *
> ...


Does not contribute to discussion and is pretty rude. Its "elitist" attitudes like this that are detrimental to archery as a whole and turn away those who might venture down that path. I eventually want to shoot a 300, but if the 300 shooters all have the attitude you have, I think i'll pass. As I am the OP and this is a discussion I started, I will ask that if you have nothing nice to say, just don't say anything. I don't want this discussion to turn into a smear fest. Thanks


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Bytesback said:


> Does not contribute to discussion and is pretty rude. Its "elitist" attitudes like this that are detrimental to archery as a whole and turn away those who might venture down that path. I eventually want to shoot a 300, but if the 300 shooters all have the attitude you have, I think i'll pass. As I am the OP and this is a discussion I started, I will ask that if you have nothing nice to say, just don't say anything. I don't want this discussion to turn into a smear fest. Thanks


Bytes, in no way am I elitist. You're being lied to and you don't understand it because you're not familiar with the 300 round and how challenging it is. Most of the men on this trad forum do not shoot this round and never have. So they have no background for understanding the foolish claims some are making.

I'm a high school track coach and have been for 30 years. I know what's possible in the realm of running. You have guys on here making archery claims that are similar to weekend joggers claiming 2-hour marathon races. It makes me laugh how gullible they think we are. That's all.

I even gave you examples of what the best US shooters do for score and you seemed to ignore it. These are the best shooters we have and they don't shoot 270 in competition. So we're supposed to believe Joe Bowhunter from East Nowhere goes out behind his barn and shoots 270 with his hunting bow?

Not me.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Stone Bridge said:


> Bytes, in no way am I elitist. You're being lied to and you don't understand it because you're not familiar with the 300 round and how challenging it is. Most of the men on this trad forum do not shoot this round and never have. So they have no background for understanding the foolish claims some are making.
> 
> I'm a high school track coach and have been for 30 years. I know what's possible in the realm of running. You have guys on here making archery claims that are similar to weekend joggers claiming 2-hour marathon races. It makes me laugh how gullible they think we are. That's all.
> 
> ...


Maybe your not elitist, but your sure not approaching this tactfully, and thats where discussions derail and all sense gets lost. If you don't believe him thats fine. I've never shot a 300, have no idea how difficult it is, and therefore do not know if this is possible. I do know that where I come from, calling a man a liar is about the worst insult you can throw. A mans word means everything where I come from, so if you don't have absolute proof he's lying, maybe you should handle things differently. If you do not believe him, that is fine, but insulting him and calling him out as a liar on a public forum, when you do not know for an absolute fact whether or not hes shooting as he claims, is unnecessary and does not contribute anything. Also, I did read your examples, and I understand them. However, as pointed out above, a very small percentage of archers compete. There is no proof that those who compete are the best archers there are, they are just the best of those who choose to compete. Sorry if I am coming across wrong, but again, calling a man a liar is pretty insulting where I come from, so I take it offensively when its done without proof.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> Shooting over 240 for your first effort at the 300 with hunting tackle is about as possible as a weekend jogger going out and turning sub four-minute miles on the track. Many will claim it but none can prove it.
> 
> And, yes, MGF, I do believe you to be a liar regarding your scores. Not only do you claim to shoot great scores with short recurves but you have the gall to say you shoot 180 arrows at a time and go UP in score as you go.
> 
> ...


The scores I posted aren't great scores...at least not for me. How far do you go before you decide it's time to back up your mouth? I invited you over. The invitation still stands. Bring some money to put down if it pleases you.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Skepticism is a good thing! :thumbs_up 

Arrogantly calling someone a liar is NOT! :thumbs_do

I'm one of those archers who can shoot multiple 300 rounds with my 70lbs.recurve without accuracy defeating fatigue. 

I've competed in different states and always have placed in the top 5 in 3D. I've shot in competitions where 300 - 500 shooters show up for our annual CTAS shoot and have won more times than I can remember and have gotten 2nd.or 3rd. just a few times. 

I've also met archers who don't compete but could give me a run for my money if not spank me at times. 

The reality is...great archers exist that never compete. 

The arrogance and elitism associated with competitive target archery can be soo nauseating at times! 

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

BLACK WOLF said:


> Skepticism is a good thing! :thumbs_up
> 
> Arrogantly calling someone a liar is NOT! :thumbs_do
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up Thanks for chiming in Ray, Nice to hear the other side of the spectrum from someone who competes successfully


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> Bytes, in no way am I elitist. You're being lied to and you don't understand it because you're not familiar with the 300 round and how challenging it is. Most of the men on this trad forum do not shoot this round and never have. So they have no background for understanding the foolish claims some are making.
> 
> I'm a high school track coach and have been for 30 years. I know what's possible in the realm of running. You have guys on here making archery claims that are similar to weekend joggers claiming 2-hour marathon races. It makes me laugh how gullible they think we are. That's all.
> 
> ...


I read this again and I have to comment further on your logic.

Explain this please. You don't think I can shoot the scores I posted because of my bow, where I live, because I'm a hunter or because I shoot behind my barn? Really, walk us through your logic here. Just to offer a minor correction, I didn't shoot 270 in competition. I shot 260 at home. It's hard to believe that anybody would spend the money to even enter a big shoot if they couldn't do better than that.

So what else do you know about me? Are you aware that since last November or so that I've pretty much been shooting full time. Yep, most days I shoot all day or, at least, as much as my body will tolerate. But, I didn't start shooting last November. I got me first recurve in the mid 80's and dumped the compounds permanently in the early 90's. While I'm not the greatest archer (maybe not even all that good) I've been at this long enough to pick up a few things.

So you don't think that in almost 30 years of archery and about 20 years of shooting recurves and longbows exclusively that a person can shoot a 260?

I'll wait. In the mean time, I'm going to go do some stumpin.


----------



## Arron (Nov 18, 2012)

Bytesback- Here were the pics of my homemade roving target. A five dollar nylon reinforced camping dry bag from Walmart stuffed with a old worn out fall leaf tarp and some colored duct tape to dress it up.









Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

Nevermind...it's not worth the effort.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Long Rifle said:


> Nevermind...it's not worth the effort.


You're right it's not. Especially since we've been told here that if you shoot behind your barn with your hunting bow that you can't score well anyway. It sounds like we may as well stick to stump shooting.

I wonder, would my shooting improve if I shot in front of the barn?


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Long Rifle and MGF: I hope my posts didn't offend either of you. What I was addressing was more to the extreme end where it was argued that only shooting at stumps and living things will make you a consistently accurate shot the same, or more quickly and efficiently, than target shooters. I have no real desire to compete with a barebow, I'm loving longbow shooting right now and it's working for me so I'd likely class myself as a stumper/eventual hunter as well. The last few weeks I've just found the value in more deliberate form work and paper punching as a means to an end, and that archery isn't a "do what you feel like and you'll do great" sport like I was led to believe in the beginning, basically like nothing else is.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

MGF said:


> You're right it's not. Especially since we've been told here that *if you shoot behind your barn with your hunting bow that you can't score well* anyway. It sounds like we may as well stick to stump shooting.
> 
> I wonder, would my shooting improve if I shot in front of the barn?


Darn, I guess I'm doomed to eternal mediocrity too...:archer:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

CFGuy said:


> Long Rifle and MGF: I hope my posts didn't offend either of you. What I was addressing was more to the extreme end where it was argued that only shooting at stumps and living things will make you a consistently accurate shot the same, or more quickly and efficiently, than target shooters. I have no real desire to compete with a barebow, I'm loving longbow shooting right now and it's working for me so I'd likely class myself as a stumper/eventual hunter as well. The last few weeks I've just found the value in more deliberate form work and paper punching as a means to an end, and that archery isn't a "do what you feel like and you'll do great" sport like I was led to believe in the beginning, basically like nothing else is.


Heck no. I've never read anything of yours that came across as offensive.

I'd like to pretend that nothing offends me but being called a liar does a little. I don't post my scores to brag. In fact we recently had thread where some suggested that it would help others give advice if they posted scores. Posting high scores here doesn't get you anything and posting scores you didn't shoot might prevent better shooters from giving the advice that you really need. Heck, for the time and effort I've put in I really don't think I'm doing all that well. Nothing has ever came easy for me. I'm one of those people with no talent at all except, maybe being stubborn. 

This forum is one of the resources I use to try to improve my shooting and hunting. I think I do more asking than telling, though, I've been at some of this long enough to have formed a few opinions.

It could be that we have enough snobs around that it's not worth posting scores at all? Naaaa, we've got some pretty knowledgeable and helpful members here with just a couple of gamokes. Maybe it makes sense to just post scores when they're asked for or put them in a PM? 

You know? I get the same sort of thing in my trade. They have competitions all over the country and a US team that travels around and so on. I was lucky enough to serve an apprenticeship under the right person. As a result, I have some specialties that not too many guys have so I tend to get quite a bit more money than some.

So they tell me that clients don't know good from bad and if I'm "so good" I should put my work out in front of "my peers" and compete. Well, I do it for money. If I need to study or practice, in the interest of making money, I do what I have to do. I never said I was so "good". I just do what I do and put the money in my pocket...and I need a pat on the back from these guys, why?

With archery, I'm just after dead critters and the satisfaction of putting an arrow where I want it to go. I guess that IF I thought there was real money in it and IF I thought I could be good enough, I might be tempted to try to make a profession out of it. I don't think that's the case but, aside from that, I've made the mistake of turning a hobby into a profession once before and it ruined it for me.

I'm rambling again so that'll be enough of that. LOL


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Good to know. Honestly I'm not sure I'd want this to be my profession - turn a hobby into your job and it becomes work. As much as I'm passionate about archery, I think because I'm so, I don't care to pursue for the sake of any monetary gain (not that there's a ton of money in it as far as I can tell). I'm open to shooting a variety of competitions, but it will be far more for an intrinsic value than anything else. For now, I want to be able to hunt, and primarily make my arrow go where I want it to. I think calling someone a liar is a big assumption; I think the best thing people can do on here is not take one, or two, people's personality qwerks or poor manners as a generalization of a larger group. There are enough guys on here that are very helpful, and generously so.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

Arron said:


> Bytesback- Here were the pics of my homemade roving target. A five dollar nylon reinforced camping dry bag from Walmart stuffed with a old worn out fall leaf tarp and some colored duct tape to dress it up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks Aaron! Looks simple enough, now to recreate it


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Bytesback said:


> Mac-Out of curiousity, which camp are you in?


In all honesty...I really don't even want to discuss that here..but suffice to say I hold an opinion far different than many here do with regards to both.

Mac


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

ArcherFletch said:


> Try sticking some sagebrush branches on the sides of your bag/paper targets before you shoot.


LOL! :thumbs_up 

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

CFGuy said:


> Good to know. Honestly I'm not sure I'd want this to be my profession - turn a hobby into your job and it becomes work. As much as I'm passionate about archery, I think because I'm so, I don't care to pursue for the sake of any monetary gain (not that there's a ton of money in it as far as I can tell). I'm open to shooting a variety of competitions, but it will be far more for an intrinsic value than anything else. For now, I want to be able to hunt, and primarily make my arrow go where I want it to. I think calling someone a liar is a big assumption; I think the best thing people can do on here is not take one, or two, people's personality qwerks or poor manners as a generalization of a larger group. There are enough guys on here that are very helpful, and generously so.


I enjoy competition but I hate travel and I hate crowds. As far as poor manors, I guess that's one of the reasons I hate crowds.

Calling somebody a liar without evidence is starting something where I come from. Once you do it, you had better present your evidence.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

The thing that strikes me as odd...is some here still believe "because they shoot targets all the time " speaking of this 300 round game in this...that no one can score a high score if they primarily stump/brush shoot as a means of practicing...

I have a strong feeling...many that don't believe a person such as myself or others who don't primarily shoot target faces all the time...believe we actually don't actually spend time trying to shoot as accurately on each shot when we release the arrow. Perhaps they believe most of us..shoot as the OP was doing..and not concentrating as we should to actually hit what and more importantly where we are aiming.

For those that don't believe someone as myself actually tries to hit where I am aiming on every shot I take...Get A Grip...not all of us just take random shots when we go stumping or brush shooting..

Try hitting a leaf..an acorn..a pine cone at ranges out to 40 yards sometimes...let's see how well you can concentrate...by shooting off your knees,shooting under branches...at a 70 degree angle on the side of of a steep cliff or as many of us do while straight down from an elevated perch..try it some time and keep score doing this..and see how poorly you actually do as compared to shooting under pristine conditions at marked yardages at a approved NFAA target face...you will learn a valuable lesson in humility...I can assure you of this...all the time using a heavy draw weight hunting bow...not some light weight target rig..

See...we are discussing 2 totally different things here...Target shooting practice...and hunting shooting practice...regardless of how you hunt..regardless of what you shoot...Target shooting is target shooting...and yes you can practice doing both...but..as I said before...to hunt...you need to practice as you hunt...to target shoot..you need to practice as you target shoot...

I see most of the crap here initiated by target shooters...I am sorry if this statement offends any who take offense at it..but it is true..

Light weight target rigs (40-lbs and below)and those who shoot and practice with them in their manner preferred manner...trying to dictate to those who are hunters first..You shouldn't do this..Target shooting with a light weight bow is not hunting with a normal hunting weight bow....and regardless what those who choose to do so say..and try to get accepted as the "new" norm for hunting..won't have their way..

Sure a person can use one..this isn't rocket science..and they may do a whole lot better..but regardless that fact...there are plenty of folks who choose a different weight..a much heavier weight bow..and many (not all) of these folks won't be spending as many long hours shooting at approved target face doing a 300 round...They bought their rig for HUNTING...

Which is best...that will depend on what that person wants to do..hunt or target shoot..or even a little of both..

We all know target shooting benefits folks trying to learn..but I know this for a absolute fact...if you have never actually stump shoot with a purpose and use it as a good practice just as those of you who don't...then you will never benefit from doing so.

Just as those of you who primarily target shoot for practice...I stump shoot for practice..Each shot is sent on it's way to a specific mark..just as each shot of yours is..The conditions I shoot in...just as the conditions you shoot in are DIFFERENT...BUT THE PURPOSE IS SUPPOSED SAME..regardless of what you assume all of us do. Just as those who target shoot have a routine...I too have mine..Just as those of you who target shoot make adjustments..so too do I..Just as those of you who compete have pressures..so to do I...expect in mine...an animals life hangs in the balance...and I must practice enough so that animal doesn't suffer from a lousy shot.

There are good target shooters and good hunters...and there are those who don't practice enough in both camps that gives all of us black eyes to the non-sporting public..

My advice...practice for what you are going to do..as you do it. For hunters...this means changing the damn rules on these 3d shoots to actually penalize for bad hits...Stop rewarding a person for a wounding shot..regardless their age just to get them to participate..Tough times means tough rules...and it's better to teach while young or new than to wait till they are old and gray..

For what it's worth...regardless of what any target archer chooses to believe...I do better on fur than on paper...why...I hate ruining my arrows blowing the nocks and the arrows themselves which I do whenever I am shooting paper for groups..So...I don't like shooting a bunch of arrows for groups as I would have to for a 300 round...but that sure as hell doesn't mean I can't and wouldn't score well...

Mac


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

MGF: Definitely agree there, them's fightin' words if you have no evidence.

Ray: The irony is that perceived snobbery comes from whatever group you're not in (not you specifically). Humans are funny that way, naturally inclined to "in-groups". I've seen _plenty_ of snobbery in an equal way in the trad/hunting/fish-and-game crowd, quite a bit more in fact. When approaching with an open mind and humble tone, the target guys have been more approachable and helpful, but that's just around here and in my experience - that will obviously vary depending on region, people, personality, and which lens you peer through.

Mac: From my observation, the reason these things seem to start in the short time I've been observing is due to overbowed, poorly shooting archers complaining about being stuck and frustrated, to which the answers are rather obvious I'm finding. "In the beginner's mind there are many options, in the expert's mind there are few". There are obvious exceptions to the rule, and there are many fantastic shots who have never competed, I'm sure. However, the most efficient, productive, and honestly more scientific methods to getting better accuracy have been articulated by many well known top shooters here. If you hate paper and want to stump shoot, great, but I'd hardly say that's the rule of learning to shoot well. Again, how the brain adapts and learns is relatively universal, at least on a basics level.
I really think siding emotionally with any of these methods is silly. It's a tool - use it to your advantage, or don't, but if you refuse to use a tool, don't complain about the results.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

MAC 11700 said:


> In all honesty...I really don't even want to discuss that here..but suffice to say I hold an opinion far different than many here do with regards to both.
> 
> Mac


Understandable haha


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

With the exception of a few unfortunate remarks, this has been a really excellent discussion, especially for a beginner like me as a chance to see the viewpoints and stances of archers far more experienced and talented than I'll ever likely be. I want to thank those who contributed, and kept the discussion from derailing when someone made derogatory comments. I've found this site to be an excellent source of information, and its filled with excellent people who genuinely want to help beginners, even if their opinions differ on how best to do so.


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

Different strokes I guess. I new fairly new to archery and a hunter. I do not care about formal target shooting. My current goal is to be able to hit and kill any game I am aiming at from any position within 30 yards. I have a practice routine that is working well. I do keep score so that I can be sure I am improving. I am currently no where near my goal. I am within reach of 20 yards standing or kneeling. I could certainly slay a deer at that distance from either position but not a squirrel consistently. I also practice rotating shots, crouching, and sitting. Once I have achieved my goal I will set it at 50 and likely be satisfied. I assume that will take several years at least.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I apologize to the group. I should have just let it go.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

jakeemt said:


> Different strokes I guess. I new fairly new to archery and a hunter. I do not care about formal target shooting. My current goal is to be able to hit and kill any game I am aiming at from any position within 30 yards. I have a practice routine that is working well. I do keep score so that I can be sure I am improving. I am currently no where near my goal. I am within reach of 20 yards standing or kneeling. I could certainly slay a deer at that distance from either position but not a squirrel consistently. I also practice rotating shots, crouching, and sitting. Once I have achieved my goal I will set it at 50 and likely be satisfied. I assume that will take several years at least.


I'm a squirrel hunter at heart and one of my favorite targets is an empty tin can. I set it up on a stick in front of my bag of rags. The can is pretty similar in size to a squirrel. If I hit the can, it's a dead deer for certain and almost certainly a dead squirrel. It also makes a pleasant sound that lets you know you hit it solid.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

MGF said:


> I apologize to the group. I should have just let it go.


MGF- I disagree, I don't think you said anything inappropriate. You had your integrity questioned and were insulted simply because someone else didn't have the same experience as you, and didn't shoot the same as you. I don't think its you that owes an apology, but rather that you are owed an apology.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

CFGuy said:


> Mac: From my observation, the reason these things seem to start in the short time I've been observing is due to overbowed, poorly shooting archers complaining about being stuck and frustrated, to which the answers are rather obvious I'm finding. "In the beginner's mind there are many options, in the expert's mind there are few". There are obvious exceptions to the rule, and there are many fantastic shots who have never competed, *I'm sure. However, the most efficient, productive, and honestly more scientific methods to getting better accuracy have been articulated by many well known top shooters here*. If you hate paper and want to stump shoot, great, but I'd hardly say that's the rule of learning to shoot well. Again, how the brain adapts and learns is relatively universal, at least on a basics level.
> I really think siding emotionally with any of these methods is silly. It's a tool - use it to your advantage, or don't, but if you refuse to use a tool, don't complain about the results.


CF...no offense...but..many folks just don't understand the physics of a heavy bow nor how to shoot 1 in the first place.

Are many overbowed...sure they are..Why...because they haven't taken the time to become physically fit to shoot it...and whenever some of us try to tell them this...all the light weight shooters start jumping in and saying it isn't "needed" to hunt this or that...why just look at so&so's vedio where they are killing some elephant with a 35lb bow and a 200 grain arrow...BOLDERDASH...I say.

Stealing a line from a movie I saw..." A man has to know his limitations"...but a person can train to be able to draw and shoot a heavier weight bow if they choose too...

As to what I put in bold and underlined...you are quite right...but do you know why you are...?

That reason is simplely because when ever any of us who shoot heavier weight bows and don't paticipate regularly in purely target shooting side of this...we get taold basically to shut up..or we don't know what we are talking about..or since we don't shoot for "scores" and have won multiple compititons we aren't qualified to tell someone something...THAT"S WHY your right...Even your wording shows this is true...I put that in red...see...the way you have it worded...unless you have the credintials...you arte lying...and that sir is a real pet peeve of mine...

Yes...I hate paper shooting...and stated why I hate to...I hate wasting money...Not for lack of doing it.. I prefer shooting at objects not on a target face..and a good rule is...If you are hunting animals..not target bulls eyes...practice shooting at other things...If you can't understand the logic I'm sorry...but..it isn't rocket science..it's just commom sense..

Not all of us shoot in our back yards all the time or even most of the time...Not all of shoot from tree stands..or on steep angles or under branches and limbs...just as not all of us believe in shooting 300 rounds for improving our hunting skills...when it comes to hunting...

Sooner or later some folks on this site will understand this and understand there are many ways to shoot accurately and you don't need to have won or even competed...just as there are many ways to learn...and not all of them are in front of a NFAA size target face.

Mac


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

Easykeeper said:


> Darn, I guess I'm doomed to eternal mediocrity too...:archer:


Yeah, well... you're not alone.

Since the whole thing first came up via Viper's suggestion, I started playing around with round targets for the first time since the early '70s; found it to be pretty revealing, and more than a little frustrating. But I enjoy challenging myself, so it was off to the races. I'm not doing this to impress anyone, or because I believe it's the 'only' route to being a better shooter; I'm doin' it for fun.

It's not so much that I suddenly discovered I couldn't shoot as well as I thought, or that I was lying to myself or others, or some such... it was more that I learned I had some form of mental/visual block - call it TP if you want. I've spent most of my adult life imagining and hitting an invisible target (the animals' vitals), and/or improvised vitals-sized targets of one sort or another. 

Shooting a printed paper target with concentric circles confuses my eye; it's as if there are too many choices, so why bother with the tough one (the 5 ring) - which is, of course, roughly the same size and shape as the "target" I've been practicing on a repeatedly drilling for several decades.

Switching from paper to blocks (In imitation of game animals' off-center X-rings, I mark various off-center spots on my blocks with faint paint marks, choose a spot invisible from the distance I'm shooting, and shoot for that. Hits are only "hits" if they're in the chosen mark) reveals that, no, I haven't suddenly forgotten how to shoot. It's pretty hard to accept a less-than-perfect shot, the way I mark my blocks; a miss in two of the three possible directions will be in the backstop, not in the block.

Meanwhile, I also discovered: with my hunting bow (66", 48# longbow), I too usually improve later in the rounds, and if I shoot multiple rounds; not always, but that seems to be my "norm". Although I practice on paper with my 64", 38# recurve, I'm only counting scores shot with my longbow; numerical scores don't much matter to me if I can't shoot 'em with my hunting rig.

I'm only on my third ten-pack of paper; I'm seeing slow but steady improvement. 

And yes, at first I was a little mortified by my scores; so far, my low (my first-ever scored round) was 173; my high has been in the 230s. That one was my third round of the day(also was with brand-new arrows); I do, however, rest between rounds.

So, on the one hand, I've learned that punching paper is more of a challenge than it first appears - at least, it is for me! On the other hand, I've also learned that, at least in my experience, saying a guy can't possibly shoot over 200 if he's never shot in competition is pretty presumptious. 

And yes; I have no doubt I would fall apart under the pressures of public competition; lord knows I feel enough pressure simply competing with myself. But that really wasn't what the OP was about, now was it?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> Ray: The irony is that perceived snobbery comes from whatever group you're not in (not you specifically). Humans are funny that way, naturally inclined to "in-groups". I've seen _plenty_ of snobbery in an equal way in the trad/hunting/fish-and-game crowd, quite a bit more in fact. When approaching with an open mind and humble tone, the target guys have been more approachable and helpful, but that's just around here and in my experience - that will obviously vary depending on region, people, personality, and which lens you peer through.


I definitely agree. I've always said that 'elitism' can exist on BOTH sides. I think it's nauseating no matter which side it comes from. 

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

jusoldave said:


> Yeah, well... you're not alone.
> 
> Since the whole thing first came up via Viper's suggestion, I started playing around with round targets for the first time since the early '70s; found it to be pretty revealing, and more than a little frustrating. But I enjoy challenging myself, so it was off to the races. I'm not doing this to impress anyone, or because I believe it's the 'only' route to being a better shooter; I'm doin' it for fun.
> 
> ...


No it certainly wasn't haha, but I do appreciate you taking the time to type this out. See, MGF was called out as a liar both because he shot over a 240, and because he said he gets better as he shoots more rounds. I felt this comment was extremely presumptuous and rude, and enjoy seeing shooters like you come out and point out that not only are the above possible, but that there are more than a few shooters who had this experience. I really hope the member who insulted MGFs integrity sees these posts and takes time to think about the presumptions he made, and the words he said to MGF, because he owes that man an apology.


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I definitely agree. I've always said that 'elitism' can exist on BOTH sides. I think it's nauseating no matter which side it comes from.
> 
> Ray :shade:
> 
> ...


Hit the nail on the head!


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

Bytesback said:


> Hit the nail on the head!


Yep! :thumbs_up


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Mac said:


> That reason is simplely because when ever any of us who shoot heavier weight bows and don't paticipate regularly in purely target shooting side of this...we get taold basically to shut up..or we don't know what we are talking about..or since we don't shoot for "scores" and have won multiple compititons we aren't qualified to tell someone something...


I don't think that's true at all, I've learned much from people who have told me nothing about whether or not they compete. It comes down to can you do what you profess to be able to do, and do you make excuses for not being able to do so.


> THAT"S WHY your right...Even your wording shows this is true...I put that in red...see...the way you have it worded...unless you have the credintials...you arte lying...and that sir is a real pet peeve of mine...


Nope. Not at all. I've stated many times that credentials aren't the most important thing - what information you have/have experienced and how useful it is is what counts. That said, over the internet where I don't have any way of verifying what someone says save for the collective respect given them by fellow shooters and their history, it wins out. I think not listening because they shoot competitions is far more foolish.

Also, no one said you had to shoot a 300 round, and when I say "scientific" I mean removing as many variables as possible to assess shooter skill. One can brag about being a proficient hunter without mentioning missed animals or opportunities. Similarly, it can be a result of refined stalking skills, not shooting. Scientific method has to do with isolating variables to imply correlation if not causation. Still many factors involved, but shooting at a consistent target from a consistent distance is a better analysis of pure shooter skill in terms of how they make the arrow leave the bow than a shooting method that involves shooting at different targets from different ranges, terrain, etc. at every shot. Again, no one said you had to, but it makes sense that that's the _easiest_ way, not to be confused with _one and only_.

Dave: I think it's gone kinda way off topic - sorry Bytes for this ridiculous banter. I think the original post about the 300 was referring to not scoring well the very first time you try it, not shooting it in a competition.

Totally agree Ray.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

+1from me too...which is why my signature is what it is. .

Mac


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

CF..

Thanks for the clarification. .

I think we can and should disagree on various topics and discuss our differences as adults.

Mac


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

No problem, I appreciate the discussion. I fully agree, I apologize if things come off offensively but I'm very rarely offended on here, easy to misinterpret text. That and I think being offended is a choice in a way .


----------



## jusoldave (Apr 28, 2012)

Bytes, it occurred to me that despite having penned the rewrite to 'War and Peace', I never really got around to supporting my earlier declaration that I saw value in both paper- and boonie-shooting practice... _for a bowhunter_.

After years of practice at making the one shot of the day count, Viper's thread struck home that target archers need to make every shot count (score) as highly as possible, and although I _knew_ I could score that one shot, I had no idea if I could hold it together for 60 at a time. Well, I quickly discovered the answer: I couldn't.

Then, someone posted (IIRC, either Steve or Gary) what was, for me, the key to my dilemma (and lousy shooting): focus on one shot at a time; make each shot the "one of the day".

I learned something, and it gave me a breakthrough; I was able to put someone's post to use at the archery butts.

That's why I'm doing the paper-training thing right now: to learn something I didn't know, about a sport I love.

And that's what I'm looking for here on AT.

Now: I need to find somebody around my neck o' woods who has a 3-D course... :teeth:


----------



## Bytesback (Apr 8, 2013)

jusoldave said:


> Bytes, it occurred to me that despite having penned the rewrite to 'War and Peace', I never really got around to supporting my earlier declaration that I saw value in both paper- and boonie-shooting practice... _for a bowhunter_.
> 
> After years of practice at making the one shot of the day count, Viper's thread struck home that target archers need to make every shot count (score) as highly as possible, and although I _knew_ I could score that one shot, I had no idea if I could hold it together for 60 at a time. Well, I quickly discovered the answer: I couldn't.
> 
> ...


:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bytesback said:


> No it certainly wasn't haha, but I do appreciate you taking the time to type this out. See, MGF was called out as a liar both because he shot over a 240, and because he said he gets better as he shoots more rounds. I felt this comment was extremely presumptuous and rude, and enjoy seeing shooters like you come out and point out that not only are the above possible, but that there are more than a few shooters who had this experience. I really hope the member who insulted MGFs integrity sees these posts and takes time to think about the presumptions he made, and the words he said to MGF, because he owes that man an apology.


My first round usually stinks because I freak over shooting a blank target for score or something. I just started shooting 300 rounds this past winter when we did that on-line tournament. So far I have always done better on my second round and my last few ends are usually some of my best. I think it just takes me that long to get over keeping score and just start shooting. Being a little tired physically doesn't destroy my shooting like choking does. My first round is lots of choking.

I was surprised to hear that this isn't possible. LOL


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bytesback said:


> MGF- I disagree, I don't think you said anything inappropriate. You had your integrity questioned and were insulted simply because someone else didn't have the same experience as you, and didn't shoot the same as you. I don't think its you that owes an apology, but rather that you are owed an apology.


The thing is there's one in every crowd. If you let them get you hopping, you'll be hopping all the time. It's a waste of time and effort and I should know better. 

It's also a waste of time/space for everybody else who has to wade through all the garbage to find the posts that are worth reading. I was apologizing for my part of trashing up the thread.

It's just good form to take the personal feuds off line.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

There's something I worked hard on yesterday that I think applies to any shot, though, I'm sure it won't be any revelation to a lot of you.

I said I choke when I first start shooting for score and it takes me a while to pull things together. I know that happens but yesterday I really tried to figure out what that means. What specifically was it causing me to do wrong or different? If you know what you're doing wrong and just don't do it, being a little nervous shouldn't be such a big deal.

Anyway, I realized that I'd get the bow drawn, get lined up, start to aim and...do nothing to move the shot forward. Really I've noticed this before but yesterday I really worked on it. As a solution, once I was as happy as I was going to be with alignment and started to aim, I forced my self to continue the execution. There's just no reason to wait.

It seemed like keeping the shot sequence moving forward helped me concentrate on what I was doing (because I was always doing something) and I got into a real comfortable and smooth rhythm.

I want to say that I've made the exact same mistake shooting at game. I draw, get set, begin aiming and then start second guessing or whatever and do everything but move the shot sequence forward. I'm not sure that mechanisms of target anxiety or whatever you want to call it are really any different from "buck fever". I think the solution is about the same too.


----------



## Long Rifle (Dec 8, 2011)

MGF said:


> The thing is there's one in every crowd. If you let them get you hopping, you'll be hopping all the time. It's a waste of time and effort and I should know better.
> 
> It's also a waste of time/space for everybody else who has to wade through all the garbage to find the posts that are worth reading. I was apologizing for my part of trashing up the thread.
> 
> It's just good form to take the personal feuds off line.


Actually MGF, I think I'm at fault.... for brazenly admitting that I shoot smaller targets than a ten ring from a multitude of distances, pretty much every day, and a heckuvalot more of them than 60. I guess some people don't follow the logic that aiming small to miss small, no matter what the distance or situation, holds you to a pretty tough standard if you're honest with yourself. Do you have to stand upright and hit a small white dot to be an archer? Was I wrong in assuming that multiple distances/positions might play a part, heck, might even actually increase the degree of difficulty? I assumed it did and I've invested a few years to it. 

I lean out from behind trees and shoot at 1" targets from my knees and behind me for practice. I get purely ecstatic when I get to stand up straight on a 3D range and shoot at something! And people think it's cool when I hit it!!!! Am I a top shooter? Absolutely not but Lord help the ones around here who think like these guys if I decide to become one.

I have a wife, three kids, two jobs most of the time and I still shoot most every day. I'm happy. If the right animal walks out there anywhere within my range and doesn't pick me out? My family and I are gonna eat it.

The first shot was fired across my bow, I fired a less than clean shot back to their midships, and then suggested that they take it private. And then deleted it and had a beer.

I don't lie. I don't know any of you, none of your opinions directly influence me, what you say doesn't cost me a moment of grief. Even if it did I wouldn't lie about a score or a group. It doesn't matter!!! There are some folks here that I respect based the expertise and advice(that's worked!)that I garner from your posts and I'll give most anyone the benefit of the doubt....once.

If you have a problem with me....to the point where you're going to be disrespectful in open forum....then it's probably a good idea to take it private or you won't like the response. I promise to do the same thing. It's common courtesy and respect.


----------

