# Split finger.... whats your aim style?



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

deezdrama said:


> Ive been shooting recurves for 5 years or so now.
> Ive got my form and release down but questioning my aiming style.
> 
> The problem is I actually shoot better in the 40-50 yard range than I do up close.
> ...


When I trad shoot I do corner mouth and gap, because that was how I first learned OR and it's familiar. I split finger because of OR. It is a bigger gap at 20 corner mouth versus eye level. You can do some tuning techniques to shrink the gap.

I have found I enjoy outdoor target distances more because I prefer shooting outside and it is closer to point and shoot as you move towards point on. Since most of what I do is OR that is what feels natural. Aim, shoot. Not find the gold and then aim two feet below it. You're not strange for feeling that way.

Vertical spread at that short distance suggests you are either lining up at different vertical points each shot, not anchoring consistently, or collapsing some shots. A vertical line is basically saying, the shot is going straight but at a different arc each time. Which is how far you pull back, whether you do it consistently, whether you are lining up your up-down to start with same each shot. You could work on the anchor and release and maybe that tightens it up by technique, or maybe your problem is that instinctive doesn't result in vertical consistency for you in which case aiming might help.


----------



## Bowmania (Jan 3, 2003)

Bite the bullet and learn the gap with short distances. I don't measure my gaps, but I'll bet they're close to 2.5 feet at 20 yards and I've shot 278 on the 20 yard spot target - forget what they call it.

Bowmania


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I know what you meant about large gaps, just goes with shooting split finger. 

I shoot split and think most would call me a gap shooter, at least at distances from about 20 yards and further. I mostly focus on the spot but am well aware of my arrow in my peripheral vision; aware enough that my focus is split between the two but more on the spot I want to hit. With my bifocals the arrow tip will never be sharp, but the target is. For me it's a fuzzy arrow under a sharp aiming point, and paying attention to the relation between the two. 

I think I'd fail miserably at the "shoot at a candle in a dark room test". I will say that on very close shots, 15 yards an under I just look where I want to hit. I have a tendency to shoot an inch or so high but that really isn't an issue for what I'm doing and at that range.


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

I shoot split with a fairly high anchor, middle finger in corner of mouth and shoot a 3" longer arrow 30.5" and my point on is 35 yards. My 20 yard gap is 16", not too unmanageable. When shooting 3-D the gap becomes automatic and I don't pay too much attention to it. Between 10 and 25 yards it only varies by 5".


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

You are running headlong into the reason why 3 under is by far the dominant release style among competitive trad archers.

-Grant


----------



## deezdrama (Aug 19, 2013)

Well... i tried something a little different tonight. Changed my middle finger/corner of mouth anchor to ring finger which brought the arrow up and closed the gap quite a bit. I had to consciously think about the anchor change and hit dead center of target my first 2 shots.
I was getting happy and thought maybe this anchor just worked better for my body type (im 5'11" but have monkey arms and have a 30" dl and have to use 32" arrows) unfortunatelly i pulled something in my neck/shoulder and had to end the session early.

Not sure if i should stick with my middle finger anchor or continue to experiment with my ring finger anchor.

Another thing i noticed is after trying this different anchor i got some bad wrist slap. I stopped using an arm guard years ago when i found out how to rotate my elbow out and keep my wrist out of danger but it seems with the way i changed my anchor ,somehow it made wrist slap an issue.... but also was judging gap/shooting better. Not sure if i should go back or wear a wrist guard and keep trying the higher anchor.

Anyone else shoot with no wrist guard?


----------



## longbowguy (Nov 14, 2004)

You have made some good observations. I won many championships shooting three fingers under but due to age and injury have had to reduce draw weight. As a result I have had to switch back to split fingers to reach the long field archery distances, 60 to 80 yards. You are right that the sighting gaps at short ranges, 5 to 40 yards, are so large as be useless for conscious gap aiming. So I don't use it. I rely on 'instinctive' aiming. Or call it intuitive or subconscious aiming or whatever word you prefer. Set the firm goal to hit plumb center and then empower your conscious mind to hit it. Good accuracy is possible in elevation.

I do think the vertical aspect of your anchor references is important. The corner of the mouth is not good enough, to mobile. Sometimes I find my mouth open a trifle, or my lips twisted. So I depend upon less flexible touch points further back- the back of the index finger or a thumb knuckle touch a point on the cheekbone. Maybe backed up with the first thumb knuckle touching under the jaw.

And keep your head still- no rocking up and down. - lbg


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I only shoot split finger 70 meters and out. So I really only use split when shooting FITA target. I aim using pick-a-point, though I also go to split for longer shots when stringwalking. I consider it another crawl.


----------



## deezdrama (Aug 19, 2013)

Stringwalking..... thats something i might look into. I remember reading about it years ago but forgot about it.
I guess its time for me to step it up and develop different methods for different ranges instead of trying to use split as a one size fits all method


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

At 20yrds, take your bow and w/ your eyes closed and point it at the target as if you are at fulldraw. Simulate your anchor and open your eyes to see where your bow is pointed in reference to the target. A lot of times, archers want to settle ''back'' into their anchor. This can cause one to lean back and once in this position, it's very difficult to get to bring your bow arm to the correct elevation for short distant shooting. At closer distance, try concentrating on slightly leaning forward from beginning of drawing the bow thru the release of the arrow.


----------



## deezdrama (Aug 19, 2013)

Just wondering...
Does the majority of trad shooters use the same anchor point/string position throughout different ranges... or switch anchor/string pos?

I guess it would make alot of sense to use 3 under for close shooting then switch to split at longer.

3 under just doesnt feel "right" to me but that could be because ive only shot split all these years.

I guess i could find my "point on" gap for 3 under and anything thereabouts or closer shoot 3 under.

My major gripe would be id have to change the knock point on my strings.... ive practice arrows in hand loading without looking like lajos kassai and so with knock point below the arrow i can load and slide it to the nock while drawing without looking.
Ill have to play around with it and see if i can make the adjustment


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

You can stick that anchor point basically anywhere and the goal is consistency. Corner mouth is popular and widely taught but you can go up on your cheek or like someone is saying at 20 what a lot of the better ones do is 3 under with an eye level anchor. You can go in between but the goal is generally to find a bony spot for a repeatable spot for anchor that is closer to the eye for more aiming precision and shorter gaps.

Lowering of the anchor is in part to gain distance for outdoor target.


----------



## kuda_kitsune (Jan 10, 2015)

I'm not incredibly skilled by any means (still fairly new to archery and having my own equipment), but I anchor the space between my thumb and index finger on my jaw near my ear. The corner of the mouth just isn't repeatable enough for me. That anchor point also lets the string touch my face on my nose and lips, those extra reference points seem to be essential for me. It still puts my the tip of my index finger near the corner of my mouth, but I find using the thumb/jaw much more stable.

I ended up doing some intentional gap shooting to learn where things will land (still at fairly short range, hopefully I'll get some longer range shooting in soon) and then I try to replicate that without thinking too much about the gap. The conscious gap shooting gives me an idea of the sight picture I should have, then I just try to make it look "right" once I'm back to shooting more normally. Something about picking my target and then consciously aiming below it isn't really something I enjoy as much. It's also easier to keep my form and technique more fluid when I don't use gap shooting.

Maybe some really close range blank bale shooting could be helpful to you. Once you get a normal height down you could maybe try some with lower and higher elevations at the same range. I found once I figured out how ridiculously large close range gaps are I was better able to hit the target once I went back to my regular more instinctive style. I guess what I'm saying is I tend to use gap shooting as a training tool currently. Who knows what I'll prefer once I have the chance to shoot longer ranges. But the close range in my basement is really nice considering I started archery in winter and it's been pretty good for learning form as a beginner.


----------



## Tradbow Guy (Feb 9, 2007)

Use a really heavy arrow.


----------



## SAVIOUR68 (Apr 3, 2014)

if your really serious about shooting split finger at closer ranges put the time in and get use to a high anchor.
I shoot split with my top finger directly under my lower eye lid , this will bring the arrow directly under your eye to close the gap, you my lose a slight amount of draw length but after you learn your new form things will get more comfy and get that draw length back. And yes you my even have the string hit your draw arm but this to will fix itself after learning a fixed grip for your high anchor. My shooting/accuracy increased 80% after I made these changes and gave them time to set in.


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

I shot 3 under for years but forced myself to switch because the bow balances and shoots so much quieter and smoother. Just felt like the mechanics of the bow work more in harmony. I see a lot of shooters on this form use the 3 under method. I've also noticed most posters are recent compound converts and competition trad archers. Yes, 3 under gap shooting can be easier to master accuracy w/ trad bows, especially when the distance is known and time is no concern. For me, w/ split the arrow is in a secondary frame of vision which eliminates the total dependency on the arrow point to aim with. It has worked wonders for my hunting accuracy when compared to 3under gap. As long as I keep my head alignment and good back tension follow thru, I can shoot the bow at different positions and angles w/ good accuracy out to 30yrds. With 3under gap, I was deadly in treestands under more controlled circumstances but I always felt the temptation to use the arrow point as a sight, limit my shooting situations when hunting. Of course one can master a more instinctive way of shooting w/ 3under.


----------



## TacticalCowboy (Oct 11, 2014)

Sounds like you aren't focusing enough on closer shots to me.


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

deezdrama said:


> Just wondering...
> Does the majority of trad shooters use the same anchor point/string position throughout different ranges... or switch anchor/string pos?
> 
> I guess it would make alot of sense to use 3 under for close shooting then switch to split at longer.
> ...


Some of the disciplines, organizations, and classes make you shoot the whole round with one method of gripping the string. Some make you touch the arrow the whole draw cycle which eliminates string walking. Obviously if you are not competing in a formal competition you can do whatever you want.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

deezdrama said:


> 3 under just doesnt feel "right" to me but that could be because ive only shot split all these years.


Most of us who switched, or were hesitant to switch, went through the same thing. I went through it for three months. The end of my middle finger hurt, my accuracy was junk, it made me feel unsteady and uncomfortable. After three months though, I became more comfortable and it paid off in a big way. For hunting, it became a peace of cake. Just point and shoot. Long range isn't lost either, I just gold higher. 

Knowing what I do now I never would have bothered with split finger, no matter how much more comfortable and "natural" it felt at first. All I wanted to do was hunt, and three under makes that a lot easier.


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

I'm primarily a hunter and prefer instinctive split finger, finding it quite effective for shooting quickly and quietly. I've used it successfully for many years after starting with sighted compounds and a brief stint with three-under barebow. I've even won a few 3D trophies along the way but don't consider myself a serious target shooter. If I were I'd probably either return to sighted compounds or use sight pins on my stickbows, as I feel both offer accuracy advantages and make sense if accuracy and/or precision are the main objectives. 

Taking game with a simple stickbow and equally simple shooting style, at close range, without having to depend on a pin or gap estimate to make the shot, has truly been one of the most rewarding/liberating aspects of bowhunting for me. It's hard to explain but then again so is hunting all day in freezing weather, lol.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

webster2 said:


> Taking game with a simple stickbow and equally simple shooting style, at close range, without having to depend on a pin or gap estimate to make the shot, has truly been one of the most rewarding/liberating aspects of bowhunting for me. It's hard to explain but then again so is hunting all day in freezing weather, lol.


Blondes or brunettes? 

This is the meat and potato of a lot of these issues. When we try to do something based on how we should, versus how we think we should. We're all wired with different preferences.

For me, this above statement is exactly why I like three under with a high anchor. No guess work, and ultimate simplicity. Just point and shoot. Perhaps not quite as refined as a sight pin, but I'll be honest you put a sighted bow or crossbow in my hand and I get frustrated because I can't just sight down the arrow- it's so much simpler than trying to keep the bow level and trying to set the sight to the impact. I stated on traditional bows, and always tried to aim them somehow, but I read that you were "supposed" to shoot instinctively, and that's why I went instinctive.

We're all wired a bit differently, and what we like best for us might not be what works for the guy next to us.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Threads like this have a lot of confirmation bias (seeing what you want to see). So I always look for objective measurements done by myself and others. Objectively speaking 3 under is more accurate period. Can't even attempt to argue otherwise using any objective standard.

Don't we all want to be as accurate as our chosen equipment is capable of being?

-Grant


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

grantmac said:


> Threads like this have a lot of confirmation bias (seeing what you want to see). So I always look for objective measurements done by myself and others. Objectively speaking 3 under is more accurate period. Can't even attempt to argue otherwise using any objective standard.
> 
> Don't we all want to be as accurate as our chosen equipment is capable of being?
> 
> -Grant


Which is why most of us should be spending more time in front of a scored target face than we should asking how other folks do it on the internet.


----------



## Captain837 (Mar 29, 2015)

I shoot split finger, my oldest daughter shoots split finger as well. My youngest shoots 3 under. We just shoot the way that feels most comfortable for us.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

grantmac said:


> Threads like this have a lot of confirmation bias (seeing what you want to see). So I always look for objective measurements done by myself and others. Objectively speaking 3 under is more accurate period. Can't even attempt to argue otherwise using any objective standard.
> 
> Don't we all want to be as accurate as our chosen equipment is capable of being?
> 
> -Grant



Yes and no. It all depends upon each individuals perspective and objectives. I have tried the 3 fingers under the arrow method and found it cumbersome. The bow was also noisy and vibrated like a tin can. So, instead of working to overcome these things I just choose to shoot MY way which works like a charm for me personally. Other people have a different experience and that's good for them, not me.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Yes and no. It all depends upon each individuals perspective and objectives. I have tried the 3 fingers under the arrow method and found it cumbersome. The bow was also noisy and vibrated like a tin can. So, instead of working to overcome these things I just choose to shoot MY way which works like a charm for me personally. Other people have a different experience and that's good for them, not me.


Most of us have that when we switch. Until you get used to holding that way you wind up with a lot more tension in your hand.

I can see what Grant is saying though, objectively there are no split finger shooters at the top when it comes to closer range barebow (which is as close as it gets for hunters).


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

It's always good to be confident and comfortable with one's choices and it's no different when shooting a bow. But to me it's pretty short-sighted and self-centered to infer that one's own shooting style is, without any doubt, the absolute best..."period". Ha ha, I'll just chuckle at that one and offer this up on behalf of all of us other 'inferior' folks...that as long as your own chosen method is enjoyable and works for your archery objectives then you're doing very well indeed.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> Most of us have that when we switch. Until you get used to holding that way you wind up with a lot more tension in your hand.
> 
> I can see what Grant is saying though, objectively there are no split finger shooters at the top when it comes to closer range barebow (which is as close as it gets for hunters).



Sure, I got his point also. But, in my opinion 'at the top' implies target shooters. At most competition shoots you will probably know the max distance of the targets. Let's say it's thirty yards. It's easy to set up for thirty yds point on distance and it becomes a gravy train. Hunting is a different ball of wax since dead is dead no matter how the arrow gets there. In my case the split finger method is so ingrained that anything else feels weird. I just choose to stay with tried and true for myself. I assume there are lots of other people who feel the same way as I do.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Webster, "inferiority" is relative, and I highly doubt Grant was making any sort of belittling comment. It's not much of a stretch to say that 3 under is the superior choice for close range shooting, as every form of quantifiable shooting has been dominated by three under. It just has more advantages. It's like saying a truck is better for pulling a trailer. Yes, you can do it with a little four cylinder car... but a truck is still better.

Forest, it's also not just about making it "easy for competition", it's about being as precise as possible. Yes, you may have an idea of the max yardage but so does everyone else. The expectations increase and everyone is on the same playing field. Now it's not just about hitting the kill zone, it's about drilling the heart. 

Guys let's face it, if we want to argue about the effectiveness of a certain style by saying it works to kill animals, we might as well just say it's easier to hit them with a car. I mean, all you have to do is speed around at night on a dark country road, listening to music. Why go out and sit in a stand and try to stab them with a stick? However, if you want to objectively compare the two styles using targets is the only quantitative way to do so. I'm sorry, but if it doesn't work on a stationary target where you have all the time in the world to get ready, why in the world is it going to suddenly work better when you're cold and cramped and the adrenaline is pumping? We're taking a quantifiable debate (accuracy of three under versus split) and then trying to use a pass or fail example as a rebuttal. Dead is dead, even on a less than perfect shot.

I'm not saying everyone should shoot a certain way, otherwise no one would be bothering with "inferior" traditional equipment. There are a number of people who can shoot just as well shooting split- and can do so on a quantifiable medium as well as in the woods. That's why it's up to the individual to test both objectively, if they're inclined, to see which actually produces the results *they* need, regardless of internet squabble:wink:


----------



## Captain837 (Mar 29, 2015)

kegan said:


> Most of us have that when we switch. Until you get used to holding that way you wind up with a lot more tension in your hand.
> 
> I can see what Grant is saying though, objectively there are no split finger shooters at the top when it comes to closer range barebow (which is as close as it gets for hunters).


Don't see too many barebow hunters using those set ups you see by the "top" shooters at competitions either.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Captain837 said:


> Don't see too many barebow hunters using those set ups you see by the "top" shooters at competitions either.


I can count a whole pile who are both nationally competitive and also very successful hunters who use similar equipment and technique for both. I can't think of many who go the other way though.

I'm seeing a lot of subjective feelings and confirmation bias attempting to argue against objective performance. That is fine so long as you acknowledge that you are internationally handicapping your accuracy because it makes you feel better.

-Grant


----------



## Captain837 (Mar 29, 2015)

If I can hit the kill zone of my target at my bows effective range with split finger then the animals not going to be any more dead if I used free fingers under. Besides if we are going to split hairs regarding gimp ing performance, why are we even using barebow in leu of compounds with sights and all that performance enhancing gadgetry? It's because for myself, I like doing it the way I do it because it feels right. If that works for me, then it is in no way inferior.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Captain837 said:


> If I can hit the kill zone of my target at my bows effective range with split finger then the animals not going to be any more dead if I used free fingers under. Besides if we are going to split hairs regarding gimp ing performance, why are we even using barebow in leu of compounds with sights and all that performance enhancing gadgetry? It's because for myself, I like doing it the way I do it because it feels right. If that works for me, then it is in no way inferior.


You're saying two completely different things that contradict each other.

If you're saying it's about personal preference but also trying to justify that it's just about killing. Both work to make the deer dead, but so does dropping an anvil on it. It'd be dead no matter what. If, however, you're looking to compare the actual_ accuracy _of the two, then a "good enough" comparison like that doesn't really answer any questions. Trying to dismiss target archery by saying that people don't hunt with those bows is also invalid, because many do- but that doesn't actually answer anything as far as comparing the two styles either. They can shoot whatever bow they wanted, and if split offered any advantages accuracy wise, there'd be a much more even dispersion of split to three under. You don't see that though.

As for people choosing to do things their way out of preference, rather than practicality, that's fine- and is exactly the point. Just because it's not as accurate as three under on average, or as accurate as a compound, or rifle, or a Buick, doesn't mean anything. Just enjoy yourself. As Grant stated though, it just needs acknowledged that you choose that style for reasons OTHER THAN ACCURACY.

For example, I like longbows. Love 'em. Simple and elegant, I've always been drawn to them. I love them and can outshoot _some_ folks with recurves, but it's not the longbow that lets me do that, it's technique and practice. I would never argue that my longbows can be "just as accurate" as a recurve because from a design perspective, they have a lot working against them. Same with string walking. I shoot gap and though it works great for me, string walking and shooting with a sight both can outshine gap. I'd never argue that gap is better because I kill deer with it. I might offer that it has some advantages, but they're personal and therefore not really valid in am empirical debate. 

The point is that the difference here is arguing for split on a pass/fail grading system doesn't make it just as good as three under. We're talking about a quantifiable difference. Now, if you can show that you've outshot three under shooters in a similar setting with some sort of calculable difference, that's valid. Saying "it works" doesn't work though. Like I said, so does a Buick, the cold, not enough plants, or dropping a rock on the deer's head. Bit silly, isn't it? If you feel that target shooting has no validity to you- that's fine, but you have to offer something to compare. 

I've seen people shooting split finger instinctively that can shoot just as well or better than gap shooting three under shooters. Shot control and consistency can trump style, but it was done on a much smaller venue. Nothing is set in stone though, so as long as we approach these sorts of debates rationally and with comparable examples, we can learn. If we're just going to say "well it works for me so bug off" back and forth no one grows and no one learns anything.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

LOL, this is getting funny. We've had enough 'confirmation bias' to last a few days so, moving on. In the original post the poster says that he is more comfortable shooting split finger and seems to be somewhat proficient shooting instinctively. So, it appears that he would be well served to work towards a shorter point on distance. I think he said at some point that his draw length is 30" so he is limited in the longer arrow area. Changing to three fingers under IS one way to accomplish it. :zip:


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

There are many archers who use split finger and not three under and many of them choose not to gap shoot and amazingly they do very well... even though according to some a three under gap system is 'objectively speaking more accurate period' and thinking otherwise is 'biased'. I got a good chuckle from that one. 

Howard Hill (great archer) once said that hunting style and target style don't mix, and him being a recognized expert in both fields he had the credentials to make such a bold statement and still be credible/believable. I can't say it's 'absolutely true', but I do believe him after spending 30 years with a bow. 

Most of us (certainly true in my case) can't credibly make definitive statements like Howard's because, well, we haven't earned the right to say stuff like that without sounding self-centered or stupid. Most of us just like to talk about what we like and sometimes offer the benefits of our experience to new archers without pretending to be 'absolutely right' and without chastising others for their personal choices/preferences. Most of us do that, but not everyone. So for new shooters looking for some friendly advice or seasoned archers just having some fun discussing archery remember to take the internet for what it is and don't forget the most important part...enjoying YOUR archery and respecting the right of others to do the same thing.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

All due respect but optimally at long distance you want split finger under chin (buys you more distance) and at short distances barebow you want three under because it allows you to keep the arrow eye level while string walking relative to that spot. You can do anything you want and if you practice it enough it will probably be good. But the best BB people I know, Olympians and people making high target scores, are three under string walking, just like OR people are under chin. 

I'm not saying anyone has to shoot any way. I do split finger trad because when I trad shoot I don't want a radical departure from OR which is what I do most.

One caveat, NFAA forces trad class to touch the arrow which is trying to require split finger and basically rules out string walking.


----------



## Chris1ny (Oct 23, 2006)

split finger - middle finger to corner of mouth anchor. For instinctive shooting, less concentration on arrow, more on target, the better result.


----------



## zonic (Aug 12, 2013)

Chris1ny said:


> split finger - middle finger to corner of mouth anchor. For instinctive shooting, less concentration on arrow, more on target, the better result.


I have put 3-under aside for a while to follow this same way of thinking that Chris1ny explains. 3-under always felt good to me but in the pursuit of improving instinctive shooting, controlling the nock end while roving, and perhaps a quieter release I am going this way for now. Just needed to make the realization that while 3under anchor for me was index finger to mouth corner, split needed middle finger in that anchor spot and nock point remained the same.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Webster, the comment was from John Shulz, who was at the time marketing a "dated" shooting method. Why would anyone shoot a longbow without sights when a compound is more accurate? "Well, let me tell you..."

Chris, what about Rick Welch's system? It seems to do a good job of getting the arrow close to the eye.

It seems we're not going to be able to have an objective debate about this, so I'll bow out now.


----------



## Chris1ny (Oct 23, 2006)

kegan said:


> Webster, the comment was from John Shulz, who was at the time marketing a "dated" shooting method. Why would anyone shoot a longbow without sights when a compound is more accurate? "Well, let me tell you..."
> 
> Chris, what about Rick Welch's system? It seems to do a good job of getting the arrow close to the eye.
> 
> It seems we're not going to be able to have an objective debate about this, so I'll bow out now.


With Traditional recurve (not Olympic style) I shoot split fingers because I tilt the riser and also because 3 finger under never felt right after the shoot. The bow seems to "complaint" after the shot. The upper limbs and lower limbs are not doing the same amount of work and there is an unbalanced feeling to the shot.

For barebow compounds I don't tilt the riser and with shorter ATA, to eliminate finger pinching, I shoot with 3 finger under, with the arrow under the eye.

Which way is better, depends on the type of bow I'm shooting. Which way do I prefer, I like both methods evenly.


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

The idea that one aiming style is unquestionably and unequivocally better than another in a universe of available aiming styles and shooting venues is so far removed from reality that it MIGHT (just might) be regarded as pure nonsense. It's not worth spending more time on 'debating'. And the last time I checked there are no aiming police so I think we're we're all safe.

Kegan, I didn't know Howard Hill or his #1 student John Schulz (spelled with a 'c') personally, but I do believe Mr. Schulz when he describes what Hill believed and the statements that Hill made while he (Schulz) was being taught as a young boy. I hardly think the hunting vs. targets reference was a marketing ploy. Also, I've seen the Rick Welch videos and although he does use and promote three under he also says his style works with split finger. And he characterizes himself as an instinctive shooter, not a gap shooter. 

Have a safe and Happy Easter everyone, it's time to peel potatoes and put the ham in the oven.


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

kegan said:


> Webster, the comment was from John Shulz, who was at the time marketing a "dated" shooting method. Why would anyone shoot a longbow without sights when a compound is more accurate? "Well, let me tell you..."
> 
> Chris, what about Rick Welch's system? It seems to do a good job of getting the arrow close to the eye.
> 
> It seems we're not going to be able to have an objective debate about this, so I'll bow out now.


We can have an objective argument. I would argue that the one arena that we have no discussed where I bet you will find a lot of top guys shooting split is field shooting. I cannot say this for certain naturally but, I am willing to bet it's so. If I am wrong then naturally stand corrected. I would argue that field shooting is pretty gosh darn close to hunting scenarios especially out west.


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

Other non competition styles that use split try byron ferguson. He has incredible close range accuracy which has been witnessed and documented. Just my 2c. Lol hell I shoot 3 under and use face walking for field shooting before anyone tells me I haven't tried it or other nonsense.(Even if I do suck at it! Lol)


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

webster2 said:


> There are many archers who use split finger and not three under and many of them choose not to gap shoot and amazingly they do very well... even though according to some a three under gap system is 'objectively speaking more accurate period' and thinking otherwise is 'biased'. I got a good chuckle from that one.
> 
> Howard Hill (great archer) once said that hunting style and target style don't mix, and him being a recognized expert in both fields he had the credentials to make such a bold statement and still be credible/believable. I can't say it's 'absolutely true', but I do believe him after spending 30 years with a bow.


Not sure who those archers are, but they aren't showing up to any organized shoots.

Hill was also quoted as saying a longbow was easier to shoot than a recurve, something which would be considered laughable if a person was to make that statement today. Then again Hill sold longbows and hunting movies.....



jakeemt said:


> We can have an objective argument. I would argue that the one arena that we have no discussed where I bet you will find a lot of top guys shooting split is field shooting. I cannot say this for certain naturally but, I am willing to bet it's so. If I am wrong then naturally stand corrected. I would argue that field shooting is pretty gosh darn close to hunting scenarios especially out west.


NFAA Field Trad division nationals has been dominated by 3 under shooters. As was/is Bowhunter (non-sight compound).
There are no competitive divisions for non-sight shooting in which split is the dominant style.

-Grant


----------



## badkitty (Oct 13, 2012)

deezdrama said:


> Just wondering...
> Does the majority of trad shooters use the same anchor point/string position throughout different ranges... or switch anchor/string pos?
> 
> I guess it would make alot of sense to use 3 under for close shooting then switch to split at longer.
> ...


Most archers use a single anchor point since the rules for traditional archery classes of most organizations require that you use a single anchor point. The exception is for barebow classes where you can stringwalk, facewalk, and switch between split/3-under.

You might try gapping at the riser instead of gapping at the target. When gapping at the target you imagine a point 30 or so inches below the target and hold the tip of your arrow on this imaginary point. This is not so bad if your gaps are around 18", but if you are shooting split finger with a low anchor you might have a 40-50" gap. A 40-50" gap leaves you a lot of room for error and you'll always be aiming way down in the dirt.

When gapping at the riser you imagine a point on the back of your riser above the arrow or side plate and hold this imaginary riser point at the same elevation as the target. Say if the site window on your riser is 8" high, your riser gap will be somewhere below middle of the site window around 3-4" above where the arrow is resting. When you come to full anchor, visually split your riser window in half then go a bit below the halfway point and put this point right beside the target. This should get you close to the right elevation.


----------



## ahunter55 (Aug 17, 2009)

These gals & guy at the NFAA outdoor Nationals seemed to fair pretty well with their split finger long bows & ranges up to & including 80 yds.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

ahunter55 said:


> These gals & guy at the NFAA outdoor Nationals seemed to fair pretty well with their split finger long bows & ranges up to & including 80 yds.


Those pictures are from the IFAA Worlds held in I believe Florida, IFAA longbow requires split finger.


----------



## Jeb-D. (Sep 21, 2011)

Deezdrama, I've had good luck paying attention to how the target is framed in the sight window (mentally partitioning the sight window). For an explanation, see http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2209253


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

ahunter55 said:


> These gals & guy at the NFAA outdoor Nationals seemed to fair pretty well with their split finger long bows & ranges up to & including 80 yds.


As Grant said the reason the longbow guys shoot split finger is because it's required by the rules. The reason it's required is some shooters switched to split and started winning. Rather than switching to the more effective method of aiming the whiners decided three under was cheating (because it's more effective) and made it illegal. 

The only competitive classes that use split are sited classes like olympic or classes where it is required by the rules. All other classes are dominated by three under because it's more effective. 

I'm sure folks will say well that's just for target dorks - target is all about accuracy - hunting should be all about accuracy


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Matt_Potter said:


> As Grant said the reason the longbow guys shoot split finger is because it's required by the rules. The reason it's required is some shooters switched to split and started winning. Rather than switching to the more effective method of aiming the whiners decided three under was cheating (because it's more effective) and made it illegal.


Did you mean some folks switched to three under and started winning?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Yeah not enough coffee on board LOL


----------



## Tracker12 (Sep 22, 2003)

"I thought about switching to 3 under but dont want to.... just doesnt feel right... like im cheating or something."

You might be cheating yourself out of accuracy.

I think another thing you need to consider is whether you will primarily be target shooting or hunting. That may or may not impact what you choose to use as a aiming method. And there are guys that shoot instinctive close and gap or use point on at distance.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Chris1ny said:


> With Traditional recurve (not Olympic style) I shoot split fingers because I tilt the riser and also because 3 finger under never felt right after the shoot. The bow seems to "complaint" after the shot. The upper limbs and lower limbs are not doing the same amount of work and there is an unbalanced feeling to the shot.
> 
> For barebow compounds I don't tilt the riser and with shorter ATA, to eliminate finger pinching, I shoot with 3 finger under, with the arrow under the eye.
> 
> Which way is better, depends on the type of bow I'm shooting. Which way do I prefer, I like both methods evenly.


A bow 'complaining sounds' like a tiller issue, nocking point, but I know what you mean, though with most bows, 3 under just feels better to me. When I started shooting, I shot split finger, because I didn't know what a nock locator was, and believed that I needed to hold the arrow in place. When I got a 'real' bow with a nock locator, I just kept doing it. Somebody suggested I shoot 3 under, I tried it, and I liked the way it felt, mostly because it put my draw hand in line with my bow hand, and it felt like I was pulling on the bow 'straighter'. Draw felt more relaxed, easier. Interestingly, I subsequently screwed around on another bow, when I got my first Predator recurve, and found out that with some bows, shooting between split and 3 under doesn't feel much different at all. I don't know what could account for that, but maybe some bowyers could answer that...

While I would agree that 3 under definitely has aiming advantages, 'instinctively', or not, I also think that the individual needs to decide, in any given scenario, if it's what they want to do. It may be feel, it may be preference, or it may just be habit, and any and all things are valid, and their personal choice doesn't need justification. 

Sometimes it's a matter of a person giving a different technique enough of a chance to take to see the benefits. At the same time, sometimes some people just have difficulties with something else, and it will never work, or whatever it takes to make that work isn't worth it to them. This is my case with a high anchor. It certainly provides a more concrete aiming reference. In itself, it may be more accurate. For me, I can't see a way to make my body do it while still maintaining what I believe is good alignment, minimizing muscle load, and maximizing skeletal load. I'm still dipping my toes into string walking as an aiming alternative, but as far as my anchor is concerned, _for me_, I am convinced that I have found the best compromise _for the shooting I want to do_, which is a wide variety of distance, applicable to a wide array of draw weights.

I'd advocate at least trying 3 under first for new shooters for many reasons, but if they really prefer how stuff works shooting split finger, for whatever reasons, that's cool.


----------

