# Instinctive?



## Longbow91115 (May 4, 2009)

Just curious as to what the prevailing thoughts are on this. I saw Viper1 mention it in another post. In teaching bow hunter ed along side other instructors I occasionally see an effort to perpetuate the myth that accomplished bare bow shooters have a gift. The gift being, that they can "instinctively" acquire a target and successfully hit without having sights. I think this is an intimidating concept for someone starting out. 

My belief is that after years of using an aiming method it becomes so ingrained that the shooter no longer has to concentrate on the pattern or system of aiming. This allows the shooter to acquire sight picture without focus on the system and is falsely perceived as "instinctive". 

Thoughts?


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

I agree with your premise, but there are exceptions that shoot very well "instinctively."

btw....I'd really like to see this posted over on the Leatherwall, or on Tradgang. :^)


----------



## Longbow91115 (May 4, 2009)

I'll buy that. Well said.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Jim Casto Jr said:


> btw....I'd really like to see this posted over on the Leatherwall, or on Tradgang. :^)


You just really have a "thing" for watching train wrecks don't you?


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

I won't get into trying to argue one way or the other about instinctive 

but 

I agree completely with you in that - 

It makes zero sense to make it harder than it is.
Teach a new shooter to aim, and aim well, and then they have a good foundation to develop
their own functional & suitable style in the future. 

Rick


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

The term "instinctive" encompasses a myriad of sight picture and personal technical variants that makes this term perhaps the most complex, and at the same time, the least specific term used in archery. "Instinctive" possesses much nuance, and as such, the term's meaning can either befuddle or present itself as crystal clear within a given beholder's contemplation of it.

Some can describe their instinctive processes quite specifically ... enough so that one could explore the tactic for themselves following their well-explained template. Others shoot instinctively, yet are not able to satisfactorily articulate the nature of their processes ... these processes are somewhat of a mystery, or simply too complex to summarize with adequate clarity, to even themselves ... yet they employ the tactic with expert results. 

I do know this: an archer utilizing any aiming tactic with a high level of repeated success is most certainly well-practiced and experienced. They are not overnight successes, have worked diligently at their craft, and are competent at what they do. Whether or not they can articulate their tactics is a separate issue from the application of these tactics. 

The same is true of all endeavors. Some can perform an endeavor well, yet not have the gift to be able to explain what they are doing with globally understandable eloquence. Others do have this "gift of gab", and are able to shed light on certain processes that others can then absorb, explore, apply, or discard within their own situation.

There are many teaching tactics one can utilize at the beginner level to get a new archer near the mark, including multiple aiming explanations. Here it becomes personal between the teacher and student, and if both are fairly clever folks, the learning curve will proceed quite nicely. Later, the new archer will certainly explore advantageous alternatives across the entire technical archery spectrum, including aiming, as they become further established in the skill.

And sometimes, that new archer's very first sight picture may well be the keeper for the long haul ... and for many it is indeed "instinctive" (accompanied by whatever nuance that the term holds for them).

"Vague" happens within an analog biology.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Think about it this way. 

What's the guy who has good hand/eye coordination but cannot get off the string or hold a bow aligned consistently? 

What's the guy who has poor hand/eye coordination but can consistently loose an arrow with good alignment and release?

Some folks have good hand/eye coordination and it makes up for slights in other areas. Some folks have good form and it makes up for slights in other areas.

What's the guy who has perfect hand/eye coordination and perfect alignment and release? A Gold Medalist Olympic archer


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Well?...since this bait bucket is really wreaking to high heaven?...here comes the big bear! :laugh:

Annnnnnnd?...SURPRISE!...Yes!.....I AGREE!....it's much easier and far more inviting with much faster results if the "new too stickbows" are initiated with....

Super lightweight bows they have utter physical control over from day 1...then instruct the appropriate (and almost obligatory these days) Olympic style form...and then ingrain the students physical shot sequence...closely followed by instilling a hard conscious aiming system and there you have it! 

a compound archer with one pin and no wheels or cables! 

and?.....:set1_applaud: :set1_applaud: :set1_applaud:

WELL DONE! :thumbs_up

except?...some of us don't want to shoot like that....and enjoy a far less formal but more relaxing approach to our one string archery. 

as for some of us?...it's more like just throwing a ball...and not like a NASA Launch Sequence....where every shot is literally construed as a life and death matter. 

Okay...that's enough...and now back to my evil trailer trash instinctive snap shooting ways! :laugh:

Oh and BTW?...y'all have fun with this one! LOL! ...shoot safe and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

.... a better question would be ... "explain the physiology of hand eye co-ordination as used in the execution of an archery shot " ..... now that would be interesting

see the signature below for a clue.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Yewselfbow said:


> .... a better question would be ... "explain the physiology of hand eye co-ordination as used in the execution of an archery shot " ..... now that would be interesting
> 
> see the signature below for a clue.


I would say, since the sight picture is made of a floating aim, the timing of the release at correct position in the sight picture, which might not necessarily mean in exact center of aim- there's a more than a few milliseconds loss between eye, brain and muscle in the system.

For too many, it's probably when the instinctive fairy touches down and says "go"!


----------



## mmorton (Aug 17, 2010)

To me, instinctive archery is like throwing a ball or grabbing a door knob, or flipping on a light switch while at the same time being like throwing a football through a tire 50 yds away...we don't "aim" for the door knob or the light switch or even the ball on a mundane level, we just do it because we've done it a million times. If we want to hit that tire at 50 yds...then we have to deconstruct that mundane every - day task and perfect every aspect of it. It can be done, and most people could do it, but do they have the resources, the money, (goes to gear and leisure time to practice), and most importantly, the will. What we lack in will and/or determination, we make up for by saying those that do have it are "gifted". It's a whole lot easier than saying "it just wasn't important enough" or "I just didn't want it bad enough" . The truth is, IMHO, it's determination and time. Every day we manage a controlled fall, regardless of the obstacles because at one point we wanted to walk more than anything else. Think about it.


----------



## George D. Stout (May 11, 2005)

When I think about your thinking about instinctive, I'm thinking you're thinking too much. I became a good instinctive archer when I learned to process the shots through form and practice. That means good form and good practice. And yes, it was not overnight. I worked myself to AA Barebow Bowunter in the mid 70's after starting shooting competitively in 1968. I don't use gap method, I don't string walk...I only know my point-on with the setup I'm using. After that it's focus on targets short of my point-on, and point high after that distance. Here's a video of some arrows at 55 yards with a 54" Browning recurve and 2016 aluminum arrows. A slight wind from left to right. This is my casual practice, and my competitive juices not kicked in. LOL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZk8aQUtbxM


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Longbow91115 said:


> Just curious as to what the prevailing thoughts are on this. I saw Viper1 mention it in another post. In teaching bow hunter ed along side other instructors I occasionally see an effort to perpetuate the myth that accomplished bare bow shooters have a gift. The gift being, that they can "instinctively" acquire a target and successfully hit without having sights. I think this is an intimidating concept for someone starting out.
> 
> My belief is that after years of using an aiming method it becomes so ingrained that the shooter no longer has to concentrate on the pattern or system of aiming. This allows the shooter to acquire sight picture without focus on the system and is falsely perceived as "instinctive".
> 
> Thoughts?


Instinctive shooting is a generally accepted label for aiming subconsciously. The shooter does not reference anything beyond the spot to hit and completely allows their subconscious to set the sight picture without any conscious thought.

That's it, that's all.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

kegan said:


> Instinctive shooting is a generally accepted label for aiming subconsciously. The shooter does not reference anything beyond the spot to hit and completely allows their subconscious to set the sight picture without any conscious thought.
> 
> That's it, that's all.


You see, the problem I have with these sort of statements is that they have no basis in the real world of neuro sciences. The very few studies that have imaged the brain during the execution of an archery shot all display elevated areas of activity in and associated with the motor cortex. The cortex is known to be the primary area for the regulation and execution of neural activity associated with highly conscious motor activity. There's no clinical or applied research evidence to even suggest that any part of the shot sequence can be considered sub- conscious.


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

I like Ricks answer....... good form is crucial to whatever aiming style you use is crucial to a beginner to understand...[apologies to Mr Asbell] shooting a bow is NOT like throwing a baseball.

I've shot tournaments with all of the different aiming styles including instinctive guys, my take; there are a handful of instinctive guys that can ALMOST hang in there with the gappers and stringwalkers at short yardage 3 D tourneys...on field courses with 60,70,80 yd shots-not so well. As long as a guy focuses on good form first...there is no reason he can't become a deadly hunter shooting pie plate groups using instinctive at close 25 yd and in ranges. Sure there are outliers like Rick welch that have been shooting instinctive for many years and he is a fantastic shot.

The short story; A guy can shoot much more accurately faster using an aiming system.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Yewselfbow said:


> You see, the problem I have with these sort of statements is that they have no basis in the real world of neuro sciences. The very few studies that have imaged the brain during the execution of an archery shot all display elevated areas of activity in and associated with the motor cortex. The cortex is known to be the primary area for the regulation and execution of neural activity associated with highly conscious motor activity. There's no clinical or applied research evidence to even suggest that any part of the shot sequence can be considered sub- conscious.


Well the answer is simple yew...since those who claim to be utilizing a more temporal shot sequence can and do recall all steps taken throughout said sequence?...those who's neurons fire spatially simply don't recall all the sub-events that took place because as far as they are aware?...it all happened as one huge singular event.

so imho?....we have temporal aimers and spatial shooters so to speak.


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

After shooting stick bows for the better part of 50 years, I agree with Kegan, some things just aren't meant to be complicated.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

voodoofire1 said:


> After shooting stick bows for the better part of 50 years, I agree with Kegan, some things just aren't meant to be complicated.


And they aren't...on either side of this never ending fence...but yewselfbow knows the answers..and it comes in the form of...

Some folks can just glance at the multiplication flash cards and immediately scream out the answer while others have to do the math...but as the numbers get longer?...even those who can normally shout out the answers at a glance now have to put pencil too paper and do the math as well or?...risk getting it wrong.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

mmorton said:


> To me, instinctive archery is like throwing a ball or grabbing a door knob, or flipping on a light switch while at the same time being like throwing a football through a tire 50 yds away...we don't "aim" for the door knob or the light switch or even the ball on a mundane level, we just do it because we've done it a million times. If we want to hit that tire at 50 yds...then we have to deconstruct that mundane every - day task and perfect every aspect of it. It can be done, and most people could do it, but do they have the resources, the money, (goes to gear and leisure time to practice), and most importantly, the will. What we lack in will and/or determination, we make up for by saying those that do have it are "gifted". It's a whole lot easier than saying "it just wasn't important enough" or "I just didn't want it bad enough" . The truth is, IMHO, it's determination and time. Every day we manage a controlled fall, regardless of the obstacles because at one point we wanted to walk more than anything else. Think about it.


mmorton, think of this! Take a "decent" level baseball thrower. Did he get there by throwing 100,000 balls against the side of barn, as fun as it was? His last ball was probably a little more accurate than his first, but without any further formalities in training, he last ball probably will never be much more accurate than his first.

Now, think about a truly "gifted", one-in-a-million, major league pitcher. As bad as he might want it, as bad as he might think it important enough, you can bet he didn't get there from that method either. 

Determination is what got him through the countless hours of dedicated coaching, process analysis, and refinement of every single, tiny, aspect of his throw.

I guess the bottom line is that to be really good at instinctive takes the same process as does any other aiming method. On the flip side, one can be mediocre at any aiming method as well. The "gift" is in shooting the bow, NOT how one aims it. Nurturing the gift of shooting well takes work.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Yewselfbow said:


> You see, the problem I have with these sort of statements is that they have no basis in the real world of neuro sciences. The very few studies that have imaged the brain during the execution of an archery shot all display elevated areas of activity in and associated with the motor cortex. The cortex is known to be the primary area for the regulation and execution of neural activity associated with highly conscious motor activity. There's no clinical or applied research evidence to even suggest that any part of the shot sequence can be considered sub- conscious.


Hey, I'm no neuroscientist. I'm just using layman's terms. We can just say peripheral vision shooting if you like, but it's all the same: you look at the spot and you set up the sight picture without thinking about it. 

Doesn't really matter what sort of terminology is used, it's still the same shot.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

kegan said:


> Hey, I'm no neuroscientist. I'm just using layman's terms. We can just say peripheral vision shooting if you like, but it's all the same: you look at the spot and you set up the sight picture without thinking about it.
> 
> Doesn't really matter what sort of terminology is used, it's still the same shot.


Kegan...don't take it personal bud! :laugh:

Too neuroscientists?...when they jump in a vehicle and arrive at a destination and someone asks how they got there?...they won't even answer until they have a full and complete understanding of all the workings of an internal combustion engine...down to the last valve stem....it's just how they are. :laugh:

But man are they an interesting pack of smart butts!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

voodoofire1 said:


> ........some things just aren't meant to be complicated.


"Complicated" being relative to the individual  Some folks just don't find some things that complicated, as much as it might befuddle others.


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

For the purpose of an aiming tactic discussion, I find neither Kegan's "aiming subconsciously" nor Yew's "no basis in the real world of neuro sciences" to be at odds whatsoever, nor contradictory if taken with the appropriate analysis of intent. 

The generic interpretation of the word "subconscious" for certain working-class discussions is perhaps far more vague than the scientific definition would beg, but is very apt as to the _perceived_ observation of the participants as they describe the nature of their instinctive shot. Of course the body's neurological network is processing information and issuing commands at every step of a shot sequence, even as it does so as we breathe. However, what the shooter perceives within his reflective observation upon how his brain is processing information during the shot isn't always easily described in the terms of hard science, and many wouldn't know the scientific phraseology in order to be more specific in relating such a self-observation. 

In addition, their focus is not upon the notice of scientific data during the shot, but rather upon manipulating a physical activity that includes vision.

The scientist hits the topic from the inside-out ... from the molecular to the manifest via multiple chains of biological events subject to study using the scientific method and associated equipment. He attempts to define the instinctive processes by measurable biological absolutes. This is expected, appropriate, and vital, since it offers exacting physio-neurological knowledge for the archer's academic and practical perusal. 

I think that both can easily meet in the middle, or even defer to each others immediate practicality, depending upon the nature of the conversation at hand and the mind-set of the participants within that conversation. 

When discussing instinctive processes in terms of the archer's perception and observation, perhaps "subconscious" and its general implications to the participants can suffice as information is tossed about.

When attempting to go deeper, and really trying to put a finger on exactly what the neurological processes at play are and how their resultant physical outcomes may be manipulated during the instinctive shot, the language of science is welcome, and can be used to shed light into corners that may be evading those who desire more specifics as to the nature an application of this type of shot. 

There are two ways to toot a horn. 

One: 
_"Form an "M" with your lips, purse them together, roll them inwards to form a reverse valve, place them into the mouthpiece, and allow them to vibrate within a steady stream of air". _ 
(A full page of information could follow here, but I abbreviate this particular analogy out of courtesy to those who may be taking time to read this post.)

Two: 
_"Stick the horn on your face and blow it."_

Both are widely-used and proven tactics, and we're listening to the results of each daily upon our iPods and shopping mall sound systems.


----------



## Captainkirk (Sep 18, 2014)

While we all have our own opinions, I am tending to gravitate more towards mmorton's answer, for this reason:
Having only shot instinctively for a few short months now, I have gone from piss-poor to fairly decent, on the back of shooting 75-100 arrows daily with a light (35#) bow and diligently working on form. But even now my first couple shots are off the mark until I "get my bearings", and then I start dropping them right in there....leading me to believe there is result in practice and repetition that (like aiming for a doorknob) will eventually become ingrained as to be second nature (all the more reason to start archers off young). I firmly believe more practice will lead me to dropping the first shot in there as accurately as the follow-ups. It's a matter of conditioning and repetition.
Of course, some are more possessed with natural ability and respond better and more quickly to practice and repetition as with any sport or activity. Not to say that Joe Average can't attain a very competent level given good basic form and enough practice and ingraining of habit. What it comes down to, (I agree) is...._"how bad do you want it?"_


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Thin Man, if there's a gift on display here, it has to be your ability to put that summation together, so precisely, and so quickly! Great job.

To add to the analogy of the musical instrument, the next step is pushing buttons to make music, good music that is. Now, we all know there is such thing as an accomplished sounding musician who can't even read music. Odds in the population??? 

Well, if Trad forums were representative of the population of non-sighted archers, the bell curve would be total garbage. Heck, just pick up a bow and start shooting till you get it. It's as easy as falling off a log. Never seen so many .005%-er's in one room


----------



## Targetshoot (May 20, 2013)

I shoot just instinctive. I do it because i just love to look at a target, pull back and let it go. I have never shot gap, and i dont even know nor care where my point on is for my setup. I never have to try to figure what the yardage is of my target because I dont cae how far. I look andshoot. Now i do totally agree that form and consistancy is foremost in good shooting. I also beleive that my form of shooting is utilizing some method of aiming even if I don't consiously think of it. Am I going to be an award winner at any major level? probably not. But in 6 months of shooting I can stand up with anyone at our club and with abit more practice I am intend on going for the State NFAA indoor title for my age group. If it happens fine and if not I am going to have a ball shooting our local region 3D shoots next year.


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

Sanford, 

The very notion of "odds in the population" should be the impetus for critical self-analysis to be employed at all stages of a skill's development ... if ya wanna.

If a person is satisfied with their current level of technical accomplishment, and is progressing (if desired) towards more refinement on a satisfactory trajectory, then self-analysis is perhaps unnecessary. 

However, the moment that one becomes aware that they are not satisfied with their technique, results, progress, or feel (or put in other politely-intended words, discovers that they may be "average" rather than "a natural"), the most logical thing to do would be to reassess what has been previously done, study why things are as they are and what it would take to make things different, and to then seek a positive modification of the learning process in order to once again propel themselves satisfactorily forward in their skill. 

As each individual is different, so is the presentation of, and reaction to, each of their skill's observable benchmarks along the way. Each individual also places a unique expectation upon their skill. It may seem odd and counter-intuitive that a person would settle for inaccuracy when tactics are available to remedy this. However, that person may enjoy their particular "lock-in" with regards to their skill, and not view their accuracy as being problematic at that point in time. As time goes by, they will always have the option to seek an alternate remedy for improvement, yet may decide never to explore this since, for they are eternally content as they desire to be. 

Some individuals may also enjoy the physical and mental process of their own method of shooting so much that they, knowingly and willingly, decline to proceed otherwise. To some this may seem an odd self-imprisonment, yet to that shooter it is simply the most pleasurable and calculated choice. 

Now, in some instances there may be another psychology at play that cannot be discounted. One can enter into a comfort zone, realize inadequacy, desperately wish to remedy that, yet avoid the modification of one's study and technique in order to move forward due to a litany of reasons that one may not be willing to overcome ... such as fear of failure, pride, peer pressure, and the like. These may seem irrational reasons for sticking with a perceived inadequacy, but they are indeed genuine and compelling reasons in the mind of that individual. New tactics require study, time, and backwards-before-forwards processes that may be daunting for some folks, especially if lots of time has already been invested in arriving at a particular level of accomplishment.

More fodder for the mix. Viewpoints vary, and we all be solo artists with our bow. The "team sports" of it all most certainly resides within the electrical punting between the individual neurons within our own brain.


----------



## Roger Savor Sr (Feb 16, 2014)

And for all the semantics here, what does it actually do for you?.......Semantics, that is. I gap and there is no other way around that. For me, it's about quick target acquisition and a learned and/or measured response to it. That said, why is it such an ego buster for some that others don't gap, or use the arrow in their periphery to consistently send the arrow to the mark? My friend George D. Stout posted above about his method. He shoots a short arrow cut just an inch beyond the riser, if that, and utilizes a low anchor(split-finger with the INDEX finger to the corner of the mouth) and can kill the target(and game) with every bit as much consistency as I do with my high anchor/3 under. We're both well above average shots, but utilize entirely different shooting methods........Why is that so hard to understand or believe? Really, I often wonder why most of us gappers don't actually put a sight on the bow and do it "the right way" to begin with. We kinda sound like the guys using compounds, who admonish the crossbows guys because we feel they aren't doing archery the right way either.


----------



## sheepdogreno (Sep 29, 2014)

you guys make my brain hurt...


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

kegan said:


> Instinctive shooting is a generally accepted label for aiming subconsciously. The shooter does not reference anything beyond the spot to hit and completely allows their subconscious to set the sight picture without any conscious thought.
> 
> That's it, that's all.


Nicely done


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Nice to have several opinions without anybody getting their panties in knot, couple of years ago "the word Instinctive" was almost a dirty word, is nice to be able to discuss this subject again civilized. 

When I think about my shot sequence I am training to make it as automatic as possible (including the aim) but I also have a series of check points (like a simple computer flow chart) that allows me to abort the shot if something isn't correct as I got into the next step of the sequence, I imagine if the sequence was totally automatic then you may get into the situation where the sequence is followed even if a mistake is identified, some cognitive input must be going on because you need to decide if if part of the sequence and aim is correct. 

We talk about this stuff on the Forums, very rare I ask about a persons aiming choice at tourneys, I really admire somebody who is consistently accurate, it's a joy to watch that kind of skill no matter the style of shooting.:thumbs_up


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Where's OSB? He'd set us straight.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

If you ask any top level compound shooter what he sees/focuses on while executing his shot. The answer will be the spot - are they instinctive??

I have taken the time to learn most of he aiming systems string-walker / gap / instinctive / point of aim / pins / aperture - my focus is exactly the same - the the exact spot I want to hit. 

The only difference between the aiming styles is the size of the sight picture that you are using to frame the spot before you bring your fine focus to bear on the exact spot you want to hit.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

kegan said:


> Instinctive shooting is a generally accepted label for aiming subconsciously. The shooter does not reference anything beyond the spot to hit and completely allows their subconscious to set the sight picture without any conscious thought.
> 
> That's it, that's all.


Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

It's really just that simple.


----------



## Joe Hohmann (Oct 24, 2013)

I think true "instinctive" would be the very first shot a novice ever took. If he or she hit the paper (anywhere), I would say that was a good instinctive shot. I shoot split-image. My both eyes are open and boring into the X in the bullseye. However, if you asked me where the tip of my arrow was pointing at 30 yds, I'd say "sort of in the lower right of the paper". At 20 yds, "Lower, but more toward center". But like I said, I do best if totally focused on the X. I think many of the archery "how to" books, that focus on hunting, present "instinctive" as a macho gift of the Gods.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

kegan said:


> Instinctive shooting is a generally accepted label for aiming subconsciously. The shooter does not reference anything beyond the spot to hit and completely allows their subconscious to set the sight picture without any conscious thought.
> 
> That's it, that's all.


I usually don't get involved with these threads anymore but this sums it up nicely


----------



## mmorton (Aug 17, 2010)

Sanford, I agree wholeheartedly. I just believe that not trying for excellence by saying that "those guys are gifted" or believing that the only way to be really good is to be born with a gift is a tragedy. Heck, there are archers with no hands or arms who can shoot as well or better than a lot of us......


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

steve morley said:


> Nice to have several opinions without anybody getting their panties in knot, couple of years ago "the word Instinctive" was almost a dirty word, is nice to be able to discuss this subject again civilized.
> 
> When I think about my shot sequence I am training to make it as automatic as possible (including the aim) but I also have a series of check points (like a simple computer flow chart) that allows me to abort the shot if something isn't correct as I got into the next step of the sequence, I imagine if the sequence was totally automatic then you may get into the situation where the sequence is followed even if a mistake is identified, some cognitive input must be going on because you need to decide if if part of the sequence and aim is correct.
> 
> We talk about this stuff on the Forums, very rare I ask about a persons aiming choice at tourneys, I really admire somebody who is consistently accurate, it's a joy to watch that kind of skill no matter the style of shooting.:thumbs_up


Yes Steve...refreshing...isn't it?...and I think it's a "Male Ego/Pride Thing" of why such a simple 3 syllable word seems to invoke so much emotion from so many...and?...



Matt_Potter said:


> If you ask any top level compound shooter what he sees/focuses on while executing his shot. The answer will be the spot - are they instinctive??
> 
> I have taken the time to learn most of he aiming systems string-walker / gap / instinctive / point of aim / pins / aperture - my focus is exactly the same - the the exact spot I want to hit.
> 
> The only difference between the aiming styles is the size of the sight picture that you are using to frame the spot before you bring your fine focus to bear on the exact spot you want to hit.


Good post Matt! :thumbs_up

And not that I have to explain myself or make excuses but...Lord knows I'm guilty of identifying myself as an instinctive aimer....many times over here....But I'm happy just being a humble and casual backyard plinker these days...limiting my longest shots to 25yds...it's just a fun and relaxing past-time and form of upper body exercise for me to stay a little active as I approach my golden years here....nevertheless...I like my arrows to strike where I'm looking...and with as little thought as possible....with bows of a weight light enough with shots executed smoothly and quick enough that nothing is ever a struggle...yet I know for a fact that while I lay claim to being instinctive?...what's really going on is gapping at a lower level of awareness.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

there are few great instinctive shooter`s i am not one of them, its something they are born with this unlimited ability of a few ,just look at byron ferguson , howard hill and some unknowns its a great archery art they have been born with.i also believe these few are a type B person with ice in their vanes they are the true exceptions of the archery world and i know of an unkunown with this ability, this person when shooting his traditional bow is a joy to watch. its a gift these few are born with not a way of aiming learned ,these same few have this great hand and eye coordination. the rest of us 99.9 % of us just have to keep trying,so enjoy archery,Pete53


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Oh lord help me. I got sucked in. 

From reading Howard Hill's explanation on his shooting methods, I do not believe he was an instinctive shooter. 
At least not as his primary way of shooting. 

He shot split vision, which means even though his focus was on his intended 
point of arrow impact he was still *consciously* well aware of where/how his arrow was pointed in his peripheral vision. 

I have tried to implement as much of what I understand about his shooting into my own method,
and it is far removed from what folks define as instinctive. I can also shoot instinctive if need be.

Rick


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Hill was a gapper, not instinctive. He saw his arrow.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

You did it now, Rick. Kegan, get out while you're young. You have too much to live for. 

God, I miss Ken.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Rick Barbee said:


> Oh lord help me. I got sucked in.
> 
> From reading Howard Hill's explanation on his shooting methods, I do not believe he was an instinctive shooter.
> At least not as his primary way of shooting.
> ...


Well Thanks Rick!.....there goes my claim to fame!  :laugh:

because I guess I do go "Split Vision" on those long shots...like anything past 12-15yds or so. :laugh:


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

Matt_Potter said:


> If you ask any top level compound shooter what he sees/focuses on while executing his shot. The answer will be the spot - are they instinctive??
> 
> I have taken the time to learn most of he aiming systems string-walker / gap / instinctive / point of aim / pins / aperture - my focus is exactly the same - the the exact spot I want to hit.
> 
> The only difference between the aiming styles is the size of the sight picture that you are using to frame the spot before you bring your fine focus to bear on the exact spot you want to hit.


Well said....but then I'm thinking if one were to confront the different shooters stringwalker/instinctive with that comment...which would be more apt to get their panties in a wad- grin. I think i know.....


----------



## rickstix (Nov 11, 2009)

Well…I’ve been writing on the subject for a while (…but I’ll just chalk it up to clearing my head) as the subject is usually ill-fated…and I watch what I step in. Actually, there’s different approaches/instruction for every style of shooting and the often inflammatory words, such as “myth”, “gift”, “falsely perceived” (as mentioned by the OP) can be brought into play with every one of them.



kegan said:


> Instinctive shooting is a generally accepted label for aiming subconsciously. The shooter does not reference anything beyond the spot to hit and completely allows their subconscious to set the sight picture without any conscious thought.
> That's it, that's all.


True enough. “Instinctive” shooting is something that has been done since the very first bow…and countless generations of children have learned to do it. I learned as a child, without any instruction…or knowledge of any other way to shoot.



Rick Barbee said:


> Oh lord help me. I got sucked in.
> From reading Howard Hill's explanation on his shooting methods, I do not believe he was an instinctive shooter. Rick





kegan said:


> Hill was a gapper, not instinctive. He saw his arrow.


Last I heard, Byron wanted to model after Howard…and “split-vision” is the oft repeated basis. The shot Howard made, on film, of his shooting a hawk in a tree…and others he’s talked about…were clearly taken at unknown specific distances. IMO, unknown distances tend to lean less on gapping and more from the relationship developed between shooter and his/her equipment.

As a side note (…interesting or not) I started shooting wooden arrows, as would have been Howard’s practice, and numbering my arrows (having a #1, in particular) was common practice (still have a #1 broadhead, even though the shafts are aluminum). And the point is just to add emphasis to a more intimate relationship with equipment than is commonly appreciated today.

Anyhow…part of my learning has been to treat every shot as a "study". As much as I strongly recommend shooting close at the beginning, I am also enthusiastic with shooting at longer distances…and the greater objective is to learn the arrow’s trajectory. Somewhere between me and the full extent of the bow’s capability lies “the target”…and I’ve always been excited about meeting it with an arrow. It is as “simple” as that, but there is no discounting practice and discipline. I, for one, can accept that all styles require lots of shooting to become proficient…and that people can choose as they will...with no illeffect on my happiness. 

Enjoy, Rick.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Beendare said:


> Well said....but then I'm thinking if one were to confront the different shooters stringwalker/instinctive with that comment...which would be more apt to get their panties in a wad- grin. I think i know.....


I would presume that would be the ones who put the most thought and effort into their aiming? :laugh:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Beendare said:


> Well said....but then I'm thinking if one were to confront the different shooters stringwalker/instinctive with that comment...which would be more apt to get their panties in a wad- grin. I think i know.....


Good post Matt. 

Most of the top shooters I've shot with don't care what people think of their aiming or what anybody else is doing with their aiming, developing into a top shooter comes as a whole package and the aiming is really just one small part of a complete set of skills.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

rickstix said:


> True enough. “Instinctive” shooting is something that has been done since the very first bow…and countless generations of children have learned to do it. *I learned as a child, without any instruction…or knowledge of any other way to shoot.*


Funny you mention *that* Rick...the only difference for me is that "THAT" is exactly how I was instructed as a child...with my father and his bow buds chanting to me...

*"Just look at what you want to hit and with one fluid motion?....and soon it will become just like throwing a ball!"*

and something must've worked...at about 10 years old I nailed a crow in the chest...in flight...and I can still see that vision and run that tape too this very day...I'm seeing it now! LOL!

But you do bring up an interesting thought...as I wonder just how good a person who had no precepts or formal (or even informal) instruction could get if just handed a bow and arrows...or has that already been done?...by folks like Art Young?...or?...maybe even the same guy that trained this guy?...


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

Rick, 



> At least not as his primary way of shooting.


Mr. Hill's own writing certainly supports your comment in explaining his astonishing accuracy. 

In Mr. Hill's mini-pamphlet, "_My Method of Shooting the Bow and Arrow_", he discusses and contrasts both instinctive aiming and what he terms the "Indirect Imaginary Point" method (split-viz-ish). 

Some excerpts from his commentary:
_
Aiming instinctively is fairly simple and easy to master and is used by more archers in hunting than any other methods. Instinctive style is the easiest also on the individual, in this style there is no set rule of posture or anchor. You do what is most natural for you to do._ 
_
... but each individual will find certain fundamentals the same._ 
_
There is, however, one fault with the pure instinctive style of shooting and that is, that after shooting and missing with the first arrow, you have nothing tangible to compare with for correcting your second shot._

_Instinctive shooting cannot be mastered to its full limits without the proper fundamentals. These can be found in almost any book on archery. _

_My own method might be called the "Indirect Imaginary Point" method. The better shot you are instinctively, the easier this system will be for you to grasp, however, after learning the fundamentals of archery which I have given a few points on rather briefly ..._

_In the Indirect Imaginary Point Method the archer does everything the same as the instinctive archer, concentrating on the spot on the object to be hit but with a few simple modifications. These modifications are really simple but they look complicated in the writing._ (Here Mr. Hill takes the next few pages to describe how he uses the tip of the arrow under the target in his peripheral vision as an aiming reference.)

He concludes the pamphlet with: _When you master some way or system similar to the above to rectify or to correct your elevation then your second shots will start to pay off._

Mr. Hill was obviously well-versed in instinctive aiming, especially in the hunting arena, yet places equal emphasis upon his other method of aiming by using the Indirect Imaginary Point in order to obtain a more refined and repeatable level of accuracy. He adamantly preaches the utilization of sound archery fundamentals, accompanied by an aiming tactic that is best-suited to the task ... in his case instinctive to a point, followed by a split-viz-ish methodology when desiring to (for example) deliver a deliberate Robin Hood into an arrow within the target's center during the filming of a movie.

As I alluded to in a previous post, if one is satisfied, there's no fault in staying the course. If one becomes dissatisfied, alternatives abound to reboot the satisfaction.


----------



## rickstix (Nov 11, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> and something must've worked...at about 10 years old I nailed a crow in the chest...in flight...and I can still see that vision and run that tape too this very day...I'm seeing it now! LOL!
> But you do bring up an interesting thought...as I wonder just how good a person who had no precepts or formal (or even informal) instruction could get if just handed a bow and arrows...or has that already been done?...by folks like Art Young?...or?...maybe even the same guy that trained this guy?...


I hear ya, Mr. Bill…

I loosed an arrow at a crow this morning…but he was on the ground…and he gets to crow another day.

With all the flu flu shooting I’ve done in the past year, I’ve come very close to taking 2 small birds on the wing. Not enough opportunities, really, but I was hoping for at least one chance at a crow by now (…still wishing they’d open a season on vultures for a few days). And yup, there have been lots of shots from the past that are so easy to relive.

The other thing is what occurred to me a while ago…and that’s the lineage of who taught who…and who taught him. I’m fairly certain not many would have dispute with considering Ishi to be an instinctive shooter…ever wonder who taught him? No matter…he was effective and I still believe he deserves respect. Enjoy, Rick.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Steve, I agree. Aiming is only a small part of shooting. I find aiming easy. Getting there (to aiming) without buggering the dog first is my problem. I think it's most shooter's trouble but they blame aiming because it's easy to connect a poor shot with a supposedly poor aim. Real problem, in most cases, is not the aiming part. At least I don't think so.

How we aim is how Matt and Kegan described. I don't know how you make it any clearer than those two did.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

rickstix said:


> I hear ya, Mr. Bill…
> 
> I loosed an arrow at a crow this morning…but he was on the ground…and he gets to crow another day.
> 
> ...


Yep...many of the best historical masters of the bow used their "Mind's Eye".....or as yewselfbow so eloquently puts it..."spatial summation"...where with a temporal shooter relying heavily on conscious processing?....where things are done one thought at a time?...the intuitive shooters use a lower conscious which is capable of multi-tasking and can and does effectively process more than one act at a time....and trust me....the archers who are knocking everything from bumblebees too dragon flies too aspirin out of the air?...had no clue what their gap was when they did it! LOL!


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

Funny thing is I have taught two children, 5 grandchildren, and a host of adults to shoot a bow and NEVER discussed an aiming system. The children and grandchildren were started out as children but the adults weren't. But they all get it and can hit the target. My son is an excellent shot as is several of my grandchildren. My 12 yo granddaughter went to an archery birthday party at an indoor 3-D range yesterday with her Samick Sage and told me she shot better than all of the kids there with compounds. I do shoot a system but I'm a little more serious about it than most of them are. Kids get it without all the confusing and misleading terms we tend to come up with on the internet.


----------



## Hank (Jul 5, 2003)

Shoot at a laser dot in the dark, then you will learn how to shoot with out any visual reference what so ever. It can be deadly accurate.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I taught archery at the county fair.

A kid was shooting, with a well-intentioned father urging him to shoot the center of the target.

I told him, "Hey, I'm going to tell you a secret." With a quick eyeball appraisal, I told him, "Try putting the point of the arrow on the bottom of the target, and see what happens." He shot an arrow a litttle low, but close. "Good, now point it a couple lines up, and have fun."

Kid did alright for a first time out  He also seemed to enjoy hitting the middle.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

First time I picked up a bow I tried aiming it. I had to "learn" how to shoot instinctively by reading Asbell's book. Some of us are just wired differently.

I don't understand why folks think gapping somehow slows you down making it impossible to shoot small or fast targets. You're just pointing your arrow. The same less-that-fully-conscious set up you'd use for instinctive can come into play when setting the gap on a moving target, only you see the arrow. Typically, gapping is pretty simple. "About there, shoot". If gapping a moving target sounds too hard, I don't think you're gapping right :lol:


----------



## Longbow.01234 (Nov 17, 2014)

My $.02 is: Find a Good Form, and you will find your "Groove" (so to speak) and Repeat it EVERY Shot, then Shoot Close to the target Slowly Moving back as your Shooting Improves. Practice, Practice and More Practice if you want to be Efficient. Consistency is the Name of this Game! Do the Same thing Every Shot. Then Concentrate on One Spot, aka Pick a Spot, and with Both Eyes Open at all times, and eventually the arrow will go where you want it to! It helps if you have a Mentor to show you Good Form and don't deviate from it. Ok, more like my $.05. :shade:


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

This is pretty cool


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

I think your correct except the ones that are really good still concentrate on the aiming system, they refine it and use it along with excellent form to perform at a high level.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

JINKSTER said:


> Well the answer is simple yew...since those who claim to be utilizing a more temporal shot sequence can and do recall all steps taken throughout said sequence?...those who's neurons fire spatially simply don't recall all the sub-events that took place because as far as they are aware?...it all happened as one huge singular event.
> 
> so imho?....we have temporal aimers and spatial shooters so to speak.


That makes it very difficult to fix when some part of that huge singular event goes wrong and you don't keep track of the steps.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

centershot said:


> That makes it very difficult to fix when some part of that huge singular event goes wrong and you don't keep track of the steps.


Nah...in my world it's called "A Simple Adjustment"...and nothing to freak out about or spend a month in front of a blank bale to fix.


----------



## Dave V (Aug 13, 2008)

kegan said:


> Hey, I'm no neuroscientist. I'm just using layman's terms. We can just say peripheral vision shooting if you like, but it's all the same: you look at the spot and you set up the sight picture without thinking about it.
> 
> Doesn't really matter what sort of terminology is used, it's still the same shot.


My wife is a ballet dancer. There is a poster backstage of a famous ballerina who once said "Master technique, then forget about it and be natural."

Sound familiar?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

centershot said:


> That makes it very difficult to fix when some part of that huge singular event goes wrong and you don't keep track of the steps.


Yeah, as to creating huge events... My observations seem to follow the same path at the local range. That is, everyone makes bad shots, everyone. First, you have the guy on the line, calmly loosing arrows and calmly not making any big deal, as he know internally what to do - just working on his game.

Then, you have the guy with bow doing his "one fluid movement" thingy. Won't get into all the form styles he's trying out or working on, but, he's noisy as heck  We all know the guy replicating the "style".

Every shot you hear, "man, I pulled that one", or, "man, I pushed that one", or, "man, dropped my bow arm", or "man, didn't get set for that one"!

All the while, you just smile inside and say to yourself, "man, you haven't a clue what you did, and you'll never talk that arrow into the mark!"

Even walking a chewing gum at the same time has "steps". Once you learn it, though, it's no effort. If someone is finding the steps to archery in their game as work, well, they are like the guy mumbling his steps every shot, or guessing them, instead of just mastering them to become his game.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Kegan, you nail it, once again, thanks. 
If they don't believe us then they cannot explain TP, let alone how to over come it.
Dan


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Longbow91115 said:


> Just curious as to what the prevailing thoughts are on this. I saw Viper1 mention it in another post. In teaching bow hunter ed along side other instructors I occasionally see an effort to perpetuate the myth that accomplished bare bow shooters have a gift. The gift being, that they can "instinctively" acquire a target and successfully hit without having sights. I think this is an intimidating concept for someone starting out.
> 
> My belief is that after years of using an aiming method it becomes so ingrained that the shooter no longer has to concentrate on the pattern or system of aiming. This allows the shooter to acquire sight picture without focus on the system and is falsely perceived as "instinctive".
> 
> Thoughts?


In our last bowhunter class during the "hunt" stages of our class, we saw a lot of misses by those that seemed to just look at the target. I did this for years when I first got into bowhunting, and until someone turned me on to "aim, anchor, verify, release, follow-though" I, on game expecially, always shot over the back. Instinctive in my opinion, is a learned skill. Some can grasp it some need to be taken through the steps and in my opinion, ALL shooting is learned, all shooting is rooted in practice where sight pictures are cataloged for recall in the field and probably includes some form of learned "instinctive_gap" that automatically takes into account learned results for a peripherally cataloged sight picture over time.

Bottom line in my opinions, you have to establish a means for your sight picture on release from 5 yards to 50, if that is where you're going, and do it by practice, practice, practice.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Rattus I think this is the weak link in Instinctive shooting and what causes so many issues for some shooters, they aim before even drawing the bow, it takes over the shot so completely that any error cannot be identified, the shot isn't aborted and in many cases the Archer didn't know what went wrong. 

With a Gapper using a dedicated shot sequence the aiming essentially doesn't take place until after the Scapula is loaded, this gives two advantages, they can mentally check everything before committing to aiming and abort the shot sequence pretty much anytime they wish, it's actually easier to build and keep to a shot sequence. 

This is my own observations from switching from Instinct to Gap. Another advantage maintaining Form and shot sequence is easier and less time consuming, when I shot Instinct if I didn't shoot pretty much everyday I wasn't competitive(I won around 3 National titles Instinctively), now I can put my bow down for a couple of weeks and be right in the groove with very little effort.

You see very few good Instinctive shots compared to the Gappers on the tourney circuit, to be a good Instinctive shot requires a lot more dedication and mental strength, so few make it to that skill level.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

JINKSTER said:


> Nah...in my world it's called "A Simple Adjustment"...and nothing to freak out about or spend a month in front of a blank bale to fix.


Humm, that is exactly what I would call it also, my next shot will be in the center. Why, because I have control of my shot, know what happened and know how to correct it.........and will verify that it was corrected by shooting at a target and knowing what I consider 'acceptable' on that target. Jinks, I think you and I have been at this trad game about the same amount of time - we sure took two different roads way early in the game. I am certainly glad I took the fork that I did, seems like a much shorter route to the destination. You seem happy with your route also, may the force be with you!


----------



## Moebow (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm with Steve and a FEW others in this thread. If we'd spend 1/2 the time talking form and execution that we do talking about aiming methods (or even worse what the "labels" we use for aiming mean -- instinctive, gap, etc) , the "aiming discussion" would die a very quiet death. There is no sense in aiming a gun AND THEN trying to put a cartridge in the chamber; likewise, there is no sense in aiming a bow BEFORE it is drawn.

IMO, aiming method is not and never has been the problem for those having trouble hitting the target.

Arne


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

steve morley said:


> Rattus I think this is the weak link in Instinctive shooting and what causes so many issues for some shooters, they aim before even drawing the bow, it takes over the shot so completely that any error cannot be identified, the shot isn't aborted and in many cases the Archer didn't know what went wrong.
> 
> With a Gapper using a dedicated shot sequence the aiming essentially doesn't take place until after the Scapula is loaded, this gives two advantages, they can mentally check everything before committing to aiming and abort the shot sequence pretty much anytime they wish, it's actually easier to build and keep to a shot sequence.
> 
> ...


I agree with your observations. I usually only shoot one or two times per week. I have my form and shot sequence down pretty well and know where to hold from the first shot. It is very nice to know where your first arrow will go instead of hoping it will go there.


----------



## shawnsphoto (Apr 13, 2007)

Ok. So I am like 2.5 years in traditional archery years. I have worked very hard at being accurate and I would consider myself an instictual shooter. Pick a spot draw and release. That said it is with given bow(s) that I have fired thousands of times. I do think the analogy of throwing a ball is a good one, but change it up. If you could go take someone elses arm and just put it on would you be accurate...no. It would take practice, repeating the knowns until you get the feel (pun intended) for the new arm. We are dedicated archers in a close relationship with our bows. I think even the gap shooters or any other aiming convention when put to the test utilize a focus that becomes one of learned instict (trial and error). I believe we were all made to be hunters. Those of us that choose traditional archery are on a path that uses our own strength and ability to acquire a target with both known and inknown variables.

Wow that was really deep for me...I am an artist/commercial photographer;-)!


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Moebow said:


> I'm with Steve and a FEW others in this thread. If we'd spend 1/2 the time talking form and execution that we do talking about aiming methods (or even worse what the "labels" we use for aiming mean -- instinctive, gap, etc) , the "aiming discussion" would die a very quiet death. There is no sense in aiming a gun AND THEN trying to put a cartridge in the chamber; likewise, there is no sense in aiming a bow BEFORE it is drawn.
> 
> *IMO, aiming method is not and never has been the problem for those having trouble hitting the target.*
> 
> arne


This. 

It's the reason for that age old comment. "I was pointing right at it. I still missed


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

centershot said:


> Humm, that is exactly what I would call it also, my next shot will be in the center. Why, because I have control of my shot, know what happened and know how to correct it.........and will verify that it was corrected by shooting at a target and knowing what I consider 'acceptable' on that target. Jinks, I think you and I have been at this trad game about the same amount of time - we sure took two different roads way early in the game. I am certainly glad I took the fork that I did, seems like a much shorter route to the destination. You seem happy with your route also, may the force be with you!


Yep...we took two different roads...because we had different destinations...but mine was predestined at about age 8.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Don't think I'll see the end of my road until the day I die, it is nice to hit the crest and start coasting downhill a bit though!


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

Mo0se said:


> This is pretty cool


Compound or not, that guy is good!


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

A


Moebow said:


> I'm with Steve and a FEW others in this thread. If we'd spend 1/2 the time talking form and execution that we do talking about aiming methods (or even worse what the "labels" we use for aiming mean -- instinctive, gap, etc) , the "aiming discussion" would die a very quiet death. There is no sense in aiming a gun AND THEN trying to put a cartridge in the chamber; likewise, there is no sense in aiming a bow BEFORE it is drawn.
> 
> IMO, aiming method is not and never has been the problem for those having trouble hitting the target.
> 
> Arne


This is good


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Mo0se said:


> This is pretty cool


Wells is very good


----------



## Thin Man (Feb 18, 2012)

Speaking within the ideal:

To place an arrow's tip consistently within the center of an exacting mark, flawless technique must be guided by flawless aim. 

"Flawless" can be defined with many variants for the _purposes of discussion_, ranging from "adequate for the task" to "absolute perfection". 

"Center of an exacting mark" can likewise be defined within a variable range of acceptable scenarios for specific purposes and discussion. 

By whatever definition of "flawless" the individual chooses to employ, either for the discussion at hand or within their personal shooting milieu, its achievement is based upon a combination of the physical delivery system and its visual guidance by the eyes. Our physical actions during the archery shot occur in concert with the engagement of our eyes. 

Since the human visual system is perhaps our most predominant sensory function, it is logical that the visual aiming processes are so often discussed in an attempt to seek the wisdom, experience, insight, and visual methodology of other archers in an attempt to master this key component of archery. 

I define my own quest for the successful archery shot as a 200% endeavor: 100% physical technique combined with 100% visual guidance. This places each on equal footing within the whole of my archery shot, and encourages aggressive study and thorough practice within each of these domains. Even as a pluck can corrupt a well-aimed shot, so can the perfect loose miss the mark under a less-than-keen eye. 

As often is mentioned, even within this thread, the physical technique of archery should be the first order of business to ensure that an adequate physical foundation is present under the eye. Once the eye's aggressive utilization begins (no matter its nature), both physical technique and the visual processes can then continue their development in tandem, with specific emphasis placed upon modifying the components of either as need be, in order to form the complete and successful archer.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

I find I am much more accurate if I use a consistent 4" gap vs. pointing the point right on the spot when I am string-walking - my brain needs some wiggle room.

This is a remarkable thread 

Matt


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> I find I am much more accurate if I use a consistent 4" gap vs. pointing the point right on the spot when I am string-walking - my brain needs some wiggle room.
> 
> This is a remarkable thread
> 
> Matt


This is the exact opposite for me, I'm more comfortable with the arrow in the center, when I Gapped I had this issue peeking for the Gap and messed up my shot sequence, with Stringwalking and the arrow always in the spot I'm not needing to peek, I got used to it and just trust the arrow is there. First attempt wasn't great results but I stuck with it.

Neither is wrong or better, just what we're doing to instal the most confidence in making an accurate shot.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

steve morley said:


> This is the exact opposite for me, I'm more comfortable with the arrow in the center, when I Gapped I had this issue peeking for the Gap and messed up my shot sequence, with Stringwalking and the arrow always in the spot I'm not needing to peek, I got used to it and just trust the arrow is there. First attempt wasn't great results but I stuck with it.
> 
> Neither is wrong or better, just what we're doing to instal the most confidence in making an accurate shot.


When I switched from gap to string-walking I struggled with Target Panic - setting a small consistent gap solved the problem and I think it gives your subconscious room to work.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> When I switched from gap to string-walking I struggled with Target Panic - setting a small consistent gap solved the problem *and I think it gives your subconscious room to work.*


I can't believe you just said *"THAT"*


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Matt, I think of that gap you mention as not so much giving your subconscious room to work, but room to relax. Maybe the same thing. I seem to be more comfortable with the arrow on the spot as Steve likes but can relate to what you point out. Long ago I shot some very good groups at 90 meters using my 70 meter sight setting and holding way over - stacked if you like - the gap was on the large size but I found it very mentally relaxing working with that big void between gold and sight ring. Kinda like what you find holding 4" under while stringwalking.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JINKSTER said:


> I can't believe you just said *"THAT"*


Why not Bill?? it's consistent with what I have always maintained. All the fine aiming is done subconsciously Reo, Brady, you, me we all aim the same. The different aiming styles just give us smaller or larger site pictures to frame our shot with. For me at 3D ranges (short) I find that a setting a consistent gap and focusing on the exact spot I want to hit as I pull through gives me the best results. I honestly do not see the arrow tip once I set up the shot. I do away with the gap as I move to longer field ranges.

Matt


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> Why not Bill?? it's consistent with what I have always maintained. All the fine aiming is done subconsciously Reo, Brady, you, me we all aim the same. The different aiming styles just give us smaller or larger site pictures to frame our shot with. For me at 3D ranges (short) I find that a setting a consistent gap and focusing on the exact spot I want to hit as I pull through gives me the best results. I honestly do not see the arrow tip once I set up the shot. I do away with the gap as I move to longer field ranges.
> 
> Matt


Because it just made me realize all of what you just said above is true and coupled with...

*" my brain needs some wiggle room."*

I chuckled at myself thinking..."I guess Mine Needs a Freaking Warehouse!" :laugh:


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

Yewselfbow said:


> You see, the problem I have with these sort of statements is that they have no basis in the real world of neuro sciences. The very few studies that have imaged the brain during the execution of an archery shot all display elevated areas of activity in and associated with the motor cortex. The cortex is known to be the primary area for the regulation and execution of neural activity associated with highly conscious motor activity. There's no clinical or applied research evidence to even suggest that any part of the shot sequence can be considered sub- conscious.


Could it be that all that neural activity is associated with expanding, or some other action, instead of aiming? I shoot a fully Oly rig, but aiming is not even the secondary thing I am thinking about when I am preparing to release. That being said, I am not that good, so maybe not much of a point.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

steve morley said:


> Rattus I think this is the weak link in Instinctive shooting and what causes so many issues for some shooters, they aim before even drawing the bow, it takes over the shot so completely that any error cannot be identified, the shot isn't aborted and in many cases the Archer didn't know what went wrong.
> 
> With a Gapper using a dedicated shot sequence the aiming essentially doesn't take place until after the Scapula is loaded, this gives two advantages, they can mentally check everything before committing to aiming and abort the shot sequence pretty much anytime they wish, it's actually easier to build and keep to a shot sequence.
> 
> ...


EDIT.... I may have missed the initial point of your post.... :laugh:

This is how I was "saved from the smell of burning wool" :laugh: I was taught that while drawing, have the arrow in position towards the point of the shot. As you anchor, verify your shot by means of adjusting your sight picture to your shot, for me that was to look down the arrow for windage, the point for elevation, the target/animal with the above sight picture providing data to your brain as to the success potential of the shot, and further in my case, squeeze my shoulders muscles and let go... staying in position till the shot hit.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

rattus58 said:


> Instinctive in my opinion, is a learned skill.


 ... but .. what exactly is it that you're learning?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Yewselfbow said:


> ... but .. what exactly is it that you're learning?


You are learning what your sight pictures produce for you. I believe this comes from practice. I believe some people are more apt to be able to grasp this sight picture than others.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Had a bit of fun today, -5C and too cold to shoot my metal riser Vanquish so I pulled the 45# Dryad Orion, 500 Lightspeeds with 145g points and 50g inserts, shot split finger, anchor on eyetooth, I was amazed how well I shot Instinctively after all this time, I suppose all the Form work I've done with the Stringwalking setup translated to well to the Orion. 

Once I got to 40y the accuracy dropped a little and the groups opened out but I would still be in the vitals 70% of my shots 40y to 50y, the Vanquish is a different animal and Stringwalking with 300g arrows and ultra stable shooting platform it behaves more like a Compound, just without the wheels, both setups are fun to shoot.

Nice to know those Instinctive skills are still there below the surface, I think if I ever got the time to Bowhunt (i.e pass the shooting exam/test) it would be the Orion and Instinctive


----------



## Altiman94 (Jun 11, 2007)

I would call myself an instinctive shooter. I 'look' at what I want to hit and release the arrow. Much like throwing a baseball or hitting a golf ball. There's no 'aiming' in that I don't use the arrow or any other method (tab, etc). I wouldn't call it a gift, it is something that requires a lot of practice. 

Nothing wrong with sights on a trad bow - but most trad bow shooters are likely using the instinctive method - call it what you want.


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

Matt_Potter said:


> ....... All the fine aiming is done subconsciously Reo, Brady, you, me we all aim the same. The different aiming styles just give us smaller or larger site pictures to frame our shot with. For me at 3D ranges (short) I find that a setting a consistent gap and focusing on the exact spot I want to hit as I pull through gives me the best results. I honestly do not see the arrow tip once I set up the shot. I do away with the gap as I move to longer field ranges.
> 
> Matt


Matt, you had told me as much a couple of years ago at the trad natl's a couple years ago...great comment.... and after that all of my struggling with the different aiming systems receded.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> I honestly do not see the arrow tip once I set up the shot.
> 
> Matt


The same for me, when I hit anchor I do a quick mental check for String/Riser alignment and that the arrow tip is in the spot (if not I restart the shot) and just trust that my Subconscious will take care of the fine aim and Release, I know from experience if I'm locked onto the spot and I keep expanding the arrow wont drift out of that spot anyway. As my confidence has grown with Stringwalking it's almost like I'm not aiming at all and feels like most of my mental expenditure is on continued expansion. For me at least the aiming takes the least amount of mental effort compared to the rest of the shot sequence.

I found if my arrow tip isn't in the spot when I hit anchor I might as well abort the shot, otherwise I just wind up in a losing battle to get the arrow back in the spot, then the rest of the sequence (normally the expansion) falls apart. Took me a lot of letdowns and hard work to get that shot discipline into my sequence.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> When I switched from gap to string-walking I struggled with Target Panic - setting a small consistent gap solved the problem and I think it gives your subconscious room to work.


I learned a long time ago that the harder I aimed the weaker I executed the shot and the worse I scored. Let it float, trust your aim and just try to execute your form. Easy to say, not always so easy to do.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Altiman94 said:


> Nothing wrong with sights on a trad bow - but most trad bow shooters are likely using the instinctive method - call it what you want.


Any time you raise the bow into your line of sight, which is what a face anchor is about, you have multiple sights raised - arrow, bow hand, bow, and string. This was figured out centuries ago, I think as recorded by the Romans, as being more accurate than hip, waist, or chest level shooting as the speed shooters did.

Whether you choose to utilize some, all, or none of them is another matter. Same with a fixed sight, it's just more refinement of what's out there in front. After awhile, with lots of practice, it's instinctive and the archer can concentrate on what really makes an arrow go where he looks, his form.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Longbow91115 said:


> Just curious as to what the prevailing thoughts are on this. I saw Viper1 mention it in another post. In teaching bow hunter ed along side other instructors I occasionally see an effort to perpetuate the myth that accomplished bare bow shooters have a gift. The gift being, that they can "instinctively" acquire a target and successfully hit without having sights. I think this is an intimidating concept for someone starting out.
> 
> My belief is that after years of using an aiming method it becomes so ingrained that the shooter no longer has to concentrate on the pattern or system of aiming. This allows the shooter to acquire sight picture without focus on the system and is falsely perceived as "instinctive".
> 
> Thoughts?



You said, "I think this is an intimidating concept for someone starting out". I suppose that could be true if that someone expected to be as good as an experienced shooter right out of the chute. I highly doubt that many people have such expectations. Now, with that out of the way, A beginner will more likely be inspired by the more experienced shooters ability and realize that he too can acquire the skill with proper investment of time and practice. So, I see that as a positive influence instead of negative.
MY belief is that most of us end up combining different methods to reach our goal. The goal depends on the situation. If one is shooting spots on a wall then a set gap could be the best method. Other situations maybe not so much. So, you can call it 'falsely perceived as instinctive' if you like. The bottom line imo is that most gap shooters progress from a consciously set gap to a learned sight picture and instinctive shooters pretty much do the same thing without consciously focusing on the 'gap'. In the end it's six one way or half a dozen the other way. Even Howard Hill seemed to be saying the same thing but, using different words to explain his idea.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> Instinctive shooting is a generally accepted label for aiming subconsciously. The shooter does not reference anything beyond the spot to hit and completely allows their subconscious to set the sight picture without any conscious thought.
> 
> That's it, that's all.



Ok, I'm late to the party but, a few things jumped out at me right away about this thread.

First, the above statement has been made MANY times before in the forum. Every instinctive shooter who participates in these discussions has said the same thing over and over since I've been around. This thread is four days old and only four pages. In the past it would have gone twenty pages the first day. I can't help but wonder what the difference is. 

Second is the fact that most are saying the same thing with a few minor exceptions. The most obvious thing to me is that each situation is different and calls for slightly different methods in technique and aiming.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I think the "throwing a ball" analogy is what makes it seem so much more challenging than it really is. I guess if you snap shoot without a solid anchor it might be the same, but I still think that an instinctive shooter with solid form and sequence and a gapper with solid form and sequence should be pretty much on par.

String walkers are still cheaters though :wink:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

kegan said:


> I think the "throwing a ball" analogy is what makes it seem so much more challenging than it really is. I guess if you snap shoot without a solid anchor it might be the same, but I still think that an instinctive shooter with solid form and sequence and a gapper with solid form and sequence should be pretty much on par.
> 
> String walkers are still cheaters though :wink:


Hell yeah - if your not cheating your not trying LOL


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

kegan said:


> String walkers are still cheaters though :wink:


It's not cheating, it is thinking outside the box, when somebody figured out it worked they decided it was cheating :wink:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> I think the "throwing a ball" analogy is what makes it seem so much more challenging than it really is. I guess if you snap shoot without a solid anchor it might be the same, but I still think that an instinctive shooter with solid form and sequence and a gapper with solid form and sequence should be pretty much on par.
> 
> String walkers are still cheaters though :wink:



Maybe. I never really thought about it in that way but, I read an article in a magazine a few years ago that was written about a custom bowyer and he had invited the writer to come and 'throw' some arrows. Later, during some of the 'instinctive' discussions, I thought about that. It makes sense to me because that's exactly how I see it. You use the bow to 'throw' the arrow where you want it to go. A new shooter may not be capable of thinking like that but, in time it will develop IF he allows it to. The biggest problem I see to learning the instinctive method is mental block. You don't really make it happen as much as you let it happen.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Coming from an Olympic background and sights, I always thought shooting instinctive or barebow was thinking outside of the box. Like a stupid idea in reality. I do it now myself for fun but can't understand the real appeal, especially if you're a hunter and want to kill cleanly. When I hunted years ago I always used a single 20-yard pin and gapped off of it with a fast ILF bow. No guessing when shooting at live things.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

I use a single 20 yard crawl and gap off that - before that I had a single pin site - I've also killed a bunch of deer shooting instinctive.

One of the problems with a pin sight is it shows you any form errors you might have FAST LOL


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Stone Bridge said:


> Coming from an Olympic background and sights, I always thought shooting instinctive or barebow was thinking outside of the box. Like a stupid idea in reality. I do it now myself for fun but can't understand the real appeal, especially if you're a hunter and want to kill cleanly. When I hunted years ago I always used a single 20-yard pin and gapped off of it with a fast ILF bow. No guessing when shooting at live things.




Well, there it is! I knew ya would do it, just a matter of time. NEWSFLASH! Those of us who actually have the skill CAN make clean kills without guessing.
The OP seemed to think that new shooters might feel intimidated but, I see no reason that someone experienced, like yourself, would. We all have different skills and it seems childish to envy others for theirs.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> I use a single 20 yard crawl and gap off that - before that I had a single pin site - I've also killed a bunch of deer shooting instinctive.
> 
> One of the problems with a pin sight is it shows you any form errors you might have FAST LOL



LOL, I don't want to see them.:glasses9: I just want it to go where I throw it and git er done.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

ForestGump. After watching the vast majority of sightless recurve and longbow shooters at the many indoor and 3D events I've been to in the last 40 years, I'd say most should not be allowed into the woods with a bow of any kind. Maybe a scoped rifle, but that is all. I don't take shooting arrows at living animals lightly. It seems most traditional shooters find it a lark, an adventure they are entitled to. That's not how I look at it at all. What appears like fun to the uninitiated is one horrible suffering death for the deer.

I see this same kind of cavalier approach to big-game fishing down here in the Florida Keys, too. Sport wants to be a hero to his friends back home, get some pictures maybe. Ends up gut-hooking some fine fish for using the wrong rig and lure or hook assembly. Some are very lazy and use chunk bait and kill everything they come across. They toss away half the fish they kill and never say a word. Kill half the fish they release and think they just swam away. They do this because they don't know any better. Just like the trad archery hunter who can't shoot worth a damn but can't admit to it and can buy a license. Not how it should be, but what the hell, I'm not the licensing authority. I wish that I were. I'd not allow any bow license to anyone who couldn't keep every arrow inside 8" at 20 yards under the watchful eye of a warden. Make 'em shoot 6 times with no misses. Not a hard level of accuracy but so far out of the reach of most trad shooters it would keep 90% out of the woods. Let them use a compound bow. I have no issue with that. Nothing wrong with a compound and good shot placement as a result if you want to be an archery hunter. This notion of taking a deer with a recurve just to see if you can do it is all wrong and always has been. Unless you can shoot the damn thing very well. I'd test every hunter with what I consider an easy test (see above) but it would weed-out 90% easy, as it should.

Forest, what I suggest shouldn't bother such a fine instinctive shot as yourself. You should support such a test.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

What kind of death do you suppose deer normally get? Heck, what kind of death do you suppose most of us are in store for? I've got news for you. Nature is one cruel son-of-a-gun. Don't use it to shove more communist crap down out throats!

Test me. I'll pass the test and then I'll stick an arrow in the butt of every deer I come across.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

These threads always go so well


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JParanee said:


> These threads always go so well


But they draw the communists out of the woodwork.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> What kind of death do you suppose deer normally get? Heck, what kind of death do you suppose most of us are in store for? I've got news for you. Nature is one cruel son-of-a-gun. Don't use it to shove more communist crap down out throats!
> 
> Test me. I'll pass the test and then I'll stick an arrow in the butt of every deer I come across.



I want to set the record straight here. I know the dude pissed ya off but, I also feel pretty sure you wouldn't stick the deer in the butt either. 

He's right on one point though, his little test wouldn't bother me except that it's annoying. I wonder if it's recommended for all rifle hunters as well. That would be a task.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

MGF said:


> What kind of death do you suppose deer normally get? Heck, what kind of death do you suppose most of us are in store for? I've got news for you. Nature is one cruel son-of-a-gun. Don't use it to shove more communist crap down out throats!
> 
> Test me. I'll pass the test and then I'll stick an arrow in the butt of every deer I come across.


And you're the guy claiming to shoot into the 270s with his hunting rig on the 300 NFAA target round but admit to missing close-range deer? I'd not say a word if I were you about hitting every deer you come across. We all know you can't do this and you admit to it - butt or boiler room. You are the very same person I think should be using a sighted compound to hunt deer with. Just because most deer die of starvation or get pulled down by coyotes doesn't mean we as humans should go around shooting them in the butt or legs for "fun".

If something needs killing, then we should all make it our only quest to do it correctly. For most archers that means using a compound or crossbow. Or hunting at archery range with a rifle.

Down in the Keys we have a name for fishermen like you. But to post that would not be good for anyone, especially me.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

If trad is bad, how do we have a kill thread? For that matter, how in the heck did anyone take a deer before the compound was invented? 

The notion of requiring a "proficiency" test is nothing but an extension of the left wing gun/bow grabbing agenda. A door that must be kept securely closed. Maybe the deer should be asked. Which way do you want to go. Slowly starve and then when weak enough have a pack of coyotes eat you alive or take an arrow and 30 minutes. Nature and life is not guaranteed and its cruelty can't be legislated away. It doesn't matter how the fish or deer dies. It's dead.

I instinctively shot a rattle snake. it died. I Gap shot a ram. It died too. Whats the difference?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Wow!...we did pretty good folks!...made it too the middle of page 5 before things got utterly ridiculous! :laugh:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

ranchoarcher said:


> If trad is bad, how do we have a kill thread? For that matter, how in the heck did anyone take a deer before the compound was invented?
> 
> The notion of requiring a "proficiency" test is nothing but an extension of the left wing gun/bow grabbing agenda. A door that must be kept securely closed. Maybe the deer should be asked. Which way do you want to go. Slowly starve and then when weak enough have a pack of coyotes eat you alive or take an arrow and 30 minutes. Nature and life is not guaranteed and its cruelty can't be legislated away. It doesn't matter how the fish or deer dies. It's dead.
> 
> I instinctively shot a rattle snake. it died. I Gap shot a ram. It died too. Whats the difference?


Admit it, you gut shot the por ol' snake.:wink:

We have a kill thread because most hunters are a common sense sort of people. They actually put a lot of time, money and effort into preparation in order to get it right. I don't know anyone who wants to go to all that trouble, then go sit in a stand four hours in the cold just to shoot at a deer with equipment they aren't at least fairly proficient with. I have no clue where Stone Bridge finds the terrible shooters he always talks about but, it's not my experience. I have seen people who find traditional gear more complicated to shoot than they originally thought but, none want to hunt with it for that very reason.

There was a guy started a thread about his first deer with a recurve this morning. He was really excited because the bow was given to him by his grandfather. Apparently he took the time to learn to shoot it and made a good shot. That's the kind of people I see in the real world and here in this forum.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

JParanee said:


> These threads always go so well


You got any popcorn?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

MGF said:


> But they draw the communists out of the woodwork.


MGF 

stones not a communist 

He is actually a real interesting fellow just like you  

We are all Intitled to our own set of views and I agree with both of yours 

On one hand we should not be regulated on legal hunting but............ I have seen a lot of stick bow shooters that should not be shooting at animals with single strings either  

I myself am not the greatest shot and alot of my success is due to being a decent Hunter and getting close shots 

But I'm working on it  

I don't engage in these instinctive threads much because of the enevitable train wreck they become 

I have shot with bent over snappers and I have shot with stand up form oriented shooters 

I was the fprmer and I'm striving to be the latter only because if I have figured out one thing ......... It's not how ya aim it's how ya execute the shot that makes the difference 

You are all nice people and should treat each other as such


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Stone Bridge said:


> And you're the guy claiming to shoot into the 270s with his hunting rig on the 300 NFAA target round but admit to missing close-range deer? I'd not say a word if I were you about hitting every deer you come across. We all know you can't do this and you admit to it - butt or boiler room. You are the very same person I think should be using a sighted compound to hunt deer with. Just because most deer die of starvation or get pulled down by coyotes doesn't mean we as humans should go around shooting them in the butt or legs for "fun".
> 
> If something needs killing, then we should all make it our only quest to do it correctly. For most archers that means using a compound or crossbow. Or hunting at archery range with a rifle.
> 
> Down in the Keys we have a name for fishermen like you. But to post that would not be good for anyone, especially me.


Stone 

MGF is a good guy that is very adamant about keeping the government State and federal and that's not such a bad thing  

Not to change the subject but did I tell ya about fishing on the Amazon


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Joe, I once sailed 500 miles up the Amazon as a young man. Did not fish. Spent all our time dodging huge trees in the water coming at us at 7 knots as we motored and sailed west. Returning with the flow was easier. A wild place and I found the native people the most interesting. This trip was taken around 1980. I was in my early 20s. Mostly I remember the humidity. I'm a tropical guy but found the heat and humidity otherworldly. I don't know how humans ever thrived there before AC and modern medicine. I'm very resistant to skin problems and internal parasites - I'm never sick. But one month on that creek had me covered in skin ulcers and sicker than a dog for the last three weeks. I lost 10 pounds and I was able to eat well. You can keep the Amazon. I'm headed to Oahu next month for good. A civilized tropical experience. LOL


----------



## cpnhgnlngct (Dec 9, 2010)

Started shooting instinctive. Muddled around for a couple years shooting 70+ arrows a day, but wasn't 100% satisfied.

Switched to a dedicated gap method. Felt real good about my accuracy for a few years, but had multiple hunting brain farts with my gaps, and wasn't enjoying it as much as I should. 

Switched back to instinctive. My instinctive accuracy was equal to my gap at hunting ranges after the switch back. Inadvertently, I trained my subconscious to use the tip of my arrow (the place at which the least bit of math is required by the brain to make the shot) there is something to be said there. The difference was monumental between my first instinctive venture and my second.

Fast forward a couple years and now I'm a blank bailing, fixed crawl hunting, string walkin' competitor with very respectable form.

I wonder how my third instinctive venture will go, if I ever feel the desire.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> And you're the guy claiming to shoot into the 270s with his hunting rig on the 300 NFAA target round but admit to missing close-range deer? I'd not say a word if I were you about hitting every deer you come across. We all know you can't do this and you admit to it - butt or boiler room. You are the very same person I think should be using a sighted compound to hunt deer with. Just because most deer die of starvation or get pulled down by coyotes doesn't mean we as humans should go around shooting them in the butt or legs for "fun".
> 
> If something needs killing, then we should all make it our only quest to do it correctly. For most archers that means using a compound or crossbow. Or hunting at archery range with a rifle.
> 
> Down in the Keys we have a name for fishermen like you. But to post that would not be good for anyone, especially me.


Who are you to say what "we" should do or what is "correct"?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Stone Bridge said:


> Joe, I once sailed 500 miles up the Amazon as a young man. Did not fish. Spent all our time dodging huge trees in the water coming at us at 7 knots as we motored and sailed west. Returning with the flow was easier. A wild place and I found the native people the most interesting. This trip was taken around 1980. I was in my early 20s. Mostly I remember the humidity. I'm a tropical guy but found the heat and humidity otherworldly. I don't know how humans ever thrived there before AC and modern medicine. I'm very resistant to skin problems and internal parasites - I'm never sick. But one month on that creek had me covered in skin ulcers and sicker than a dog for the last three weeks. I lost 10 pounds and I was able to eat well. You can keep the Amazon. I'm headed to Oahu next month for good. A civilized tropical experience. LOL


I knew you were an interesting fellow  

It was rather hot  

I was in and out of the water a lot 

You are right 

The locals were amicable and kind and and I made a few friends 












You should of fished 

It was some of the best fishing I have ever expierenced 

I wish you well on your new move 

Keep me posted and enjoy yourself


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

ranchoarcher said:


> If trad is bad, how do we have a kill thread? For that matter, how in the heck did anyone take a deer before the compound was invented?
> 
> The notion of requiring a "proficiency" test is nothing but an extension of the left wing gun/bow grabbing agenda. A door that must be kept securely closed. Maybe the deer should be asked. Which way do you want to go. Slowly starve and then when weak enough have a pack of coyotes eat you alive or take an arrow and 30 minutes. Nature and life is not guaranteed and its cruelty can't be legislated away. It doesn't matter how the fish or deer dies. It's dead.
> 
> I instinctively shot a rattle snake. it died. I Gap shot a ram. It died too. Whats the difference?


That's worth repeating.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

The rattler was a gut shot so I deserve some reprimand, lol


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

ranchoarcher said:


> The rattler was a gut shot so I deserve some reprimand, lol



And I should be hunting with a sighted compound because I missed two deer in two years. My foam deer has most of the holes in just the right place though.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> And I should be hunting with a sighted compound because I missed two deer in two years. My foam deer has most of the holes in just the right place though.


Good post...I think far to often folks get so wrapped up in the intricacies of form and execution along with the differences of how one archer does it from another that they completely ignore the adrenaline factor and the huge difference between a few points on foam as compared to an actual life/death with blood running through it scenario...with all the keyboardist chanting "I NEVER MISS!" LOL

Yet.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

JINKSTER said:


> Good post...I think far to often folks get so wrapped up in the intricacies of form and execution along with the differences of how one archer does it from another that they completely ignore the adrenaline factor and the huge difference between a few points on foam as compared to an actual life/death with blood running through it scenario...with all the keyboardist chanting "I NEVER MISS!" LOL
> 
> Yet.


Jinks, I think you are wrong about the difference between foam targets and real deer. Or I should say, between foam deer in a tournament and real deer. I have shot at 11 deer in my life and killed all of them. All were inside 25 yards. Most around 15. Killing deer while hunting is easy for me because I'm used to the pressure of shooting in tournaments, which, to me, mean more. I don't care if I don't get a deer. I do care how I score on a target under pressure. The pressure of shooting in front of others for score is not to be discounted. It's the best way to condition your nervous system if you are the type that gets nervous. I certainly do when shooting for score. 

I no longer deer hunt because it really does not thrill me. I only hunted with my brother up in Maine as a social thing. He likes to hunt, I like my brother. So we bowhunted up his way in the fall. Shooting his local deer that came wondering next to my ground blind was too damn easy in my opinion. I don't get spooked by deer up close. Maybe it's all the bonefish and tarpon I've snuck-up on while flats fishing. That's very much like still hunting. Anyway, a deer walking into me down some trail while I'm in a blind is not so exciting to me I can't shoot. It's actually pretty tame. The trick is not to let the bugger see you draw your bow. That's the hardest thing about deer hunting from a blind. The actual shot on such a large target inside 25 yards is a non-event. It's very easy if you can stay calm. I have no trouble doing that. I need coffee in the morning just to breathe normally and get my heart rate up to allow me to function. Deer hunting doesn't make my heart jump at all. But shooting for score in front of others sure does.

I mention this because this forum is full of 270 plus shooters making those fictitious scores with their hunting rigs in the quiet safety of their own backyards away from tournaments where you have to post your scores. Any person who can average in the 270s with a hunting rig (not a dedicated barebow of 6 pounds) is not going to miss a deer inside 20 yards for two years in a row. It can't happen unless you're shooting at running deer. The best shooters in the world struggle to shoot 270 under tournament pressure. A few shoot better, but damn few. Just look at published results. Yet we have a man on here telling us of his home-shot 270s and he can't hit a deer at 15 yards? It doesn't add up. I only average 255 on the 300 but couldn't miss a deer at 15 yards if I tried. 

It's about learning to shoot under pressure and you can only do this by shooting under pressure. We can't hunt year-round. But a person can tournament shoot year-round. Still the best way to learn pressure shooting there is. Deer hunting shots are easy for me because I've shot a million arrows before with many eyeballs on my arrows. It makes a huge difference, this learning to shoot under duress. Live deer (up close) as a target when the archer is alone should be a slam-dunk. They are so doggone big, how do you miss?


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Joe, good photos of the young people in the canoes. We gave away many gallons of water to the canoe people years ago. Water and folding knives. I think we left the Amazon without a knife on the boat.

Find the book "Savages" some day. It was written in the late 1990s I believe. Story of the damage BP was doing, and still is, to the environment down there in the upper reaches of the Amazon. Villages destroyed and whole cultures ruined once the oil people moved in and polluted the landscape with waste ponds and deforestation. Very sad book. I'm surprised there is much left of the Amazon as it once was.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Wow, yet another thread gone to hell.

How about we argue Ford vs. Chevy? Anyone who drives a Dodge should be shot. I'm going to drive a KIA just to spite you.


----------



## High Plains (Feb 29, 2008)

Well I thought I shot instinctive but I soon realized that I was being lazy. When I started aiming and putting some thought to what I was doing I became a pretty good archer, not quite where I want to be yet but getting closer.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

kegan said:


> Wow, yet another thread gone to hell.
> 
> How about we argue Ford vs. Chevy? Anyone who drives a Dodge should be shot. I'm going to drive a KIA just to spite you.


Sometimes, it gets like that. Some folks debating which is the best to take out on the track, when in fact, they lack the prerequisite to even drive mama's sedan.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

no matter how you aim, my very limited experience is that deer can move, quickly, when it's inconvenient.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Chipmunks make great practice for instinctive aiming, they rarely sit still.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

This one almost made it back down the hole.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

MGF said:


> And I should be hunting with a sighted compound because I missed two deer in two years. My foam deer has most of the holes in just the right place though.


Some of the best recurve shots I know hunt with a compound. One of the issues I have with "trad" and "instinctive" is people use it to define who they are. I'm not a "trad" Hunter I am a hunter. YesI hunt with a longbow 90% of the time but that doesn't define me. 










I might shoot one of these guys this winter and if I do it will be with a 22 rifle. Yep I could kill it with any bow I wanted too the shots are short and easy but why?? So I could have a hero shot proving I'm "trad" - I could care less. 

Bows are a pain to haul up the mountain after the dogs and my little break down 22 just tucks away in my pack. I love my hounds and the possibility of a wounded cat or worse yet a wounded cat with a broad head hanging out of it is a no go. 

Probably won't shoot one anyway - they are just too cool. 

MGF - this isn't a poke at you at all I truly don't care how other folks hunt - good luck on the deer it gets much easier after the first one.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Captain, you kill stuff just for the hell of it?

I'm out of here. No wonder there is such a large anti-hunting and fishing movement. Photos of dead chipmunks killed by persons for fun on the internet. It serves no purpose to kill for no reason. I thought most adults understood this.

See you, Joe. I can't take this group any longer.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

I'm with Stone Bridge on posting pics of dead chipmunks - I'm not judging what and how people hunt. But, I will say the anti-hunting crowd doesn't need any more ammo.

Matt


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

If it makes you feel any better I missed way more than I hit, I swear they can jump out if the path of an arrow. They aren't protected in NY and they are everywhere, and get into buildings and chew up stuff. The motel owner next door wanted them gone so I help out when I see them, and the bow doesn't freak people out like guns do these days. 

And as I said they are good practice for hunting so you are ready when the time comes.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

kegan said:


> Wow, yet another thread gone to hell.
> 
> How about we argue Ford vs. Chevy? Anyone who drives a Dodge should be shot.


ohh.. I used to like you...but now!!??

MOPAR FTW!! Wait, mine is busted and rusting in my brother-in-law's yard... 


BM


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

So today I was in the woods with this...

View attachment 2088689


Does it mean I am a no talent hack who can't shoot "Trad" Or does it simply show a hunter in the woods with a bow?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Mo0se said:


> So today I was in the woods with this...
> 
> View attachment 2088689
> 
> ...


Careful there Moose...a couple years ago I'd of gotten banned for posting the "C" word let alone posting up a pic of me with one in my hands! :laugh:


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

as soon as i saw the name of this thread before it even had one post reply i knew the thread would blow up and go to hell, as it did.....this thread is one of the reasons why i got away from this section for a few months when everyone was battling RAY and his stupid Gap profile crap..


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> as soon as i saw the name of this thread before it even had one post reply i knew the thread would blow up and go to hell, as it did.....this thread is one of the reasons why i got away from this section for a few months when everyone was battling RAY and his stupid Gap profile crap..


Other than a few testy posts I think this was a good thread with some great discussion - WAY better than it would have been this time last year.

Matt


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

Matt_Potter said:


> Other than a few testy posts I think this was a good thread with some great discussion - WAY better than it would have been this time last year.
> 
> Matt


yeah i agree, this spring and early summer was pretty bad, i think hunting season has helped suppress that also


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

kegan said:


> Wow, yet another thread gone to hell.
> 
> How about we argue Ford vs. Chevy? Anyone who drives a Dodge should be shot. I'm going to drive a KIA just to spite you.


FORD Fix Or Repair Daily
CHEVY Can't Have Expensive Vehicle Yet
DODGE Drips Oil, Drops Grease Everywhere
KIA Killed In Action.
FITA Failed In Traditional Archery


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Matt_Potter said:


> Some of the best recurve shots I know hunt with a compound. One of the issues I have with "trad" and "instinctive" is people use it to define who they are. I'm not a "trad" Hunter I am a hunter. YesI hunt with a longbow 90% of the time but that doesn't define me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's what I used this season, 
why?.......felt like it.

Matt the only lion I ever shot was with a wrist rocket. Most guys carried a .22, I packed a 44mag - just I case. I agree they are a very neat animal. Most of our lion hunts ended up being marathons without a lion at the end. Lots of fun.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

centershot said:


> Here's what I used this season,
> why?.......felt like it.
> 
> Matt the only lion I ever shot was with a wrist rocket. Most guys carried a .22, I packed a 44mag - just I case. I agree they are a very neat animal. Most of our lion hunts ended up being marathons without a lion at the end. Lots of fun.


Wrist rocket why ever would you shoot one with a wrist rocket???? LOL I carry one as well - I gap with it by the way ;-)


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Aronnax said:


> ohh.. I used to like you...but now!!??
> 
> MOPAR FTW!! Wait, mine is busted and rusting in my brother-in-law's yard...
> 
> ...


I've got a '94 Dodge Ram with 190k miles as a daily driver and I'm restoring an '84 D100 Ram as my future daily driver. My brother has four '88 or older Dodge trucks that all run well, even the old D350 dump with 250K miles my uncle abandoned (and he could destroy anything). So it's Mopar or no car for me, but that doesn't mean I don't hear the snide remarks.

Rancho, with all our old vehicles we have lots of drips, but oddly enough grease is never one of them :lol:


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

kegan said:


> I've got a '94 Dodge Ram with 190k miles as a daily driver and I'm restoring an '84 D100 Ram as my future daily driver. My brother has four '88 or older Dodge trucks that all run well, even the old D350 dump with 250K miles my uncle abandoned (and he could destroy anything). So it's Mopar or no car for me, but that doesn't mean I don't hear the snide remarks.
> 
> Rancho, with all our old vehicles we have lots of drips, but oddly enough grease is never one of them :lol:


whew... that's much better.

My first car, and only ever favorite car, is my '72 Dodge Dart Swinger. It wasn't pretty, it rattled, it was rough, it left me stranded and walking more times than I can remember, but I loved it, and still do. It hasn't run in over a decade (family, life, priorities, income or lack-thereof, etc) but I'll never sell it. My in-laws suggested I get rid of it, and I said you can do whatever you want with it after I'm dead. 

It wasn't fast but I won a lot of races in it. I gutted it down to 2900lbs, and with the stock 318 shifting at 4300rpm (valves floated/hydraulic lifter pumped up at 4500) ran a best 1/4 mile of 14.6 seconds at 92mph at 1000ft elevation on a cold night. 



BM

thanks....now you got me feeling all nostalgic....


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Wow, did this one really take off.

I think that something got touched on, which is the 'trad' use of 'Instinctive'

An 'Instinctive' method of aiming, wherever it is on the continuum, is one thing. Generally, it means using a sight picture of sort, on a level without any explicitly known references, or it may be 'Gapstinctive', being aware of the arrow in the periphery, but being unaware of where that arrow 'should' be at any given range, other than in line with the target on a left/right sense. If the archer practices often, at relatively close ranges, I have no doubt they can do very well with this.

What I believe Stone pointed at, though, are self-identified 'Instinctive Shooters.' This is the large majority of a 'Trad' (almost a trademark) community, that not only looks down on anything explicit in aiming, but tends to minimize any kind of scrupulous analysis of shooting form. For them, having an anchor point, and looking at where they want to hit, is about as far as it goes, if that. They not only don't want to use a sight, of any kind, be it a pin, a match stick, or the visual cues of the entire sight window that's right in front of their face for regular shooting, they don't want to use it for learning, form diagnostics, whatever, and look down on others who choose otherwise. Not surprisingly, they shoot poorly, inconsistently, their shot sequences (being unknown to them), tend to spiral out of control into what is often called 'target panic' (but they would either ignore or deny, or relabel themselves as 'snap shooters' (which they really aren't, because even that isn't consistent),and in the long term, probably won't improve a whole lot. Most of these people really shouldn't be shooting at any living thing for the purpose of a quick death. Then again, I don't really believe that most of them really do. They might talk about it, but... lots of us can talk about it. I believe in meat. Pictures are fine too, though honestly, I don't think anybody needs to prove anything to me. Some of them may grow out of the mindset, given opportunity and an education, and some not, and that's fine, because we can still be friends, sit around a campfire, and I won't bring up how I do things unless they really want to know.

I would say that it is very important to differentiate. Because a person aims 'instinctively', does not mean that they don't pay attention to form. It does not mean that they can't analyze what they're doing, and correct it. It doesn't even mean that they can't switch to some kind of sighting method, be it point of aim, or gap, once in awhile, simply as a diagnostic tool.


----------



## Longbow91115 (May 4, 2009)

I received a much appreciated and helpful PM from Aronnax. I won't post his PM here as I haven't asked his permission to do so but let me say it was well received. I appreciate many of the responses I received to this post. It wasn't posted with the intent to create controversy. Below you will find a little bit of my history and if you care to read it, it may help you understand where this thread came from. I'm posting it here for a couple of reasons, as Joe said, "you're all good folks and should treat each other as such." (or something along those lines) Secondly I don't know if I can run this damn computer well enough to have sent it to Aronnax in a PM.... here's hoping he sees it here... 


***************************************************************************************************

Thanks for the input. I thought the thread was going pretty well and staying civil for quite a while. I don't like arguing over a forum, just seems stupid and many times I think people say things they would never have the courage to say to one's face.

Anyhow, I'll watch these videos when I get a chance. I have learned a lot from these forums. I started shooting a 45# Super K when I was about 11. Over the years I just stayed with it and was self taught, picking up tips from whoever I could get some from. Once I was old enough to drive, I would take myself down to the indoor range and pay my $2 to shoot for the afternoon. No one in my family was into archery but I craved the sense of closeness one would have to have with his quarry. Seemed incredible to get that close, coming from a family of rifle hunters. I bought arrows based on color and style of fletching. (Not a very scientific theory I would learn.) The guy who owned the shop loved me and I loved him. He had stuff to sell and I had a little bit of money and the spending habits of a teenager. When arrows wouldn't work out for any of the imaginable reasons I would tell him about it. He would only then be so kind as to tell me I should have bought arrows "X" for reason "X" to begin with. It was a great relationship. I would've thought his kids would have sent me invitations to the graduations from the Ivy league colleges that I'm sure I helped finance. But hey, I got an education too.

Until getting involved in 3D and some archery clubs over the last six or seven years, archery has been a fairly isolated endeavor for me. Never minded that and actually partly what drew me to it. However since discovering these types of forums I've begun to realize there is a WHOLE LOT more to this process than I ever considered. So when I posted this thread it wasn't with the intention of creating controversy. I really have never understood why or how or what "instinctive" truly meant. I shoot a bare bow as heavy as I choose, I would consider myself a gap shooter and am satisfied with my results. I have been doing it long enough to have become consistent. When I do turn in a score card at a 3D shoot, I find I'm usually among the top three shooters and not less than top 5. I really don't care about all that but it's confirmation that what I'm doing works. The few times I have raised the question about instinctive shooters I can see the hackles rise in the room. I'm not in this to argue with anyone. If you're a friend of mine and you want to be called an instinctive shooter, fine. If you want to be known as a striped-ass-baboon, hey, no problem, you will forever be introduced as such henceforth. 

Mastery of this sport is a life long journey. With 30+ years under my belt I find I am still a wet behind the ears student. No problem with that. Listen much, speak little.

Again, thanks for your input. I always enjoy reading your posts.
Dan


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Al I can say is over the years I have never seen a thread with this title ot disintegrate 

It's a shame 

You are all very nice and good people and this just proves the Internet is evil  

I will be picking up my beloved Belgian make Browning Hump back with a Hastings rifled Barrel and a synthetic stock loaded with big Barnes Expanders and pushing deer n Dec 

I will have just as much pride if I shoot a big Buck with it or my recurve 



Stone 

You have my number 

Call me I look forward to your adventures in Hawaii and would like to hear from you 

As for the Amazon being polluted 

Where I got dropped it was amazingly pristine 

Some of the most pristine conditions I have encountered 

Over the ten days heading toward civilization as I aproached small villages it still looked really good

But as soon as I hit bigger villages and eventually roads it got bad in the way of garbage everywhere 

I believe because of the vast amount of water in the drainage system that it is constantly flushing 

Yes it has to end up somewhere which is sad but in the remote areas it is like it was back when people first saw it 

I loved it and will be back despite the intense heat


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Get 10 guys or so in a room, a couple different opinions, and if some heat doesn't develop, something's wrong with those guys. Idealistic it wouldn't, but unless all are of the same opinion, man just ain't wired to go against his own convictions. Only other option is to shut up and keep it to yourself.

That being said, heat in the kitchen hasn't been the problem here in the past. It was more just in silly circular arguing. We have outgrown that level at least by the noted absence of getting multiple Webster's definitions, references to unrelated videos, doctored pics, and acronyms - not once discussed, but pages discussed.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> Jinks, I think you are wrong about the difference between foam targets and real deer. Or I should say, between foam deer in a tournament and real deer. I have shot at 11 deer in my life and killed all of them. All were inside 25 yards. Most around 15. Killing deer while hunting is easy for me because I'm used to the pressure of shooting in tournaments, which, to me, mean more. I don't care if I don't get a deer. I do care how I score on a target under pressure. The pressure of shooting in front of others for score is not to be discounted. It's the best way to condition your nervous system if you are the type that gets nervous. I certainly do when shooting for score.
> 
> I no longer deer hunt because it really does not thrill me. I only hunted with my brother up in Maine as a social thing. He likes to hunt, I like my brother. So we bowhunted up his way in the fall. Shooting his local deer that came wondering next to my ground blind was too damn easy in my opinion. I don't get spooked by deer up close. Maybe it's all the bonefish and tarpon I've snuck-up on while flats fishing. That's very much like still hunting. Anyway, a deer walking into me down some trail while I'm in a blind is not so exciting to me I can't shoot. It's actually pretty tame. The trick is not to let the bugger see you draw your bow. That's the hardest thing about deer hunting from a blind. The actual shot on such a large target inside 25 yards is a non-event. It's very easy if you can stay calm. I have no trouble doing that. I need coffee in the morning just to breathe normally and get my heart rate up to allow me to function. Deer hunting doesn't make my heart jump at all. But shooting for score in front of others sure does.
> 
> ...




I never said I average in the 270's. I broke 270 2 or 3 times with my highest being 273.

What makes you think that what causes you "duress" is the same as what causes other people duress? Shooting in front of people hasn't bothered me but I haven't shot any big shoots. I just don't care enough about it to spend the money and do the travel.

I hunt when I can but the hunting isn't very good. Getting a shot at a deer is very exciting for me. I can't really explain why I missed the last two while I score well on paper and 30d deer. I think it's what many call "buck fever".

Of course, you claim that it isn't possible. LOL...so says the non-hunter who wishes he was the licensing authority.

The good news is that you have no authority at all.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> Captain, you kill stuff just for the hell of it?
> 
> I'm out of here. No wonder there is such a large anti-hunting and fishing movement. Photos of dead chipmunks killed by persons for fun on the internet. It serves no purpose to kill for no reason. I thought most adults understood this.
> 
> See you, Joe. I can't take this group any longer.


Lots of folks hunt "pests" and varmints". The purpose is to reduce their numbers and the damage they do...and to have fun. I thought most adults understood this.

Bye.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> Lots of folks hunt "pests" and varmints". The purpose is to reduce their numbers and the damage they do...and to have fun. I thought most adults understood this.
> 
> Bye.


Not to get too deep in this one, but I think killing rats for purpose is also legit. Using rats for target practice is not. Combining a need to kill pests and practice is on the line, for me. Posting pics, either way, is over the line, for me. If you are killing a rat as a pest, there's nothing to brag about. If you are killing a rat for target practice, there's definitely nothing to brag about. Of course, I also have views similar on killing for food. There's nothing to brag about, pretty somber and humbling event, hence, no pic required.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Matt_Potter said:


> Wrist rocket why ever would you shoot one with a wrist rocket???? LOL I carry one as well - I gap with it by the way ;-)


While it sounds a little crazy it is pretty common. You whack them with a pebble so they will jump out of the tree and you can chase them again - really gets young dogs fired up.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

MGF said:


> Lots of folks hunt "pests" and varmints". The purpose is to reduce their numbers and the damage they do...and to have fun. I thought most adults understood this.
> 
> Bye.


That's the way we do it around here - rock chucks can do a lot of expensive crop damage. I shoot a hundred or so each year, mostly with a pellet rifle - I look forward to it each spring. The land owners that have the areas I shoot on are always asking when I'm going out to shoot them. Win - win.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program..........


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Aronnax said:


> whew... that's much better.
> 
> My first car, and only ever favorite car, is my '72 Dodge Dart Swinger. It wasn't pretty, it rattled, it was rough, it left me stranded and walking more times than I can remember, but I loved it, and still do. It hasn't run in over a decade (family, life, priorities, income or lack-thereof, etc) but I'll never sell it. My in-laws suggested I get rid of it, and I said you can do whatever you want with it after I'm dead.
> 
> ...


A 318 left you stranded? I didn't think that could happen :lol:

My first vehicle was a beat to hell '87 Dakota I bought for just over scrap price. It had a worn out 3.9L in it, two wheel drive, long bed with a 998 auto in it. I loved that thing but after three years the engine finally gave out. Traded it to my brother for some welding work on the new-to-me '94 and he put the 318 in that Dakota from an '85 Ram he had that someone totaled. He also pulled out my dad's first truck, a '79 PowerWagon, that had been parked about six months before he was born and rebuilt it. He rebuilt a ton on it and the engine runs strong, even after 20 some years of sitting. 

Totally understand not wanting to part with your Dart


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> Not to get too deep in this one, but I think killing rats for purpose is also legit. Using rats for target practice is not. Combining a need to kill pests and practice is on the line, for me. Posting pics, either way, is over the line, for me. If you are killing a rat as a pest, there's nothing to brag about. If you are killing a rat for target practice, there's definitely nothing to brag about. Of course, I also have views similar on killing for food. There's nothing to brag about, pretty somber and humbling event, hence, no pic required.


I don't usually take pictures of animals I kill. I don't personally see the appeal of mounting animals either. I don't see any line there though. It doesn't bother me if somebody else wants to cover their walls with the heads of dead animals. LOL

We kill a lot of animals for food around here and I don't know that I see anything somber or humbling about it. I can go to the grocery store for meat or I can go out to the barn and kill one of the animals I raise for meat. It's just getting meat with no somber about it. Or I can hunt and get meat and have fun. Again, nothing somber about it.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF, everyone rightfully is all over the map on this, so in no way am I to judge anyone. I was once a very avid hunter. Once my family quit eating it, it just quit hunting it. I could never tie the sport back to a meaningful activity. I love the woods and can still to that. Wanting to shoot something is just not a meaningful activity to me. Something dies and that's somber to me - always was when I hunted - more remorse than pleasure, but if I ate it, meaningful and had purpose. Seeing a pic of deer shot here does not bother me, as I know where the folks are coming from even if it never was me. The chipmunk, Alvin????? That's a different matter to me


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Here's a fellow archer I have a ton of respect for (and not just over his shooting skills) and he has what seems to be a firm grasp of "Instinctive Aiming" and conveys such much better than eye (like that one? LOL!) in the following video. L8R, Bill.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

The meaning of hunting to me is that of being a participant. Being in the woods is more fun when I'm part of what's going on.


----------



## reddogge (Jul 21, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> I find I am much more accurate if I use a consistent 4" gap vs. pointing the point right on the spot when I am string-walking - my brain needs some wiggle room.
> 
> This is a remarkable thread
> 
> Matt


Matt, that technique is quite common among pistol and rifle shooters but the gaps is probably smaller. I call it floating the target on the post.


----------



## starrider (Jan 27, 2014)

I wish to express how much I appreciate the character of some of the folks on here. Most of you I speak to on another forum. When things got heated Joe tried to even the boat, and Matt added some humour to it as well. Moose, Kegan you as well. Personally I don't care how you aim, I don't care what type of bow you shoot. Really I just don't care. I shot instinctive over 25 years ago won a **** shoot that had candles under the target as the only light, won a state tournament that same year. My only bow kill was with a recurve shooting instinctive. Fast forward to now shooting the gap method or fixed crawl and I shoot much better than I ever did back then. So which is better? Only you will know which works best for.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

centershot said:


> While it sounds a little crazy it is pretty common. You whack them with a pebble so they will jump out of the tree and you can chase them again - really gets young dogs fired up.


Yeah we do it too - if it's a decent tree I'll just climb until the jump.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

kegan said:


> A 318 left you stranded? I didn't think that could happen :lol:
> 
> My first vehicle was a beat to hell '87 Dakota I bought for just over scrap price. It had a worn out 3.9L in it, two wheel drive, long bed with a 998 auto in it. I loved that thing but after three years the engine finally gave out. Traded it to my brother for some welding work on the new-to-me '94 and he put the 318 in that Dakota from an '85 Ram he had that someone totaled. He also pulled out my dad's first truck, a '79 PowerWagon, that had been parked about six months before he was born and rebuilt it. He rebuilt a ton on it and the engine runs strong, even after 20 some years of sitting.
> 
> Totally understand not wanting to part with your Dart





















Just finished lifting and modifying the cargo compartment on this guy.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

starrider said:


> I wish to express how much I appreciate the character of some of the folks on here. Most of you I speak to on another forum. When things got heated Joe tried to even the boat, and Matt added some humour to it as well. Moose, Kegan you as well. Personally I don't care how you aim, I don't care what type of bow you shoot. Really I just don't care. I shot instinctive over 25 years ago won a **** shoot that had candles under the target as the only light, won a state tournament that same year. My only bow kill was with a recurve shooting instinctive. Fast forward to now shooting the gap method or fixed crawl and I shoot much better than I ever did back then. So which is better? Only you will know which works best for.



Thanks 

I wish everyone on forums could all get together once a year 

I think we all would see that we have more in commen than most would think  

I have meet many on here and I hope to meet many more 

MGF is a good guy that lives a life similar to how I grew up on the farm . My grandfather always said don't name the animals that we ate  

Like I said he doesn't dig state or federal government meddling in out lives. Who does ? 

Stone is a very interesting man that built boats and has lived life as an adventure and I dig that  

All have killed all have shot target we are all similar 

All of our interests over the years have evolved but we all closer than we believe 

Some just at different places 

What my hunting has evolved too is rather torn 

I have hunted a lot 

I've been blessed to have seen a lot 

What I would kill today is different than what I would of killed at a different time in my life 

Sometimes I even ponder giving it up and just fishing  but than something like the other night happens and my leg shakes and I remember where and why I started 

Point is, and sorry to be long is that eventually we might all get to the same place and if we don't so be it.....we all have a love for archery and that is the commen theme 

Stone once layed into me about some things he was right about 

I did have a grunt and pluck style  

I have worked hard to improve and this past year was the best shooting year I have had 

I took the time to talk to the man and a more interesting amicable fellow would be hard to find 

MGF we to have had comments and again another fine man I got to meet 

So try and be nice guys  life's to short


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Matt kick ass hound sled


----------



## Captainkirk (Sep 18, 2014)

Thanks, Joe, for trying to keep this on the rails.
I think we all have a lot more in common than we might care to admit.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Captainkirk said:


> I think we all have a lot more in common than we might care to admit.


Like Target Panic?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JParanee said:


> Matt kick ass hound sled


I'm sure it will get me stuck in more interesting places.


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Matt_Potter said:


> I'm sure it will get me stuck in more interesting places.


You got a hi lift jack? Jack! If not, get one pronto!


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Mo0se said:


> You got a hi lift jack? Jack! If not, get one pronto!


Yeah I got all the toys - play in the snow enough and your going to get stuck at some point or another


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Joe P. Very nice post. I think much of the problem of gathering people on a site like this is the assumption we all like to hunt or fish or shoot our bows with the same passion. It's an archery forum, what should a person expect? Trouble with that is, it's not accurate. I have shot a bow almost everyday since I was kid. I'm 57 now. Long ago I understood I was not gifted in the way of some. I can shoot well enough not to embarrass myself, and that's about it. I have only hunted deer. Never have I shot an arrow at any other living thing. I live in an area where there is no hunting at all. Not with a gun or bow. Most of my hunting has been with a Hawaiian sling underwater breath-hold diving at 20-30 feet. Like deer hunting without a tree stand. You sit suspended in space with a thousand feet of nothing under you waiting for something to come by that is not hunting you. This is no lie. I can't tell you how many times I've had bull sharks or hammerheads rise up from underneath me out of the void to see what I was dangling in blue space. It is not like deer hunting at all. Another reason I find deer hunting very tame and rather dull. No deer ever cut a man in half.

At my age I don't feel like I have many peers really. I'm a fitness fanatic and race surfskis and outrigger canoes for fun. I train everyday by lifting, running, and paddling. I shoot my bows for an hour every morning before I run or lift. Have always done this. I have always worked for myself so I can goof off when I want. I've never met another guy my age interested in fitness or being involved physically like I am. It's discouraging and the main reason I'm moving to Oahu. There water sports like sailboarding, spearfishing at depth, surfing and paddle sport racing are very popular. I've been to Hawaii many times in my life racing surfskis between Oahu and Molokai, a 42 mile race held every October. Many other races all around the islands year round.

Why mention this? Just to let people know we are not all the same. I could stop shooting my bow tomorrow and never miss it. I no longer hunt deer because, frankly, I find deer hunting boring. I'm a physical person who must keep moving, I like adrenaline sports best. Archery is the polar opposite. You have to learn to stay calm. That's the attraction for me coming from sports such as open-ocean kayak and outrigger racing where you have to go berserk at times. Archery is a wholly different, balancing pursuit. It's why I approach it technically from a target angle. Why I study form over "grip it and rip it". Form is everything in paddling. It's everything in golf. It's everything in every game if you take the time to really exam the event you're playing. Archery might be the most form-perfect game there is. Nobody ever got anywhere shooting a bow like 90% of traditional shooters shoot. You, Joe, are surrounded by some very good men with bows. It does rub off on you, it has to. You mention working on your shooting and tell us it shows. I believe you.

I know most guys hunt on this site and that is their main interest. I have hunted deer and I've killed more than my share of large and small game fish with both a rod and a spear. I have never felt quite right doing it, however. It's a funny thing - I want to chase fish underwater and spear them, and then when I do almost always regret doing it. I take no real pleasure from killing even fish I love to eat. Killing anything is not a small deal. I think it's a very serious business and not to be taken lightly. Even goddamn fish deserve respect. I hate seeing meaningless photos on sites like this of dead chipmunks and boyish nonsense like that. Many other guys dislike it too but do not want to open their mouths for fear of being branded a communist or some other unimaginative name like that. This calling somebody a communist because they disagree with you is insulting to someone like me in a special way. I married a Cuban woman my age (same exact birthday too) who came to these islands as a one-year-old baby in 1958. Her whole family landing on the very island I had my workshop on, Stock Island, just east of Key West.

Her entire family escaping a true communist in Castro. Married this woman in 1982 after knowing her and her entire hard-working family since we were five years old and in the same school. She and hers taught me Cuban Spanish which I'm fluent in. I also speak a very respectable Creole which her family is also versant in. Creole for those who don't know is a *******ized form of French spoken mostly in Haiti and parts of Louisiana along the Mississippi - the language of the swamp people if you will.

I know what communism is. I know the suffering first-hand that that system has caused a lot of innocent people to my south. To have some guy who hides out up in the hinterlands of North America and never goes anywhere in the world, never sees anything outside of his own 40 acres for years on end, who is so provincial he wouldn't know a Dominican from a Puerto Rican or a white Haitian speaking Creole, really bothers the hell out of me. You don't need a formal education to be intelligent, or at least insightful. But you do need to get out in this world and see how others live and work and intermingle with each other. This business of calling people communists when the name caller has not idea what the hell he's talking about is both insulting and beneath me and any other person on this site with even half a functioning brain.

End of rant.

Now, how about them Packers? New England should take care of them in a few weeks.  And I hate Brady.

Stone Bridge


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

JINKSTER said:


> Here's a fellow archer I have a ton of respect for (and not just over his shooting skills) and he has what seems to be a firm grasp of "Instinctive Aiming" and conveys such much better than eye (like that one? LOL!) in the following video. L8R, Bill.



That guy annoys me Jinks. Actually, I really appreciate him, he puts on video what I put into words here. Now, he can certainly outshoot me anytime but, I do well enough to meet my needs using the same basic methods.
That's why I have a hard time keeping my mouth shut when some blowhard starts preaching about how inaccurate instinctive shooting is. There are some people out there who are amazing shooters.
Btw, did you notice that his bow arm was still in motion when he released the arrow? Not just following the target but vertically also. I only noticed it in the slow motion shot right at the end.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

kegan said:


> A 318 left you stranded? I didn't think that could happen :lol:
> 
> My first vehicle was a beat to hell '87 Dakota I bought for just over scrap price. It had a worn out 3.9L in it, two wheel drive, long bed with a 998 auto in it. I loved that thing but after three years the engine finally gave out. Traded it to my brother for some welding work on the new-to-me '94 and he put the 318 in that Dakota from an '85 Ram he had that someone totaled. He also pulled out my dad's first truck, a '79 PowerWagon, that had been parked about six months before he was born and rebuilt it. He rebuilt a ton on it and the engine runs strong, even after 20 some years of sitting.
> 
> Totally understand not wanting to part with your Dart



I agree Kegan, the old 318 was real dependable and would take a lickin and keep on tickin. And 14.6 seconds in 1/4mi was pretty darn quick for one of those rigs. A 340 well, that's a different critter. I built some pretty good hotrods back in the day (non Mopar) and had a buddy with a stock Plymouth Duster that kept me on my toes.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Stone Bridge said:


> Joe P. Very nice post. I think much of the problem of gathering people on a site like this is the assumption we all like to hunt or fish or shoot our bows with the same passion. It's an archery forum, what should a person expect? Trouble with that is, it's not accurate. I have shot a bow almost everyday since I was kid. I'm 57 now. Long ago I understood I was not gifted in the way of some. I can shoot well enough not to embarrass myself, and that's about it. I have only hunted deer. Never have I shot an arrow at any other living thing. I live in an area where there is no hunting at all. Not with a gun or bow. Most of my hunting has been with a Hawaiian sling underwater breath-hold diving at 20-30 feet. Like deer hunting without a tree stand. You sit suspended in space with a thousand feet of nothing under you waiting for something to come by that is not hunting you. This is no lie. I can't tell you how many times I've had bull sharks or hammerheads rise up from underneath me out of the void to see what I was dangling in blue space. It is not like deer hunting at all. Another reason I find deer hunting very tame and rather dull. No deer ever cut a man in half.
> 
> At my age I don't feel like I have many peers really. I'm a fitness fanatic and race surfskis and outrigger canoes for fun. I train everyday by lifting, running, and paddling. I shoot my bows for an hour every morning before I run or lift. Have always done this. I have always worked for myself so I can goof off when I want. I've never met another guy my age interested in fitness or being involved physically like I am. It's discouraging and the main reason I'm moving to Oahu. There water sports like sailboarding, spearfishing at depth, surfing and paddle sport racing are very popular. I've been to Hawaii many times in my life racing surfskis between Oahu and Molokai, a 42 mile race held every October. Many other races all around the islands year round.
> 
> ...


"boyish nonsense". You see, I think that a smart guy like yourself should recognize those words as being quite harsh and that they might create some negative response when directed at a well respected member in a hunting oriented forum. I don't believe the member had ANY intention of offending your sensibilities. It's just a fact of life that many of us live in more rural environments where shooting pests is common. It has to be done, like it or not.
There are quite a few guys like Jeff Cavanagh in the world who can definitely make 'clean kill shots' and I happen to believe it's disrespectful to hammer on the method as you do when the proof is right before your eyes if you just look. Maybe you have watched his videos before, if not, try it. And check out Ken Busalacchi and Rick Welch while you're at it. Instinctive shooting doesn't have to be about a bunch of kooks wildly flinging arrows around the woods at the poor animals.

Not ranting, just helping a smart man become more educated about a challenging and gratifying shooting method. :thumbs_up


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I wouldn't call somebody a communist for disagreeing. I'd call them a communist for wanting to put government further into our lives (hunting in this case) and for thinking that they should be able to dictate who's going to hunt and how...to force their way on the rest of us.

It's the "force" that causes the problem.

Then too, you can't really expect to call someone a liar and not ruffle a few feathers. It nothing else, it's rude.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> To have some guy who hides out up in the hinterlands of North America and never goes anywhere in the world, never sees anything outside of his own 40 acres for years on end, who is so provincial he wouldn't know a Dominican from a Puerto Rican or a white Haitian speaking Creole, really bothers the hell out of me. You don't need a formal education to be intelligent, or at least insightful. But you do need to get out in this world and see how others live and work and intermingle with each other. This business of calling people communists when the name caller has not idea what the hell he's talking about is both insulting and beneath me and any other person on this site with even half a functioning brain.
> 
> End of rant.


What do you know about where I've been or what I've done? It bothers you? There you go again trying to tell other people how they have to live. You don't get to say what the rest of us have to do.

I don't hide out in the "hinterlands". I live, work and support/raised a family in Indiana. Neither the Chicago area (where I grew, started a career and family) or Indiana could really be called "hinterlands".

I do have an education and have worked all over this country and a couple others.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JParanee said:


> MGF is a good guy that lives a life similar to how I grew up on the farm . My grandfather always said don't name the animals that we ate


This guy doesn't like people who live like that. My wife lived all over the world growing up with a father in the military. I started in Chicago and, between engineering and teaching diving, worked all over with people from all over the world. This "rural" life is what we wanted and worked hard to get.

I just wish the hunting was better.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> "boyish nonsense". You see, I think that a smart guy like yourself should recognize those words as being quite harsh and that they might create some negative response when directed at a well respected member in a hunting oriented forum.


He chose his words carefully enough to say just exactly what he intended.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I tried gentleman


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Now I live in the hinterlands ;-). Some of my neighbors are true nut jobs - you know the kind that have bunkers and are always talking about black helicopters - funny thing is they tend to be pretty highly educated. I get along with them just fine - you just NEVER stop in unannounced for a chat.

I do feel strongly that we as hunters need to censer what we say and post on the net. There is a large part of our population that would love to shut down hunting - let's not give them ammo. 

I hunt with hounds and was raised hunting with them. But much of what gets posted on the net is just fuel to the antis fire. Several years ago Montana of all places voted via ballot measure to outlaw hound hunting and baiting bears. If that can happen here it can happen anywhere. 

Well that's just hound hunting you say?? No that's just the easiest target for the antis. First hounds and traps then general hunting and then they will go after fishing.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Matt, love the older Cherokees  Is it a 4.0L straight six?

Forest, you really have to work hard to kill a 318. You can get some spunk out of them too. I'm trying to talk my brother into building another small block D150 for HotRod's drag week, run in the small block naturally aspirated class. I think he's coming round to the idea


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

kegan said:


> Matt, love the older Cherokees  Is it a 4.0L straight six?
> 
> Forest, you really have to work hard to kill a 318. You can get some spunk out of them too. I'm trying to talk my brother into building another small block D150 for HotRod's drag week, run in the small block naturally aspirated class. I think he's coming round to the idea


Yeah you can't kill those straight 6 -1998 without a spot of rust on it - it got laid on its side at some point but it's straight and the drive train is good - pretty much the perfect cat hunting rig - if you can't get there in a jeep with good tires it's time for snow mobiles.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

No you can't! I can't for the life of me figure out why companies will replace these old work horse power trains with new designs, but so is the sake of "progress". Is it an automatic or five speed?


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Kegan, they replace those old work horses because all horses have to die someday. Engines have been improved so much in the last 20 years it's incredible. The only problem for most backyard guys is they are more complex and require computer analysis in most cases. Old cars are fun to play with but I'd never own one. I like the modern world of automobile progress. I have not had to repair a car in over twenty years. I keep them for about 120K and then replace. Never have I been left to walk in the last 2 decades for a car failing in any way. Not even a flat tire. I love the modern car, but then I'm an #%&# anyway, as has already been established.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Kegan, it is probably a matter of perspective, as Stone points out. I started driving during the worst manufacturing periods of American automotive history. Learned to mechanic by default. Became a mechanic by trade while a young man.

Fixing cars is a great hobby for a lot of folks. When it is a way of life to get to and from work, or to get your wife and family along during the day, then when you get home in the evening, a little more repair work, hobby it ain't. The older mechanical systems just required much maintenance to "stay" working properly.

Today, never a carburetor link to stick, never a spark plug to go plugged, never a coil to die, never anything but maybe one trip to the shop in 100,000 miles and general oil changes - heck, try to even find a grease zerk on one. For someone coming from those days, the technological and mechanical advancements made in this regard over the past couple decades is simply unbelievable. Yes, I can't work on them with hand tools, but that's a good thing.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Stone, I'm not saying that new cars haven't come a long way as far as reliability or ease of use (for heaven's sakes carb tuning can just be the biggest PITA ever) but why do they do a complete overhaul, and not just update something that's already proven to be more than hardy enough? I definitely appreciate how "user-friendly" a lot of the designs have become, but it just seems like a lot of money being wasted. Oh well. When my fiancée needed a new car I bought her a second hand 2013 Yaris, but for my own use I don't need to drive much so old, reliable, cheap, and easy to work on is what gets my attention. 

...Kinda like my interests in archery :wink:

Sanford, my only real objection to the computer controlled overly-electrical designs in the last twenty or so years is that on the second hand market things become a lot more difficult. In order to get something reliable for Anika, I had to spend a lot more than I really would have liked and get her something that was practically new. A lot of times when something does finally go wrong it goes in a big way, and because folks don't have to learn how to do upkeep on their vehicles the condition of vehicles in my price range are usually very poorly cared for no matter how old they are (or aren't). Not to say it isn't something that's worth learning. Her last car, for example, was a '96 Subaru Legacy. The previous owner was a mechanic and did just enough to get as much money out of the car as he could. After six months the transfer case went bad, the engine was in very poor shape, many of the electrical systems (windows, locks, etc.) were worn out and it started having feedback issues from a bad ground that would literally make the car un-drivable. Her family is a bunch of mechanics and even they couldn't help me figure out the issue beyond cleaning the grounds. When they go wrong, they go in a big way.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Matt_Potter said:


> Just finished lifting and modifying the cargo compartment on this guy.


All your missing is a little carpet on the hood so they can stand up there and strike! Oh no, I'm feeling that hound itch again........


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Sanford, what the hell is a carburetor? and why would you want one? LOL What a nightmare was the 1970s and early 80s for American automobiles. We sure improved things once the Japanese showed us how to do it. I only owned Datsuns and later Nissans until Ford started to make a very nice example. I've had Fords since 1994 and never had one in the shop but for oil changes. Not even a light burning out. American cars are great now because of Japanese market pressure.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Matt_Potter said:


> Now I live in the hinterlands ;-). Some of my neighbors are true nut jobs - you know the kind that have bunkers and are always talking about black helicopters - funny thing is they tend to be pretty highly educated. I get along with them just fine - you just NEVER stop in unannounced for a chat.
> 
> I do feel strongly that we as hunters need to censer what we say and post on the net. There is a large part of our population that would love to shut down hunting - let's not give them ammo.
> 
> ...


There were people petitioning bear baiting here in Idaho a few years back. Funny thing, my buddy ask one lady if she liked to fish, her answer yes. Next question, do you use worms, her answer yes. Next question, what is the difference? Both bait aren't they? No answer that time, just a dirty look. Same goes for hound hunting, that takes more time, effort and money than any way of hunting I ever tried. People just see the end result and say it is too easy - those are the people that have never tried it.........


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Stone Bridge said:


> Sanford, what the hell is a carburetor? and why would you want one? LOL What a nightmare was the 1970s and early 80s for American automobiles. We sure improved things once the Japanese showed us how to do it. I only owned Datsuns and later Nissans until Ford started to make a very nice example. I've had Fords since 1994 and never had one in the shop but for oil changes. Not even a light burning out. American cars are great now because of Japanese market pressure.


... Because Summit has a lot more options for aftermarket parts :wink:


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Kegan, I'm no engineer, but I think once an engine block is established, it only has a certain life. By that I mean it does not wear out, but becomes antiquated by better blocks being designed that are lighter, easier to sand or investment cast, have better piston angles by small degree or any number of other slight improvements that are what makeup the march of time and improved engineering. You can't get optimum gas mileage out of an old block design no matter what you do for fuel injection or any number of other improvements you make to the old block. Compression alone is important and older blocks cannot hold or maintain today's very high compression ranges. So you have to change the whole body of the engine, the block, in most cases when making updates on any modern engine platform. It's that way on outboard motors too.

The P-51 Mustang had a marvelous liquid-cooled inline piston engine. By late 1945, the jet fighter was already leaving it for dead. Change has to happen or you get shot down, figuratively, or in the case of the Mustang, literally.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

kegan said:


> Stone, I'm not saying that new cars haven't come a long way as far as reliability or ease of use (for heaven's sakes carb tuning can just be the biggest PITA ever) but why do they do a complete overhaul, and not just update something that's already proven to be more than hardy enough? I definitely appreciate how "user-friendly" a lot of the designs have become, but it just seems like a lot of money being wasted. Oh well. When my fiancée needed a new car I bought her a second hand 2013 Yaris, but for my own use I don't need to drive much so old, reliable, cheap, and easy to work on is what gets my attention.
> 
> ...Kinda like my interests in archery :wink:


Kegan, you raise some good points. There "was" a lot of money wasted. Bodies and engines needed replacing in less than half the time they last now (I'd say more 1/3), and guess who got to pay for the next one or the overhaul  You can take down a properly cared for engine these days with 150,000 miles on it. I have. Matter of fact, the spark plugs were original but looked as clean as ones from a box. Pistons? Pristine. Bearings, reusable. 

When is the last time you saw a smoking oil burner on the road. That's as rare as hen's teeth nowadays.

As to the carriage and body, do you remember buying a new car and then having to pay out the nose for undercoating, and even then, finding holes in the body after only 30,000 miles where you could stick your finger through. Rusted out in 2 years was a norm in this part of the world.

What got lost in the transition was some muscle, but that is debatable as well depending on ones intended use.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Stone Bridge said:


> Sanford, what the hell is a carburetor? and why would you want one? LOL What a nightmare was the 1970s and early 80s for American automobiles. We sure improved things once the Japanese showed us how to do it. I only owned Datsuns and later Nissans until Ford started to make a very nice example. I've had Fords since 1994 and never had one in the shop but for oil changes. Not even a light burning out. American cars are great now because of Japanese market pressure.


Yeah, Stone, those were the decades the Big 3 were taking us for a big ride! That is, till we finally got access to some other rides and the market changed for them.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

kegan said:


> No you can't! I can't for the life of me figure out why companies will replace these old work horse power trains with new designs, but so is the sake of "progress". Is it an automatic or five speed?


It's an Auto we do a ton of backing up and restarting again looking at tracks - sticks don't last that long.

Matt


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JParanee said:


> I tried gentleman


It's never too late to salvage! 

High five to you!


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

ranchoarcher said:


> If trad is bad, how do we have a kill thread? For that matter, how in the heck did anyone take a deer before the compound was invented?
> 
> The notion of requiring a "proficiency" test is nothing but an extension of the left wing gun/bow grabbing agenda. A door that must be kept securely closed. Maybe the deer should be asked. Which way do you want to go. Slowly starve and then when weak enough have a pack of coyotes eat you alive or take an arrow and 30 minutes. Nature and life is not guaranteed and its cruelty can't be legislated away. It doesn't matter how the fish or deer dies. It's dead.
> 
> I instinctively shot a rattle snake. it died. I Gap shot a ram. It died too. Whats the difference?


Well for one thing, if you can hit what you aim at, there is no difference. If you can keep your shots within predetermined group at all the ranges you shoot, there is no difference. It comes down to standards,and ethics.

The idea that proficiency is a left wing gun/bow grabbing agenda, may be one of their agenda menu items, but it hardly is unjustified.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Stone, you make a good point. Weight has to be shaved off older designs since everything must be built to a different safety rating (crashes are no longer two cars going 40 mph, but now two going 75 mph) and airbags are anything but light. I mean, the sort of government regulations that auto manufacturers go through changes every other year anymore.

Sanford, I don't really believe that. I've seen a lot of older stuff that has more miles on it than half the stuff that's "junked" that might only be ten years or so old- and it's still running the original body and power train. All comes down to how it's cared for, and that's what separates the older stuff from the newer stuff. Newer vehicles are pretty much designed to care for themselves, where as an older one required that maintenance. We've looked at more than a few older trucks that should have been "bullet proof" but were just shot because folks didn't care for them. Same with the bodies. A little wax every once in a while is a heck of a lot cheaper than replacing panels, but the number of vehicles here in PA with huge rust spots or rotted out quarters is ridiculous. "Typical Dodge rust" comment really grinds me because it's nonsense- all they had to do was keep it waxed, but that was too much work. Cars are being designed so folks don't have to care about up keep, and that's fine, but it certainly wasn't the vehicle's fault when things go down hill. Now, granted, a lot of my praise for older vehicles comes from my appreciation for older trucks. Cars were for the most part a completely different animal. But it's also a matter of using them the way they were designed. Most of them didn't have overdrive and were gear a lot lower for work, so 70 mph down the highway was a heck of a lot harder on vehicles then as opposed to now. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with new vehicles, beyond all the useless tech nonsense (which is just my opinion), but I still appreciate the older vehicles for what they are. I don't expect more from them than what they had to offer because I don't need to. 

Matt, it's also tough to find a 4x4 with a stick that hasn't been beaten to hell. A friend of mine has an Comanche where the transfer case and front end are completely shot because the previous owner put it in 4wd and drove it that way to work for two years. Never knew that 4wd and over drive did not mix.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

rattus58 said:


> Well for one thing, if you can hit what you aim at, there is no difference. If you can keep your shots within predetermined group at all the ranges you shoot, there is no difference. It comes down to standards,and ethics.
> 
> The idea that proficiency is a left wing gun/bow grabbing agenda, may be one of their agenda menu items, but it hardly is unjustified.


 There is this preconceived notion that the poor shots we see at the range or in a tournament do hunt with what we see them shooting with. I'd argue that isn't true. Most people have more common sense than that. Until these bozos of the woods are brought front and center I'll cast my vote of doubt as to their existence. If a guy can't keep his arrows on the 40cm at 20 with a trad bow it's highly unlikely he's going to waste the time, effort, and money to go into the woods with that same bow and come home empty handed. He's probably going to take a compound or even a rifle. While out this season I did not see one, not one person with a trad bow. 

The propaganda machine created the clowns we admonish but they've never been demonstrated to actually exist. At least not in the numbers we hear about. There is the occasional deer or other animal found with an arrow sticking out of it but that could be caused by any number of things. An unseen twig, string jump, or what ever and the shooter could have been number one in the last trad shoot tournament. It's not likely to be from this mysterious irresponsible hunter that no one can find. When wounded deer are found they make front page news as rare as they are considering the number of hunters that exist. If the number of people who can't hit squat with a bow really did hunt with the same rig every other buck would have more than antlers protruding from it. It's politics. Fueling an agenda by taking the exception and trying to spin it into the rule. If it's allowed to continue all archery enthusiasts will be called irresponsible if we miss even once.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

ranchoarcher said:


> There is this preconceived notion that the poor shots we see at the range or in a tournament do hunt with what we see them shooting with. I'd argue that isn't true. Most people have more common sense than that. Until these bozos of the woods are brought front and center I'll cast my vote of doubt as to their existence. If a guy can't keep his arrows on the 40cm at 20 with a trad bow it's highly unlikely he's going to waste the time, effort, and money to go into the woods with that same bow and come home empty handed. He's probably going to take a compound or even a rifle. While out this season I did not see one, not one person with a trad bow.
> 
> The propaganda machine created the clowns we admonish but they've never been demonstrated to actually exist. At least not in the numbers we hear about. There is the occasional deer or other animal found with an arrow sticking out of it but that could be caused by any number of things. An unseen twig, string jump, or what ever. It's not likely to be from this mysterious irresponsible hunter that no one can find. When wounded deer are found they make front page news as rare as they are considering the number of hunters that exist. If the number of people who can't hit squat with a bow really did hunt with the same rig every other buck would have more than antlers protruding from it. It's politics. Fueling an agenda by taking the exception and trying to spin it into the rule.


I get it.... bad shots in the field don't exist. Got it. Bad judgement in the field doesn't exist. Understand. No judgement in the field is a propaganda effort. No doubt.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

BarneySlayer said:


> It's never too late to salvage!
> 
> High five to you!


Don't give Joe too much credit. He's still wrong about me - I'm no gentleman. He just likes to see the sunny side of a nuclear blast.


----------



## portablevcb (May 10, 2014)

This is a cool drift 

Yep, technology is good. Nope, it hopelessly complicates things.

I like having ABS and cruise control. I also like working on my own stuff. It is why I have a motorcycle with carbs, but, with CDI (I do carry a set of points as spares). I do wish it had ABS and may try fitting a set one day.

Yep, metallurgy has changed a lot in the past decades. For 99.99% of the users out there it is fine. They don't care about how it works, they do care about having their phone synched up with their car. Oh well. Wait til the cars drive themselves  

You should see this discussion on motorcycle forums 

Instinctive? Don't care. I have not been shooting for a long time, but, I don't like sights. Yes, for longer shots I will gap. Shorter I just shoot. The brain takes care of everything as long as my form is correct (mainly anchor and release).

And, yes, I compare this to throwing a baseball. The brain is an amazing thing, if you let it do it's job without thinking too much


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

rattus58 said:


> I get it.... bad shots in the field don't exist. Got it.


 Not saying they don't exist. Of course they do. But, allowing those to be spun to the level the anti-hunting, shooting, and 2nd amendment want will put us all out of business. It will come down to a simple argument that you'll find difficult to get past. If you admit to missing the X ring even once, how can you say you're an ethical hunter when the chance exists you'll only wound the animal? That's a tough argument to get around. The line in the sand will get pushed closer and closer to that extreme if it's permitted to be drawn at all. Especially when it's by people who find what we do boring and take a dismissive condescending attitude towards us in general but want authority to dictate what we do and how we do it.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

portablevcb said:


> Yep, technology is good. Nope, it hopelessly complicates things.


I look at cars like I look at archery. New and improved is great, but for me I'll keep it simple. It's not bad... just bad for me :lol:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

kegan said:


> Sanford, I don't really believe that. I've seen a lot of older stuff that has more miles on it than half the stuff that's "junked" that might only be ten years or so old- and it's still running the original body and power train. All comes down to how it's cared for, and that's what separates the older stuff from the newer stuff. Newer vehicles are pretty much designed to care for themselves, where as an older one required that maintenance. We've looked at more than a few older trucks that should have been "bullet proof" but were just shot because folks didn't care for them. Same with the bodies. A little wax every once in a while is a heck of a lot cheaper than replacing panels, but the number of vehicles here in PA with huge rust spots or rotted out quarters is ridiculous. "Typical Dodge rust" comment really grinds me because it's nonsense- all they had to do was keep it waxed, but that was too much work.


Kegan I'm talking the autos of the 70's and 80's. Dodge got that reputation because they were of the worse. I'm talking rusting out from under the paint. I can remember poking my finger through the door panel of my cousins band new Dodge P/U - less than a year old. You could find them, most any brand, rusting under the body at the dealership. It was poor metal with no pre-treating for rust. Here in the Gulf Coast, it was the air that sped it up. In the Northern states, it was salt roads. During those times, if you didn't want a rusty vehicle, meaning one that the rust didn't make it through the paint yet, you pretty much had to buy new every year. 

It's not the gambit of years, or decades, of car building. That's why you find some older in better shape than some 10 years newer. But, it does show that advancements have been made in preserving one's auto investment, even if it did raise the initial cost some.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

portable, I think ABS brakes are the greatest thing to ever be developed for a car. More important than even airbags. Not many people go through life having to stomp their brakes to the floorboards at high speed very often. But where I live we have the Overseas Highway. The deadliest stretch of highway in the U.S. because it has no shoulders, is not divided, runs over many long bridges giving you no place to go when a wrong-way flyer enters your flight path, and it's populated by more drunks than is imaginable. Down here in the Keys everyone is on vacation and drinking. Only that damn highway to get anywhere on. Nearly half the cars are driven by legally drunk drivers after 5pm by actual stop information tallied by cops. 

I do not drink and never have. You could not get me out on US Rt. 1, which is the Overseas Highway in the Florida Keys, at happy hour, if you paid me to do it. I'm an expert at panic stops, as is every sober driver down here. It's your only defense once you see a drunk headed your way. Stop as fast as you can and prepare for the impact at the lowest combined speed possible. ABS allows this better than any system. And you can keep control of your car right up until the other guy destroys it. I've had three vehicles shot out from under me, to use fighter pilot jargon. All three head-ons were not my fault. All were legal drunks. I always managed to get my car down to about zero before the impact. I always drive big vehicles. ABS keeps me in my lane. That's very important down here or you risk sliding into the other lane, have the drunk come awake and correct back into his lane, now it's your fault to some degree - the crash was on his side even if he is drunk. 

So stay sober, use ABS to keep your car straight as you blue-smoke your way to a very quick stop, and hope like hell your car is heavier than his. One more reason I'm getting out of the Florida Keys next month. I'm playing with house money now with the Overseas Highway and those drunks. My luck has to run out eventually.

Archery and cars. How did we get so far afield?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Stone Bridge said:


> Archery and cars. How did we get so far afield?


My fault, I got sick of the BS that was cropping up.

Sanford, now I follow, and completely understand. Paint and prep, as well as the demand for perfectly finished vehicles changes a lot about body longevity. My father repainted his '69 VW when I was in school (it was the family car until I was almost in highschool). He had painted it before he and my mother married, and the recoat was already falling off. The original lead based paint was in tact, but the newer paint was shot. 

Like I said, I have nothing against a new vehicles. I just can't get a nice one in my budget that doesn't require work, and that's out of my capabilities.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Stone Bridge said:


> portable, I think ABS brakes are the greatest thing to ever be developed for a car.


I think that is a relative point-

One of my favorite spare time passions is "spirited" off road driving, and the two of the most terrifying moments I've had in a car were from my first time in a car equipped with ABS brakes.

The first occasion was with my kids in the car, four wheeling some steep gravel roads. I was descending this particular steep loose section, that a short way down from where I was turned abruptly to the right. As I was going down, one of my tires hit a particularly loose spot, and the abs brakes effectively "let go" of the brakes. Instead of skidding, where on gravel material builds up in front of the tires aiding in "mechanical" friction, and slowing down, the wheels would not lock up and the car kept accelerating under the force of gravity. My foot was buried, and there was nothing I could do. Luckily, I hit some embedded exposed rock and regained control of my vehicle. 

On the second occasion, I was alone in the car doing my best Colin McCrae impression on some dirt roads. This was a well rehearsed normal "rally" loop of mine, and I was approaching this chicane of sorts. I entered the first left in 3rd gear, but need to downshift into second for the right hander following it. The under the slight surge of engine braking on the dry, loose, desert dirt, the rear wheels slowed more than the fronts, and the ABS computer regarded this as a skid and essentially let go of all the brakes, I missed my turn, and plowed over a few creosote bushes. 

I've had several instances where just driving at normal speeds on dirt roads (lots out here), when approaching cross streets under braking, the ABS kicks in and instead of stopping in a reasonable distance, the car just slows slowly accompanied by the annoying "clickity-click" of the ABS pile of crap under the hood of the car.

I first learned to cope with the ABS brake interfering with my driving, but I've since learned how to disable my ABS when needed, and couldn't be happier.

I'm not some wet behind the ears idiot thrill junky either (may have been in my teenage years though). I've been ripping the guts out of every car I've owned in this desert for over 20yrs, and am well versed in the concepts of threshold braking, trail braking, heel toe downshifting, weight transfer, etc... 

BM


----------



## Longbow91115 (May 4, 2009)

ABS has undoubtedly saved numerous lives and millions in insurance claims on dry pavement. Other than dry pavement it is just a pain.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

My plow truck is a 1973 ford F250 highboy - If only all vehicles were so easy to work on or so dependable. I also love the room to work - heck if it's raining you can just about climb in there and close the hood behind you.

Matt


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

rattus58 said:


> I get it.... bad shots in the field don't exist. Got it. Bad judgement in the field doesn't exist. Understand. No judgement in the field is a propaganda effort. No doubt.


They absolutely do exist but, I think they exist in equal numbers through out all hunters. A bad shot at 750 yards with a rifle is no different that a bad shot at 15 yards with a selfbow - same crappy decisions.

http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/Elk-hunters-near-Helena-were-unethical/29623074 This just happened out here - none of these guys were bow hunters.

In Montana if your over 18 you can just go buy a hunting license and have at it - No hunters safety or anything. At least they make you take a test of some sort for a drivers license.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Longbow91115 said:


> ABS has undoubtedly saved numerous lives and millions in insurance claims on dry pavement. Other than dry pavement it is just a pain.


I concede that technology in cars saves lives, abs, the new federally mandated vsc, and now auto-braking, etc... but something about it just grates against me. It's as if the automotive industry is a metaphor for the living in a safety net society. You do not need to be competent at what you do, because there's a government mandated safety net to save you. You don't need to pay attention while driving, because the car will avoid the accident for you. You don't need to know how to drive in adverse conditions, because vsc will save you.... It's a very conflicting feeling. Heck, you don't even need to know how to parallel park anymore...just push a button and enjoy the ride.

It's like "they" are trying to make it so there are no longer consequences to your actions.

BM


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

ABS Didn't save my son, pavement was dry, damn drunk still killed him. I'm an old car guy myself, built my first hot rod in 75 when I was 15, and built a bunch since, had my current one since 1990, my sons and I built it and it's taken us places Ida never dreamed of, I'll never sell this one, way too many memories, it's become part of the family, and even led my sons funeral procession blowing fire for 15 miles......anyway I like ABS to a point it works good for those who tend not to pay attention, for those that do it can be a useful tool, sometimes though I've had occasion to want a button to shut it off, but never on public roads.....anyway again, I'm not sure what this has to do with instinctive archery, except that good driving is a skill that needs much practice to gain proficiency just like instinctive archery.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> They absolutely do exist but, I think they exist in equal numbers through out all hunters. A bad shot at 750 yards with a rifle is no different that a bad shot at 15 yards with a selfbow - same crappy decisions.
> 
> http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/Elk-hunters-near-Helena-were-unethical/29623074 This just happened out here - none of these guys were bow hunters.
> 
> In Montana if your over 18 you can just go buy a hunting license and have at it - No hunters safety or anything. At least they make you take a test of some sort for a drivers license.




Always gonna be jerks.
A man once told me that you can't fix stupid. Unfortunately he was living proof of his theory because he said it while I was cleaning the seriously corroded battery terminals on his old ford truck. He couldn't come to work because his truck wouldn't start :doh: so I went and fik it for him.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Always gonna be jerks.
> A man once told me that you can't fix stupid. Unfortunately he was living proof of his theory because he said it while I was cleaning the seriously corroded battery terminals on his old ford truck. He couldn't come to work because his truck wouldn't start :doh: so I went and fik it for him.


Totally agree with you but, more importantly you can't legislate stupid. Just because you took a test doesn't mean your not going to take a dumb ass shot.

Matt


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

voodoofire1 said:


> I'm not sure what this has to do with instinctive archery, except that good driving is a skill that needs much practice to gain proficiency just like instinctive archery.


Very sorry for your loss. My greatest fear is losing any of my children.

But I can tie it in to archery-

There are a lot of gear-head types that always want to buy the fastest, most powerful car on the market. But if you really want to be a student of driving, I would argue that a powerful car is like being over-bowed. No novice is going to jump in to a Ferrari and learn to push it to it's limits. There's too much going on, it's too fast. Driving something slow where everything happens in relatively slow motion will teach you tons more about vehicle dynamics in a much shorter time.

I do suspension testing as part of my job. My boss keeps going on about how cool it'd be to get a full 800hp trophy truck for testing. I tell him he's mad. Get a small 4cyl toyota pre-runner... None of us are going to get into a trophy truck and drive it with any level of competency. You will never feel the subtle nuances when your scenes are so overwhelmed by a machine that violent. But my suggestion offends his ego...

I have another friend that wanted to take up trail riding on dirt bikes. His macho side made him get a Honda XR650, which was WAY more bike than he could adequately handle. A small 250X would have served him much better.

BM


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I absolutely detest anti-lock brakes! When I step on the brakes I mean for them to stay engaged until I stop stepping on them.

All the horse chit in new cars? No, I don't have to fix my cars these days and I can't...but neither can the professionals in the shop. I had a headlight go out and it cost me $600 for a computer. Why the mother effin hell do you need a computer to turn on a headlight? 

I had one vehicle with an automatic transmission (don't much like those either) and every time it was wet in the winter the speedometer would go nuts and it would stop shifting. I lost count of how many times I had to rent cars and hotel rooms because that thing wouldn't work on wet winter days. I had it to about 4 different dealers, a couple of transmission shops and an automotive electronics shop and nobody could fix it. Why winter? It was the salt on the roads but nobody would look for the bad connector. They just kept trying to sell me speed sensors.

Both of my current cars have had the check engine light on them since they were new. It's the O2 sensors. They don't work and at $130 a pop (or whatever it was), who wants to keep buying them?

When I get the money I'm going to get my hands on a 1965ish vehicle, fix it up and drive it for the rest of my life.

The cars and trucks today are way too expensive to buy, to expensive to maintain and ridiculously irritating o try to keep running unless you can afford to trade it in before it gets dirty.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> Totally agree with you but, more importantly you can't legislate stupid. Just because you took a test doesn't mean your not going to take a dumb ass shot.
> 
> Matt




:thumbs_up Absolutely, agree 100%. I do like to think that most bow hunters are slightly more conscientious due to the time and effort invested. Some of the things I have heard of rifle hunters doing, when I lived in Colorado, astounded me.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

And the beepers! What idgit decided to put all these nasty beepers on all these cars and trucks? Don't you miss quiet vehicles. You know? The ones that don't beep at you if you try to use your truck on the property without putting that horribly uncomfortable and restrictive shoulder harness. I don't want to wear it to drive across my yard!

Why do people need cameras and stuff to back up?

Teach people to drive, yank all the nonsense crap off these cars and get them down to about $6K where they should be!


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

I know there are those who don't want the government messing with anything. But cars are different. Not many people have the time, interest, or coordination to be Formula 1 drivers capable of drifting the family Honda Pilot through a 90 degree corner at Wal-Mart without killing a dozen people. 

Modern cars with airbags, advanced braking systems, better seatbelts (wish they were 4-point) perimeter radar, and automatic stopping features for text messaging idiots not wanting to look up, have saved many, many lives and serious injuries. I want more federal regulation on car safety, not less. For every backyard gearhead who fancies himself Jackie Stewart, there are a thousand others not capable of driving very well at all. We can't stop them from driving, but we can design cars to be much safer for all of us innocent targets out motoring to the ice cream stand. I don't worry about the "Government" at all. I worry about 3000 pounds of iron T-boning me while being piloted by a 17-year-old girl text messaging her boyfriend. I know that's how I'm going to die. I just know it.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

MGF said:


> And the beepers! What idgit decided to put all these nasty beepers on all these cars and trucks? Don't you miss quiet vehicles. You know? The ones that don't beep at you if you try to use your truck on the property without putting that horribly uncomfortable and restrictive shoulder harness. I don't want to wear it to drive across my yard!
> 
> Why do people need cameras and stuff to back up?
> 
> Teach people to drive, yank all the nonsense crap off these cars and get them down to about $6K where they should be!




"Get off my lawn!"

Had to say it for you movie buffs.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> Totally agree with you but, more importantly you can't legislate stupid. Just because you took a test doesn't mean your not going to take a dumb ass shot.
> 
> Matt


We don't even make people take a test to be president of the nation...and we don't make people take a test to vote. What does that get you?

It gets you the need to be concerned that they really could make people take a test before they take a shot at some meat. Such a goofy thing could really happen.

Get this. We pay to hunt. The guy collecting the money is the one who should take the test. It used to be that they guy who was paying for the party got to make the rules. Not anymore. Now they just make you pay.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

MGF, many states already have shooting tests for bowhunters. You should get out more. Just about every country in Europe that allows bowhunting requires you show some skill in shooting. They are miles ahead of us, in my opinion, in ridding the woods of poor shooters. We'll never agree on this which is why it's so doggone much fun reading your 1950s viewpoints on the world. You're a fun guy in a oblique way. You entertain me.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> I know there are those who don't want the government messing with anything. But cars are different. Not many people have the time, interest, or coordination to be Formula 1 drivers capable of drifting the family Honda Pilot through a 90 degree corner at Wal-Mart without killing a dozen people.
> 
> Modern cars with airbags, advanced braking systems, better seatbelts (wish they were 4-point) perimeter radar, and automatic stopping features for text messaging idiots not wanting to look up, have saved many, many lives and serious injuries. I want more federal regulation on car safety, not less. For every backyard gearhead who fancies himself Jackie Stewart, there are a thousand others not capable of driving very well at all. We can't stop them from driving, but we can design cars to be much safer for all of us innocent targets out motoring to the ice cream stand. I don't worry about the "Government" at all. I worry about 3000 pounds of iron T-boning me while being piloted by a 17-year-old girl text messaging her boyfriend. I know that's how I'm going to die. I just know it.


I don't think the roads have gotten safer. The cars have just gotten more expensive.

Not only that but government meddling with the auto industry is what drove up prices and really screwed it up. Better gas mileage doesn't save me any money if I 1, don't drive much or 2, can't afford the car that costs more than I spent on my house. LOL let me have a car for under $10K and I'll be happy with 10 MPG.

Give people a real driving test. Require that they do know how to drive a car...even on snow and ice if they live where there are such things. Hold them accountable. Hmmm, that's government involvement. However, one's poor driving can cause injury to other so it's EXACTLY the sort of thing that government should do...restrain one from causing harm to another. Throwing money at it isn't helping. It's making some people wealthy but that won't stop you from being splattered all over the pavement.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Stone Bridge said:


> MGF, many states already have shooting tests for bowhunters. You should get out more. Just about every country in Europe that allows bowhunting requires you show some skill in shooting. They are miles ahead of us, in my opinion, in ridding the woods of poor shooters. We'll never agree on this which is why it's so doggone much fun reading your 1950s viewpoints on the world. You're a fun guy in a oblique way. You entertain me.


Nothing wrong with a 1950s view point - in many ways this was a better country in the 1950s

Matt


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> MGF, many states already have shooting tests for bowhunters. You should get out more. Just about every country in Europe that allows bowhunting requires you show some skill in shooting. They are miles ahead of us, in my opinion, in ridding the woods of poor shooters. We'll never agree on this which is why it's so doggone much fun reading your 1950s viewpoints on the world. You're a fun guy in a oblique way. You entertain me.


Why do we need to rid the world of the poor shooters? They aren't hurting anybody.

Some states and much of Europe are only ahead in regards to taking away liberty. That's not going to work so well here because we have a tendency of throwing tyrants out. That's how this all started.

I missed most of the 1950s (born in 59) but I don't see much that has gotten better over the last 55 years. It just got more expensive and restrictive.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Matt_Potter said:


> Nothing wrong with a 1950s view point - in many ways this was a better country in the 1950s
> 
> Matt


Sure, Matt. We had the popular KKK then and the FBI running rampant and the draft and lots of other oppressive stuff going on then. I was born in the fifties. I'm glad they are gone for good.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> "Get off my lawn!"
> 
> Had to say it for you movie buffs.


I'm a little bit of a movie buff but I don't recognize the reference. What's it from?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> I don't think the roads have gotten safer. The cars have just gotten more expensive.
> 
> Not only that but government meddling with the auto industry is what drove up prices and really screwed it up. Better gas mileage doesn't save me any money if I 1, don't drive much or 2, can't afford the car that costs more than I spent on my house. LOL let me have a car for under $10K and I'll be happy with 10 MPG.
> 
> Give people a real driving test. Require that they do know how to drive a car...even on snow and ice if they live where there are such things. Hold them accountable. Hmmm, that's government involvement. However, one's poor driving can cause injury to other so it's EXACTLY the sort of thing that government should do...restrain one from causing harm to another. Throwing money at it isn't helping. It's making some people wealthy but that won't stop you from being splattered all over the pavement.


It simply doesn't matter...the next time you're in wally world?...look around and observe all the people...then?...realize these two things...

1. They all drove there and?..

2. Everyone of them has a cell phone.

I got into cycling to motivate myself to remain a nonsmoker and save my legs...I started out by stuffing up my old road bike...now?...I've since bought a used mountain bike and a used hybrid....why?...simple...I didn't quit smoking and start pedaling so I could die on a road bike...and yes...it's that bad.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> Sure, Matt. We had the popular KKK then and the FBI running rampant and the draft and lots of other oppressive stuff going on then. I was born in the fifties. I'm glad they are gone for good.


Now we have the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act and Obamacare and taxes through the roof and so on. There's about a million bureaucratic lining up to tell us what to do, watch us and take out money with no accountability. "Oppression" is on the rise in a big way.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

MGF, you are of a mindset that thinks the old days were better because your current life is so miserable. It's clearly evident in your every post. You are one negative and miserable guy unhappy with almost everything it seems. How do you find the strength to drag yourself out of bed every morning? How do you do it? I see no humor in your posts, no hint of the lark, not fun whatsoever. Life seems to be on long heart attack for you. What a pity.

We are essentially the same age. I have more fun in life than should be legal, more friends around me than I want - I have to hide from half of the ******** most of the time. I choose to see the shiny side of things. But not you. You're a one-man cold-front. A huge line of thunderheads sweeping in from the north. I can be a real prick when I want to be, but honestly? I'm starting to feel bad for you. I really am. So much joy and color in the modern world and all you can see is black.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> It simply doesn't matter...the next time you're in wally world?...look around and observe all the people...then?...realize these two things...
> 
> 1. They all drove there and?..
> 
> ...


Road safety is one of the few things that we really could improve...where testing and holding people accountable really would help. It would save lives and improve lives. 
Why won't they do it. Easy!. How are you going to get a bunch of incompetents to vote for you if you won't let the drive a car? 

What this means is that you're, essentially, cannon fodder to them. Hey, the folks making the rules don't drive on the roads that you have to drive on. They take planes stuffed with fancy food and booze. They have drivers and Secret Service details to keep them safe while they just hang your backside out there.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

MGF said:


> I'm a little bit of a movie buff but I don't recognize the reference. What's it from?


If you have to ask the joke is no good. Think Clint Eastwood as an old curmudgeon holding a Garand on some silly kids foolish enough to step on his grass.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Absolutely ridiculous this topic had to take the turn it did.

Side note:
Anonymity is a widely abused convenience with a very ugly face.

I'm out.

Rick


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> MGF, you are of a mindset that thinks the old days were better because your current life is so miserable. It's clearly evident in your every post. You are one negative and miserable guy unhappy with almost everything it seems. How do you find the strength to drag yourself out of bed every morning? How do you do it? I see no humor in your posts, no hint of the lark, not fun whatsoever. Life seems to be on long heart attack for you. What a pity.
> 
> We are essentially the same age. I have more fun in life than should be legal, more friends around me than I want - I have to hide from half of the ******** most of the time. I choose to see the shiny side of things. But not you. You're a one-man cold-front. A huge line of thunderheads sweeping in from the north. I can be a real prick when I want to be, but honestly? I'm starting to feel bad for you. I really am. So much joy and color in the modern world and all you can see is black.


That's not exactly true. I think it's the topics we're on. I don't like the new cars and I have NOTHING good to say about the political situation in this country or the world.

However, I don't spend all my time stomping my feet over all the things that I don't like. I have a fantastic wife, two great kids and three really exciting grandchildren (with another on the way). I enjoy my work (now that I'm working again), our little backyard farm, archery, some hunting, fishing and camping with my wife and son and the list goes on. The family and myself are also pretty healthy which helps a bunch.

It's just that we aren't usually discussing those sorts of things here.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> If you have to ask the joke is no good. Think Clint Eastwood as an old curmudgeon holding a Garand on some silly kids foolish enough to step on his grass.


Sorry, I did see that movie. The reference just didn't ring a bell.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Rick Barbee said:


> Absolutely ridiculous this topic had to take the turn it did.
> 
> Side note:
> Anonymity is a widely abused convenience with a very ugly face.
> ...


That's a good point. I participate on some forums where you have to provide your real name. In at least one case, you have to provide enough information that they can verify credentials. 

It's not a bad thing but I sometimes think I should move my computer away from the window. LOL


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Rick Barbee said:


> Absolutely ridiculous this topic had to take the turn it did.
> 
> Side note:
> *Anonymity is a widely abused convenience with a very ugly face.*
> ...


Couldn't agree more - I am who I am and anything I type I'll happily say to your face.


----------



## Aronnax (Nov 7, 2013)

Matt_Potter said:


> Couldn't agree more - I am who I am and anything I type I'll happily say to your face.


In all fairness, it's easy to feel that way if you have a common name. I have a highly ethnic name, that I'm willing to bet only two people in all of the USA have- my dad and myself. I don't want any random acquaintance to be able to Google my name and find out everything about me.

BM


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Aronnax said:


> In all fairness, it's easy to feel that way if you have a common name. I have a highly ethnic name, that I'm willing to bet only two people in all of the USA have- my dad and myself. I don't want any random acquaintance to be able to Google my name and find out everything about me.
> 
> BM


The sad thing is with just the info you have given in this thread - I'd bet a serious computer geek could figure out who you are.

Matt


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Cars and bows ..... Alfa Romeo and English Yew ... what a combination


----------



## Mo0se (Sep 24, 2002)

Yewselfbow said:


> View attachment 2089740
> 
> 
> 
> Cars and bows ..... Alfa Romeo and English Yew ... what a combination


What are yew trying to do with that propaganda?


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Aronnax said:


> In all fairness, it's easy to feel that way if you have a common name. I have a highly ethnic name, that I'm willing to bet only two people in all of the USA have- my dad and myself. I don't want any random acquaintance to be able to Google my name and find out everything about me.
> 
> BM


The people who can really effect your life already know your name and can easily find out everything about you. The fact that I don't know isn't going to help you much.

To save Stone from having to call me "old fashioned" again, I'll skip giving my opinion on this. LOL

There's one thing I can tell you about what's on the internet. Chances are that none of the good things you may have done are there.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Yewselfbow said:


> View attachment 2089740
> 
> 
> 
> Cars and bows ..... Alfa Romeo and English Yew ... what a combination


 Would you say you're more an instinctive driver or do you gap off the car in front of you?


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

ranchoarcher said:


> Would you say you're more an instinctive driver or do you gap off the car in front of you?


This is funny. I definitely gap. Big, big gap.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Matt_Potter said:


> Couldn't agree more - I am who I am and anything I type I'll happily say to your face.


I like the anonymity because my wife does not know my handle and I can buy more stuff from the classifieds and not get in trouble........lol.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Yewselfbow said:


> View attachment 2089740
> 
> 
> 
> Cars and bows ..... Alfa Romeo and English Yew ... what a combination


Both gorgeous and to be handled gently at all times? :lol:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

No Kegan, the car wasn't built to be handled gently. Go to Italy and watch how they drive, it ain't gently for sure.


----------



## portablevcb (May 10, 2014)

you guys are novices. Get on a motorcycle and dodge the texting numb butts out there   

And yes, I like abs most of the time. There are also places where you should be able to turnit off. Many motorcycles have that ability.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

FORESTGUMP said:


> No Kegan, the car wasn't built to be handled gently. Go to Italy and watch how they drive, it ain't gently for sure.


I was more so joking about Alpha's reputation for not being the most dependable or hardy vehicle


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

I think this thread needs some Ritalin, or Adderall. Your choice.

I have to admit that reading from back to front has been a hoot. I see the reaction before I read the post that precipitated the response.

If you squint real hard, until everything blurs into a single solid mash, you can actually cull out some interesting tidbits.

But alas, two posts later I am back to, "he said what????", and the interesting tidbit is lost forever in an ether of incomprehension.

My instinct told me to leave this thread alone. Alas, I could not resist.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

MGF said:


> Now we have the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act and Obamacare and taxes through the roof and so on. There's about a million bureaucratic lining up to tell us what to do, watch us and take out money with no accountability. "Oppression" is on the rise in a big way.


While this thread is thoroughly derailed, I would like to talk about Iceland...
My wife and I (then fianceeeeee), were bicycling/camping through the country. Everybody was very nice, and helpful.
We met a fisherman selling parts of dead sperm whales and seals. One of the lady's at the campgrounds suggested we go visit some springs.

These springs are volcanic, in that if you fall into them, you will certainly die, painfully and quickly. 

No fences. No guards. A single sign as you left the road, which said, in English, 'Hot.'

Everything was fine. Even the wild sheep.


----------



## Captainkirk (Sep 18, 2014)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> I think this thread needs some Ritalin, or Adderall. Your choice.
> 
> I have to admit that reading from back to front has been a hoot. I see the reaction before I read the post that precipitated the response.
> 
> ...


Kinda like Jerry Springer with a bow.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Quite possibly the best instinctive thread ever ;-)


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> Quite possibly the best instinctive thread ever ;-)


Again, trusting my instinct, I think you are correct.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> I find I am much more accurate if I use a consistent 4" gap vs. pointing the point right on the spot when I am string-walking - my brain needs some wiggle room.
> 
> This is a remarkable thread
> 
> Matt


I'm exactly the same ... Point on the spot and I am all or Tp'ish .....
And yes that the scientific word for it ... "Tp'ish" ...


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

benofthehood said:


> I'm exactly the same ... Point on the spot and I am all or Tp'ish .....
> And yes that the scientific word for it ... "Tp'ish" ...


The first time I tried Stringwalking it was a disaster, I was fighting not only to get but keep the arrow in the spot once it was there and, because the float was so big I was triggering the release almost like a drive by shooting, I think part of the reason I entered into an International tourney to early and hadn't ingrained the new aiming system, I was ok in practice but in a tourney my confidence vaporized like the morning mist. I walked away from Stringwalking and following winter I tried again, important part was no big tourneys for a couple of months, once I had ingrained the SW technique and wasn't consciously trying to keep/adjust my arrow point in the spot it all just came together.

I think just like Form you have to build the aim over time, at some point you have to let go and just trust that keeping Focus on the spot that arrow will just float it's way into the spot.

Win or lose I've always come away from a tourney a better Archer for the experience, sometimes the best improvements come from the biggest failures.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

ranchoarcher said:


> Not saying they don't exist. Of course they do. But, allowing those to be spun to the level the anti-hunting, shooting, and 2nd amendment want will put us all out of business. It will come down to a simple argument that you'll find difficult to get past. If you admit to missing the X ring even once, how can you say you're an ethical hunter when the chance exists you'll only wound the animal? That's a tough argument to get around. The line in the sand will get pushed closer and closer to that extreme if it's permitted to be drawn at all. Especially when it's by people who find what we do boring and take a dismissive condescending attitude towards us in general but want authority to dictate what we do and how we do it.


Now why would missing the X ring 100% of the time matter if you can maintain your effective range? Knowing how to hunt if far more a skill than just hitting an X ring. Some shooters make excellent hunters. Some hunters are lousy shots, but know their limitations and come home with game almost every hunt. Hunters are not the problem, and I suspect that you haven't really spent that much time in the company of very many other hunters over the years. There are some truly, remarkable even, bad decisions made in field. It may not be many, but the percentage is enough to be notable.

Like worksite safety, the best course, in my opinion, is peer pressure by other hunters. Encourage safe, ethical, practice. Encourage woodsmanship. The numbers might be small, but 5% of 20 million is still an awfully large number when you take hunters overall into account. Of the 3 1/2 million bowhunters, if you took 5% of that number, its 175,000 or if evenly distributed, 3500 bowhunters per state. It's enough to encourage continuing practice, education, and a revisiting of proper field conduct and experience.

As for proficiency... I've had to prove it on most every guided hunt that I can remember being on, at least the first time. My effective range is in the 20 yard realm. I rarely blow that, but I have. That is why practice and roving is important to me. I share with others willing to learn or refresh field skills, and so doing, get to practice what I preach. It's helpful. You may not have missed a lot of game in your hunting career. I started out missing just about everything I couldn't get within 5 yards of, and I'm on tape doing just that on nice white ram I stalked from upwind to come around from it's rear into the wind to stand on the same outcropping it was on and miss... all on film... outstanding memories. Hunting skills and shooting skills and knowing when not to shoot skills are in my opinion, a blend of knowledge we all need to practice.

As for allowing anti-hunting propaganda to be spun, it's going to be spun. Having an effective argument to counter them is simply (well maybe not simply) being accurate, persistent, and knowledgeable. Create good impressions in public. Get involved. These are the ingredients of effective communication and community involvement that I think keep the majority of the non-hunting public neutral or on/in positive frame of mind with hunters.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> Quite possibly the best instinctive thread ever ;-)


Make it so, numbers 1 & 2.

Rattus, nicely said


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Rattus, it is a good idea to encourage good shooting skills. I'll be first in line to agree with you or anyone on that. If a group who ultimately wants to stop hunting all together gets involved it's going to be used to eliminate the sport all together. We can and should police our own. Seems we do a pretty good job of it. Having access to make our point in media is where we're coming up short. The other 95% isn't aware. Most media outlets hand the anti crowd the mic with pleasure since it's usually sensationalistic. When was the last time a TV station allowed a bow hunter to explain effective range to the audience? But a moronic politician waiving a crossbow in the air saying it's as lethal as a .270, you betcha. The masses eat it up since the elected official must know what he's talking about. Humanizing animals is another problem. Bambi, Alvin,..really? We've been reduced to saying harvest and it being down right evil to not be somber when you bag something. Who takes a moment before chomping down a big mac. People need a reality check. 

To answer your question over the X ring miss. If, and that's the issue, if the general public were aware that you'd limit your range to what you knew you could work within and it doesn't require splitting that X into four equal parts to be effective, there would be no problem. Lies mixed with public ignorance is what's being exploited and incrementally we're losing the battle because of it.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

The problem is that nobody is bothering to establish the fact that there is a "problem". 

There's no problem that needs to be fixed so leave it alone.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Precisely. The equipment we have is far superior to what was used in the past. Statistically there would have been a lot more wounded animals back in the day yet no one griped about it back then. The difference is there wasn't a coalition of left wing whack jobs with a complicit media trying to completely disarm us at every turn. Matt's post on NPR is a good example of media non-neutrality.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> The problem is that nobody is bothering to establish the fact that there is a "problem".
> 
> There's no problem that needs to be fixed so leave it alone.


agreed but....



rattus58 said:


> Some shooters make excellent hunters. Some hunters are lousy shots, but know their limitations and...


There seems to be 4 categories with 1 or 2 missing here...I mean we have our "Shooters" (which I presume means competitive target archers who use hard reference point aiming systems) and then we have our stereotypical "Trad Hunters" (who get the arrow there the best way they know how)...then we have our "Shooters Who Hunt" and here's the one I feel that I (and possibly others) fall into that seems to get overlooked...

"Archers Who Just Shoot for The Love Of Archery"...(aka "Flingers" by others with a more consciously disciplined form LOL!)...where a very near Kyudo (Empty Mind) Philosophy is adopted for the sole purpose of relaxing to the point of the mind and body melding as one with the bow and arrow throughout the course of the shot.

instinctively.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Wait a minute. I have seen Kyudo. I know the major practitioner and teacher of Kyudo in the Los Angeles area. It is very disciplined and the kata's are very precise. Surprisingly, or not, this guy also teaches classes in instinctive archery. His instinctive shooting is treated very much like a martial art, where he focuses on movement. I have never seen anyone do it like he teaches.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Wait a minute. I have seen Kyudo. I know the major practitioner and teacher of Kyudo in the Los Angeles area. It is very disciplined and the kata's are very precise. Surprisingly, or not, this guy also teaches classes in instinctive archery. His instinctive shooting is treated very much like a martial art, where he focuses on movement. I have never seen anyone do it like he teaches.


Rick Beal?


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Marcus Bossett.

http://www.universityofarchery.com/


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Marcus Bossett.
> 
> http://www.universityofarchery.com/


Very cool!...and I love his description of it as well! 

*What is Instinctive archery shooting / aiming method?

Instinctive aiming is a technique used by trained archers and marksmen to improve general accuracy when using a bow, firearm, or other ranged weapon. By developing a feel for a given weapon such as a pistol, the shooter can become so accustomed to the weapon's weight and where it is aimed that they can remain relatively accurate without the need to focus on the sights of the gun to aim. By continuously practicing with a weapon, a shooter can develop a subconscious coordination between their eyes, hands, and brain, utilizing a natural human sense known as proprioception to aid in the proper and accurate use of a ranged weapon to the point that they can fire said weapon by 'instinct'.*


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Jinx, you would really like him. He is a great guy. I think you would enjoy the way he teaches. I have been tempted to take one of his classes just for the knowledge that it would provide, but I just have not had the time with all the stuff I am currently practicing.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Jinx, you would really like him. He is a great guy. I think you would enjoy the way he teaches. I have been tempted to take one of his classes just for the knowledge that it would provide, but I just have not had the time with all the stuff I am currently practicing.


From what you describe of him and from what he describes of shooting?...you're right...I'd love to meet and take a few lessons from him...too bad there's 2,700 miles in our way.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

JINKSTER said:


> Very cool!...and I love his description of it as well!
> 
> *What is Instinctive archery shooting / aiming method?
> utilizing a natural human sense known as proprioception .*


Surely he means exteroceptive not proprioceptive .... I do wish these people would stop using words they don't understand


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Yewselfbow said:


> Surely he means exteroceptive not proprioceptive .... I do wish these people would stop using words they don't understand


Yewselfbow...actually?...for what he is teaching and the way he is teaching it?...I find his use and application of the word "proprioception" entirely appropriate...under the definition of...

*proprioception:
proprioception is a sense of how our bodies are positioned.*

and that the foundation of the shot is based more from within than from without.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

The weapon, as he describes it, is the source of the stimulus that excites a neural response. The weapon is external to the body.
University of Archery ... give me a break


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> Very cool!...and I love his description of it as well!
> 
> *What is Instinctive archery shooting / aiming method?
> 
> Instinctive aiming is a technique used by trained archers and marksmen to improve general accuracy when using a bow, firearm, or other ranged weapon. By developing a feel for a given weapon such as a pistol, the shooter can become so accustomed to the weapon's weight and where it is aimed that they can remain relatively accurate without the need to focus on the sights of the gun to aim. By continuously practicing with a weapon, a shooter can develop a subconscious coordination between their eyes, hands, and brain, utilizing a natural human sense known as proprioception to aid in the proper and accurate use of a ranged weapon to the point that they can fire said weapon by 'instinct'.*


My point on it as well... :grin: Stop with the big words though... catalog works for me... :laugh:


----------



## Pixel (Sep 19, 2019)

I agree. It's not entirely a gift, more like acquired muscle memory


----------



## HawkeyeII (Sep 19, 2019)

I totally agree with your last statement. I started as a gap shooter and that lead me into instinctive.


----------

