# FITA target shooter please respond



## iswandy (Aug 18, 2007)

Just corious to know, How many of you out there shooting in FITA round using 33" and below ATA bow?, and please let us know what is your score for FITA round with it in recent tournament.... The reason behind this is because I lost my confident when all of my opponent shooting with longer ATA bow in tournament. Hopefully if there's a lot of target shooter out there shooting with shorter ATA bow and still can get good score, I woudn't have to worry aboout it and buy longer ATA bow just because others shooting longer ATA bow. Here is my score in recent FITA tournament: 

90M=260 
70M=303 
50M=315 
30M=335 
Total: 1213 

Your respond is highly appreciated. Thank you 
(I know, I can get higher than this in training session )


----------



## Dilligaf (Dec 25, 2005)

I shoot an Elite Envy 33 1/4"
Have only shot one round full FITA total was 1275
I was shooting with a wrist style release at the time and getting a bit jumpy on the target so i have switched to a hand held carter 3D 2000.
My release is much better now so i should be able to break 1300
As for shooting a short ATA i don't think it really matters if you have a short draw i myself only shoot 27.5". If you did have a longer draw say 30" than you should consider a longer ATA.
Hope this helps it will certainly start the ball rolling.


----------



## iswandy (Aug 18, 2007)

Thanks for your advise, hopefully there'll be more input coming:darkbeer:


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

iswandy said:


> Just corious to know, How many of you out there shooting in FITA round using 33" and below ATA bow?, and please let us know what is your score for FITA round with it in recent tournament.... The reason behind this is because I lost my confident when all of my opponent shooting with longer ATA bow in tournament. Hopefully if there's a lot of target shooter out there shooting with shorter ATA bow and still can get good score, I woudn't have to worry aboout it and buy longer ATA bow just because others shooting longer ATA bow. Here is my score in recent FITA tournament:
> 
> 90M=260
> 70M=303
> ...


Huge majority of people I shot with shoot a high ATA bow (40'' or more) and + as I noticed everyone that got 28'' or longer DL shot with bows with at least 8'' of BH.
Some shorter draw archers shot bows like Apex 7...


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

When shooting compound, I shoot a '05 Matthews Switchback which is 33" ATA.

My shoulder has been destroyed so I haven't shot this summer at all, but I know I'm over 1300 without a problem, or at least used to be.

I also shoot this in the NFAA bowhunter style which is fixed pin sights and under 12" stabilizer.

-Andrew


----------



## Swede (Aug 26, 2002)

I have never used a short ATA bow myself, however my brother used to shoot a Martin altitude 30 3/8" ATA and he shot 1316 with it and my friend is using a Martin C4 SE at 32" and he´s reporting shooting very well with it, actually gave up shooting his 43" S4 for the 10" shorter C4. 

Magnus


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

I shoot a 33" Bowtech Allegiance and have shot 1371 (2 day) and 1369 (single day) FITAs this year. 
In my state titles this year the top 6 places went
AR34 (34")
PSE Scorpion (34")
Bowtech Old Glory (38")
Mathews LX (35")
Hoyt UltraElite (41")
Bowtech Allegiance (33")
Mathews Switchback XT (32")

We have also had quite a few 1370-1395 scores shot and all have been with 32-34" bows. 

My wife also shoots a 33" Bowtech Guardian and this year has shot 1363 Mens FITA, 1395 Ladies FITA and a bunch of National records. 

These bows will shoot as well as a longer bow, just that few give them a try. I suspect more will move over as they start to broaden their comfort zones a bit.


----------



## iswandy (Aug 18, 2007)

So, short ATA is not really an issue here. Unlike what most people say when they keep talking about disavantage of short ATA bow and how forgiving is longer ATA bow. From Marcus statement we can tell it's all about archers accuracy. Here we can see than shooting with longer ATA bow give more advantage than short ATA bow is WRONG.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

iswandy said:


> So, short ATA is not really an issue here. Unlike what most people say when they keep talking about disavantage of short ATA bow and how forgiving is longer ATA bow. From Marcus statement we can tell it's all about archers accuracy. Here we can see than shooting with longer ATA bow give more advantage than short ATA bow is WRONG.


Nevertheless most of the top cats shoot high ATA bows...


----------



## jerrytee (Feb 5, 2005)

Marcus said it all with two words. 'Comfort Zone' It's going to be different with different archers.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Yep pretty much. 
It's an overrated feature and not worth worrying about. I have shot bows from 33" to 48" in competition and it honestly didn't give me any points. In fact when I first started shooting 41" bows I was told they were too short to be accurate. 
Some people like the feel of a longer bow, that's cool. However longer bows does not equal more points, and that's the mistake that many assume. Top shooters are top shooters because they aim at the centre of the target and use their releases well, not because they shoot longer bows. 

BTW I would happily shoot a 41" UltraElite again. Nice bow, but the axle length meant nothing to my scores. It was scary buying my first 33" bow, but when I did I had wished I had done so a year earlier. 



iswandy said:


> So, short ATA is not really an issue here. Unlike what most people say when they keep talking about disavantage of short ATA bow and how forgiving is longer ATA bow. From Marcus statement we can tell it's all about archers accuracy. Here we can see than shooting with longer ATA bow give more advantage than short ATA bow is WRONG.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Clint Freeman has made some interesting comments on the Drenalin
http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?t=18919


----------



## FlyingDutchmen (Mar 3, 2006)

Try to forget the type of bow, learn to shoot the proper way. 
Then train, train, train and improve.

When your technique improves, your confidence improves, and finally the scores will grow.

When you get the right technique & feeling, try some other bows.
Some of them will bring you more point, some don't, they are harder to shoot.

If a top shooter uses a fast bow with short axle to axle, he will still shoot great. 
But this kind of bows will drop points when the shot isn't executed the right way, so a less good shooter will loose more points.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

> But this kind of bows will drop points when the shot isn't executed the right way, so a less good shooter will loose more points.


Any bow will drop points points. The arrows go where you aim them everytime. When arrows hit the 10 while the sight was not in the middle then you call that 'forgiving'. I call that 'a major screw up that just happened to work out well for you'. 
Sometimes you think you are aiming at the 10 but your alignments is out meaning you are actually aiming somewhere else. You call that 'unforgiving'. I call that 'you getting what you actually deserved'. 
The axle length will make absolutely no difference in whether you are aiming at the 10 or not. Of course even if every 1400 shooter in the world shot short bows it would take a while for people to stop the "oh but he's a good shooter he can shoot anything" BS. 

It's a bow people, this isn't Hogwarts, it's not a magic wand that needs to choose it's owner. 
They go where you point em.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

so marcus why would anyone shoot those big limbed bows when they are slower and offer no real advantage or forgiveness?


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Dado said:


> so marcus why would anyone shoot those big limbed bows when they are slower and offer no real advantage or forgiveness?


I believe he mentioned it earlier, "comfort".

People shoot what they like. I am not going say I speak for Marcus, but I think what he is saying is that short vs. long ATA is silly nowadays. Both will shoot well, both will shoot great scores. 

The most forgiving bow is the one that *you* the archer feel comfortable with.

When my shoulder is good, I'll put my 33" '05 switchback up against a longer ATA bow any day. I know I can hit 10s at 90M with it and put down 55 or 56 points per end all day long.

-Andrew


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Dado said:


> so marcus why would anyone shoot those big limbed bows when they are slower and offer no real advantage or forgiveness?


Well I know the reason you shoot one.


----------



## Progen (Mar 17, 2006)

The one on the right looks a little pretty, actually. :wink:


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

Marcus said:


> Well I know the reason you shoot one.


This should be the post of the day.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Marcus said:


> Well I know the reason you shoot one.


Hm, so I ask a perfectly legitimate question and that up there is how you reply? I guess you can't do any better anyway...


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Progen



> The one on the right looks a little pretty, actually


Err... you aren't a New Zealander by any chance, Progen?


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Dado said:


> Hm, so I ask a perfectly legitimate question and that up there is how you reply? I guess you can't do any better anyway...


It was a legitimate answer. 

For some reason people think that top shooters are very experimental with their gear. They are not. They rarely move outside of what they are currently using and even less frequently move away from what others are using. This is because no one wants to risk their shooting time on something new. 
Their is also the "What could have been" factor. 
Lets say that Joe Pro shoots a indoor competition with his Sheep Bow (currently 41" long limbed thing) and shoots a 9. His peers say "oh tough luck Joe, you should train more" and he things "oh well, I screwed up, nothing else I would have done". 
However if Joe Pro had the exact same result with a bow no one else was using (lets say a 32" bow) all his peers would say "See Joe, if you used a 41" bow like me you would not have dropped that point. These are more forgiving" and Joe would have thought "wow, the guy who won used a long bow and I think I am better than he so maybe these guys are right". 

Remember these guys are trying to win money. It will take one with large Kahunas to actually go and try something different. It will happen though as more 3D guys start moving into the spots game with shorter bows and more FITA guys start using shorter bows. However there will always be an element of ignorant pros who insist that you simply MUST have a longer bow for target shooting. It's old school thinking. Up there with people using 4-5" vanes on their compound and release aid shot arrows and those who think lighter and faster equals less wind drift.


----------



## Mei Li (Jul 30, 2006)

what's ata?


----------



## Paradoxical Cat (Apr 25, 2006)

Mei Li said:


> what's ata?


Axle-to-Axle. It is a measurement of the length of a compound bow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Lets say that Joe Pro shoots a indoor competition with his Sheep Bow (currently 41" long limbed thing) and shoots a 9. His peers say "oh tough luck Joe, you should train more" and he things "oh well, I screwed up, nothing else I would have done".
> However if Joe Pro had the exact same result with a bow no one else was using (lets say a 32" bow) all his peers would say "See Joe, if you used a 41" bow like me you would not have dropped that point. These are more forgiving" and Joe would have thought "wow, the guy who won used a long bow and I think I am better than he so maybe these guys are right".
> 
> Remember these guys are trying to win money. It will take one with large Kahunas to actually go and try something different. It will happen though as more 3D guys start moving into the spots game with shorter bows and more FITA guys start using shorter bows. However there will always be an element of ignorant pros who insist that you simply MUST have a longer bow for target shooting. It's old school thinking. Up there with people using 4-5" vanes on their compound and release aid shot arrows and those who think lighter and faster equals less wind drift.


Marcus, there are sheep arrows too, I think 

John.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Marcus, there are sheep arrows too, I think
> 
> John.


Could be claimed, however in arrows the defining advantages are actually measurable. 
For example a Protour is mathematically better in wind than a Nano, thus it is a better arrow for long range FITA shooting. 
However the sheep rule could apply because few know the facts on that one. 
Also Easton has a well known brand name which is valuable in selling. 

IMHO if people buy a long bow for a good valid reason that is OK. If they buy them because "all the pros use them" then they are a sheep. (especially when they are shown to be incorrect in that assumption and write off the counter claim as "they could shoot anything")


----------



## hans_lum (Apr 25, 2006)

Hi, 

I've got two bows, a merlin Xt 38" ATA and a Elite Synergy 33 1/4" ATA. 

Initially when I started shooting the synergy, my scores took a beating, but after 2 months of training, I manage to shot 601 for a double 70 two weeks ago. Not fantastic, but it is my PB at this time. 

I have also learnt a lot from shooting the shorter bow. For me, the Synergy was easier to torque and it shows initially. I can now control the torquing and I'm benefiting from the lighter weight of the Synergy and so I last longer.

In short, I am improving and I have adopted a better form to shot the shorter bow. It has translated back to a more consistent score with the longer bow as well as my overall form is better.

The shorter ATA was a way for me to improve myself.. Hope you will be able to do the same.

Hans


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Erm Marcus - so you claim that PROs that switched brands, for example D.Trillus who both switched from Hoyt to Mathews and Easton to CX, don't check what they are offered especially in terms of the bows and just go for one that company and other pro advertize as best target stuff?

I really doubt so. See I also play drums on a semi-pro level and have talked with endorsed artists and I was particulary interested as to how they select the gear they are given or pay ridiculously low prices for. In most cases the reply is - they test it. And in music world there are even more options with a brand name, more pro line products etc etc... so if I were endorsed there (or in archery) I would definitely exploit the fact that I indeed can choose and test shoot/play the products before I go for it. Hence, I'm positive that say D.Trillus or any other pro in fact took a couple of bows, tuned and test shot them and went for the one that shot best for him. In this case a 42''+ Apex.

In short - I don't believe that majority of the Pros would go for a rig that someone else feels would be best for them.

The only thing that's worth considering in all of your writing about this is that "comfort zone", but then again, seems like most people's comfort zone is with higher ATA bows - calling that a sheep thinking or "old school" supported by the fact that PROs aren't in touch with technology is just ridiculous. It's almost the same as one post I read a while ago when someone claimed that pros don't tune their stuff - they just shoot it and have a guy who does all the tuning for them.

And finally if you can claim some pros went to to shorter ATA bows, can you name a few, and maybe we can dig up their latest accomplishments, because I could quite easily say that those that switched to shorter ATA haven't been shooting good, or been beaten in shoot-offs by too many times and now blaiming the _old school equipment_. We need facts Marcus not some sore loser experiences or attempts to advertize goods and cheat honest people around here.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

ho hum, when you have been in the sport for sometime and your experiences are more than ArcheryTalk come and speak to me. 

Pro shooters do not get every model produced by every company and try them all out. Like you and me they pick up the catalog and pick out the bows similar to their current models and go with those. Did your homeboy Deiter go and get a Switchback XT and Drenalin and then go out and shoot a number of tournaments with them to see how they went? No, they choose the bow they are familiar with and get to work. 



> And finally if you can claim some pros went to to shorter ATA bows, can you name a few, and maybe we can dig up their latest accomplishments, because I could quite easily say that those that switched to shorter ATA haven't been shooting good, or been beaten in shoot-offs by too many times and now blaiming the old school equipment. We need facts Marcus not some sore loser experiences or attempts to advertize goods and cheat honest people around here.


Cheat honest people? Wow you are delusional. 
The number of top shooters using shorter bows is growing in the FITA and 3D world every year. Shooters like Chris White and Dejan Sitar shooting 1400's with <35" bows. White winning world events with his Switchback. Stephen Clifton winning the Commonwealth Cup with an Allegiance. The whole UK compound team using 34" bows. The current world womens compound record shot with a 33" 6" BH bow. etc etc etc.
Every year more FITA records are falling with bows 38" and under. 
But you keep believing the Longer Bows equals higher scores myth.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Here is a thought
If 41" bows are SO much better than a 33" bow then if I am using a 33" bow and beat someone using a 41" bow then I am a vastly better archer than they are, but if they beat me then they are not better, just that their bow helped them out?
That sounds good, I'll go with that.


----------



## iswandy (Aug 18, 2007)

Thanks for logic thinking Marcus. I think it's quite clear now...why newbies for target choose longer ATA bow. That's because they just listening to their senior 100%, and they did the same think to next generation:darkbeer:


----------



## thunderbolt (Oct 11, 2002)

Marcus said:


> Here is a thought
> If 41" bows are SO much better than a 33" bow then if I am using a 33" bow and beat someone using a 41" bow then I am a vastly better archer than they are, but if they beat me then they are not better, just that their bow helped them out?
> That sounds good, I'll go with that.


Who peed in your cornflakes? :wink:


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

It has been shown time and time again, that the longer a bow is, the more forgiving it is.

Whether it is via inertia movement.

All bows will shoot the same... Just stick it in a shooting machine, and it will plug holes in the bullseye all day long.

The problem with that is, we (as humans) are not as accurate as a machine.

Throughout the years, we find that "short draw" setups were not near as forgiving as a standard setup. (But hey, those speed demons got that extra 5 fps out of their arrows!)

Longer ATA bows are more forgiving probably because on the moment of truth, it takes a little more inertia to "move" the bow incorrectly, which allows our bodies to make mistakes that are less noticeable to the arrow.

Think of it as a stabilizer... At the moment of truth, that stabilizer keeps the bow steadier when we accidentally "twitch". The longer ATA bows do the exact same thing...allows a little more "error" in our form. Sometimes enough to make a difference, sometimes not.

Dwayne


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

Dwayne is exactly correct.
Longer ATA works to stablize in the EXACT same manner as a horizontal stabilizer.
Material placed farther from the center of rotation (your grip), works to resist change of motion based on the moment arm.

It matters not a whit whether that mass placed farther out is a Beiter stabilizer, or at the end of the limbs and cams of a longer ATA bow.

This effect is minimized on a hooter shooter or other purely mechanical device (as also pointed out by Dwayne), since these devices do not induce post-release anomalies into the system like humans do. It's those very anomalies that necessitate the use of stabilization of ANY kind on your bow.

The above has nothing to do with sheep, Kool-Aid, personal issues, or sales pitches.

It is simply a matter of pretty thoroughly understood physics.

The practical limits of how long your ATA can be, as well as stabilizer length come at the price of practicality, cost, weight and class rules, as well as other factors.

But the physics of moment arms of inertia and angular momentum and such still hold true, even if you're an archer.

This takes NOTHING away from the AMAZING performances put in by the INCREDIBLE archers using shorter ATA bows.
My deepest respect to them. But they haven't broken the simplest laws of physics. They're just really freaking good archers.

Peace,
Christopher.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Marcus said:


> ho hum, when you have been in the sport for sometime and your experiences are more than ArcheryTalk come and speak to me.


OMG. Do you realize that I'm the 1st archer in my country. AT taught, been shooting for only a year with a BT release (before that I friggin shot 2yrs with fingers) and I'm almost shooting like you do on 70m - around 340 these days. (You reported some 346 points right? - When you practiced with your wife, that cadet and James Park). So don't get into that with me, if you have ever been in a situation like I have and am you'd long time ago quit archery or shoot for fun well below 300 (at any given outdoor distance).
_EDIT: Does a 3rd place on a fita star tournament count as outside AT experience?_



> Pro shooters do not get every model produced by every company and try them all out.


L O L! Have I ever said this? - I SAID PRO LINE STUFF. I seriously doubt D.Trillus said to Mathews people "_Hey gimme a couple of those Apexes and I'll be fine_" In worst case he had an Apex and Apex 7 for testing. Besides, he's not my homeboy - check your geography man, he's overseas in Canada while I'm in Europe...
When talking about Apexes, I wonder why YOUR HOME BOY Clint Freeman chose an Apex when switched from Hoyt - how come you couldn't sweet talk him into getting a switchback or whatever?


> Shooters like Chris White and Dejan Sitar shooting 1400's with <35" .


I know for a fact that Dejan Sitar shoots both Apex 7 and Apex. Both are obviously higher ata than 35''. And lets stick at target shooting (no 3D stuff). I can see, though, why some field shooters may choose a faster (smaller) bow.



Marcus said:


> Here is a thought
> If 41" bows are SO much better than a 33" bow then if I am using a 33" bow and beat someone using a 41" bow then I am a vastly better archer than they are, but if they beat me then they are not better, just that their bow helped them out?
> That sounds good, I'll go with that.


No, you're not vastly a better archer, you just picked on a guy that was worse than you anyway...


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

hammerheadpc said:


> Dwayne is exactly correct.
> Longer ATA works to stablize in the EXACT same manner as a horizontal stabilizer.
> Material placed farther from the center of rotation (your grip), works to resist change of motion based on the moment arm.
> .


Exactly and tested in real situations. My friends Botwech OldGlory felt way too less stabile than my Razorx/S4...


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Dado said:


> OMG. Do you realize that I'm the 1st archer in my country. AT taught,


yep, hence my statement that you need to broaden your horizons. AT is not indicitive of what is actually happening in the FITA world. 
AT is VERY conservative. 


> L O L! Have I ever said this? - I SAID PRO LINE STUFF. I seriously doubt D.Trillus said to Mathews people "_Hey gimme a couple of those Apexes and I'll be fine_" In worst case he had an Apex and Apex 7 for testing.


Um yes. As I said he would not spend much time on bows that are vastly different to what he is use to. 


> Besides, he's not my homeboy - check your geography man, he's overseas in Canada while I'm in Europe...


I just thought you guys were dating because you talk about him in every post. Sorry, Man-Crush then. 


> When talking about Apexes, I wonder why YOUR HOME BOY Clint Freeman chose an Apex when switched from Hoyt - how come you couldn't sweet talk him into getting a switchback or whatever?


Actually Clint picked up a Conquest 3 when he moved from Hoyt because it was the same specs as his Ultratec (hence proving my point). He then went to an Ovation, then an Apex (which he did not like) to an Apex 7 (which he shot his best Mathews scores with) then to a C4 and now has just started shooting a Drenalin. All public info on other forums outside of AT. 


> I know for a fact that Dejan Sitar shoots both Apex 7 and Apex. Both are obviously higher ata than 35''. And lets stick at target shooting (no 3D stuff).


That's a FACT huh? He shoots for Hoyt again. LOL. 
Sitar shot 1400 with a Mathews LX. 
As I said more and more target shooters OUTSIDE OF AT are moving to shorter bows with great success. In my state alone more 1370+ scores have been shot this year than ever before and it's all been by people who have moved to shooter bows. 
The 3D is valid, cause it's 3D shooters winning all the indoor comps in the US. 



> No, you're not vastly a better archer, you just picked on a guy that was worse than you anyway...


Ohh so despite shooting a bow un-shootable for target shooting and winning it doesn't make a difference?



> Exactly and tested in real situations. My friends Botwech OldGlory felt way too less stabile than my Razorx/S4...


That's conclusive. ROFLMAO.
But my Allegiance is far more stable than my Ovation was, or my 41" UltraElite. Hardly scientific. 

So hammerheadpc. What do you consider a bow too short for FITA use?

As I have said a thousand times. This same discussion was being held 15 years ago except 'too short' was 41" instead of 34" and 'required length' was 48" instead of 41"
You guys are all arguing for a bow length that was considered too short 15 years ago for target shooting. 41" bows were 'radical hunting bows'. Now you consider them 'stable and forgiving'. History repeats and no one learns anything.


----------



## Acesarcher (Jun 1, 2007)

u TELLUM MARCUS! not to poke at anyone but i shot a 1364 with my allegiance this year, so I do agree that each shooter is different. depending on there frame.

Jeremy


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

It's a cold day in hell when I agree with anything Marcus says but on this issue he is right -crossing myself frequently whilst standing next to a bunch of garlic.

I have shot extensively (FITA target) with long AtA bows, in particular, a Hoyt Oasis, which according to all the theories should have been the greatest scoring bow in the world. Well it wasn't. For a start it was slow, it was also heavy and had a sluggish feel on shooting. I could shoot it OK - I just found it a pain in the backside to use - and I NEVER found it to be a forgiving bow, whtever the hell that is supposed to mean. If I was aiming in the 9 when the release occurred, then that is precisely where it went.

You can't shoot a bow that is not predictable in its performance. I want a bow to plant the arrow exactly where I am aiming it at the instant of release. Only this way can I know if my form is good or not.

I now shoot a Mathews Prestige - 35.5" AtA and 6 inch brace height (AAARRRGGGHHH!!!) Blasphemy I know and I really should be burnt at the stake for it, but believe it or not it is the easiest bow I have ever found to shoot, it shoots precisely where I aim it, it is light fast and by far the pleasantest bow I have ever shot. It is also incredibly consistent and anyone who can't shoot a top score with a bow like this needs more practice.:tongue:

So keep your long AtA bows - I'll stick with my little Prestige. Ain't nuthin wrong with it at all.

I don't understand why people have torguing problems with any bows. If you shoot with a totally relaxed grip and take care to place the handle in the same spot in your hand, time after time you won't torque the thing. If you don't, you will. The bow doesn't have anything to do with it. It's a form issue.
Sorry, but that's the way of things:sad:


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

It is quite cold here today Corsair as I agree with your last paragraph. LOL


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Looks like we are of a like mind on this issue Marcus. Hope it doesn't become habit forming. LOL.

Regardless of any other issues between us, I have always held your shooting expertise in the highest regard and people can learn a great deal from you, if they open their minds and stop clinging to long held and often erroneous ideas.

And I don't even feel the need to do penance for agreeing with you on these matters because they are technical and relate to purely archery matters.

Keep shooting well.


----------



## 1400 shooter (Oct 31, 2006)

As Marcus has stated short ATA bows are fine for FITA alot of 1370 plus scores have been shot in Australia with 33 or less ATA bows...Chris White has shot 1400 plus with a switchback in practice....It's all about personal choice and what feels comfortable to you...


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Marcus said:


> yep, hence my statement that you need to broaden your horizons. AT is not indicitive of what is actually happening in the FITA world.
> AT is VERY conservative.
> 
> Um yes. As I said he would not spend much time on bows that are vastly different to what he is use to.
> ...


Really I don't have that much time to always reply thoroughly (some of us actually practice shooting and are better than our wives ), so I'll just go with the major parts:
- last time I seen dejan sitar was sometime this spring/summer when he was shooting an Apex - it maybe have been an Apex 7, he wasn't in my field group but I did notice that Mathews yellow/black riser finish and "apexy" features.
- for a pro-shop owner you should know better than there is no too short or too long bow for everyone out there. However, my personal opinion is that a person that has DL less than 28'' should go as down to an Apex 7 or Martin S4 with straight limbs, or others inside similar specs. Us full grown men - of course an S4 Elite, Apex, Hoyts over 40'', etc...
- I never knew Chance Beauboeuf was a die hard 3D shooter (he won the most important indoor event this year - Vegas)


*I HAD TO QUOTE THIS:*


> Actually Clint picked up a Conquest 3 when he moved from Hoyt because it was the same specs as his Ultratec (hence proving my point). He then went to an Ovation, then an Apex (which he did not like) to an Apex 7 (which he shot his best Mathews scores with) then to a C4 and now has just started shooting a Drenalin.


What was your exact point*????* - HE MERELY STARTED WITH A SIMILAR BOW...So much for PROs not considering majority of the bows, or is it just this one case with Mathews!?!
Marcus :zip: ...


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

1400 shooter said:


> As Marcus has stated short ATA bows are fine for FITA alot of 1370 plus scores have been shot in Australia with 33 or less ATA bows...Chris White has shot 1400 plus with a switchback in practice....It's all about personal choice and what feels comfortable to you...


No one doubts that. But to say that people who continue to shoot long ata are ignorant and sheep by backing that with nothing and backing the short ata with FEW of the TOP shooters currently shooting lesser ata (who btw can shoot anything obviously), is, well... Marcus-like explanation...


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

If you all believe that long AtAs are the ants pants, why don't you all go back to using a Hoyt Oasis or similar? Surely it's a case of the longer the better, if I understand you correctly.

I don't believe this, of course but each to his own delusion I always say


----------



## Paradoxical Cat (Apr 25, 2006)

Ok....serious question here: since bow mass is also considered important for stability, what is the relationship between the current crop of shorter ATA bows and their riser masses versus the older longer ATA bows and their riser masses? Have the risers gotten heavier (CNC'd aluminum v. cast magnesium) or have other modifications been made (integral stabilizers or dampers) that would mitigate the supposed negative effects of shortening the ATA distance?

PC-


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Corsair said:


> If you all believe that long AtAs are the ants pants, why don't you all go back to using a Hoyt Oasis or similar? Surely it's a case of the longer the better, if I understand you correctly.
> 
> I don't believe this, of course but each to his own delusion I always say


What I believe is the added stability, like someone so nicely pointed the length acts as another (vertical) stabilizer...
Why not old bows? Dunno, integrated grips on the new ones feel much better, I like the wall and the draw of the furious cams on my S4 (better than the Nitrous on the RazorX). And in the end it's not the longer - the better, it's finding a sweet spot - so yes, to each his own: There is a guy that posted in general section who now trades his 3 hoyts (2 proelites and a protec) because he bought an S4 which feels so much better for him. So, a personal preference even inside our big bows as well, imagine that - people that shoot big bows not only do they test more than one, they sometimes even switch brands. wow, eh? according to marcus, what I just said would be impossible.


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

> So hammerheadpc. What do you consider a bow too short for FITA use?


I don't consider ANY bow to short for FITA. Or too long. I'm not weighing in on the "us vs. them" debate of long vs. short ATA bows.

In fact, if i ever argue about the suitable length of a bow for an activity, i would probably argue AGAINST long ATA bows for HUNTING, simply because of the impractical aspect of marching through trees and brush with an unweildy long bow, with a 32" or longer stabilizer on it. 

I'm merely pointing out simple FACTS about physics that nobody here on Archery Talk is going to be able to ignore or change, no matter how tightly they cling to their short ATA bows. Inertia, angular momentum and rotational energy are principles that don't really care what type of bow is your favorite.

Put a mass farther away from a center point of rotation and that system WILL resist a change of motion more than another system with the same mass closer to the center point. That's the whole premise behind your fancy doinker stabilizer. The rubber doinkers and hydraulic fluids and such are there to dampen vibration, but the WEIGHT is out on the end of that long stick to resist movement. The very definition of stabilization.
So why don't we shoot 60" ATA and 10 foot long front stabilizers? Physical limitations and the added weight becomes impossible to control, along with rules that prevent their use. Why do you think Bowhunter classes limit the length of the front stabilizer? Cause longer stabilizers stabilize better, but aren't practical hunting gear. It's not that short stablizers are better. They're not. They are limited by rule to better approximate what an archer would use in the woods to hunt.
Olympic recurve stablizers have reached a practical limit on what weight the archer can hold up and the post release downward rotation caused by the weight. (As long as the rotation happens EXACTLY the same way every time, you can compensate, up to a point.)

Let me ask you this: What are you going to say if i try to shoot in BHFS with a 32" stabilizer? You're going to say "Get the heck out of here". Now honestly tell me why that is and you'll have your answer as to why some archers chose longer ATA bows. It's the EXACT same reason, fellas...

All that said, i believe NO bow is too short for FITA. What the heck kind of ignorance and arrogance does it take to say something stupid like that?
I mean, if i'm on the FITA line with my 60" ATA brand "X" bow and you outshoot me with your 25" ATA Brand "B" bow, by 50 points, i'd have to be pretty stupid to stand there and say "Hey, that bow is too short to shoot FITA!" 

1400 shooter has the last word on this subject, at least for those of us with a modicum of common sense:


> It's all about personal choice and what feels comfortable to you...


I'm firmly in the "Live and let live, let's all shoot whatever the heck we want, have a ball, exchange some crispies, then share brewski afterwards" camp.

But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

Hey, I have a proposition for everyone in here:

First one to shoot 1440 at a STAR FITA wins this argument. Forever.

We're going to need your proof of score and a LASER-guided digital measurement of your ATA. Inches or millimeters. Doesn't matter.

Cowboy up,
Christopher.

:tongue:


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

hammerheadpc said:


> Hey, I have a proposition for everyone in here:
> 
> First one to shoot 1440 at a STAR FITA wins this argument.


Excellent proposition! :thumbs_up
Or maybe a 1st to score 1400 - just to speed up a bit


----------



## iswandy (Aug 18, 2007)

I think I'll stay away from 'old minded' longer is betterukey:.. Today short ATA bows offer parallel limbs which doesn't exist before, very less/no hand shock and that will lead to better aiming, get better score. For me, I can call it (no hand shock) forgiving...


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

iswandy said:


> I think I'll stay away from 'old minded' longer is betterukey:.. Today short ATA bows offer parallel limbs which doesn't exist before, very less/no hand shock and that will lead to better aiming, get better score. For me, I can call it (no hand shock) forgiving...


Test shoot a less-parallel limb bow (or long ATA one) with and *without* a long stabilizer...


----------



## qdobahunts (Nov 9, 2005)

Two years ago I went to a longer ATA bow. I was shooting a 33" bow in Bowhunter Freestyle. I stayed in the Bowhunter class and shot better with the longer bow immediately....but this is what I have learned since then.

For me it was the WEIGHT of the longer bow that allowed me to hold steadier and not fight the pins...which in turn allowed me to shoot more relaxed.

I have since added weight to all of my bows...even the shorter ones and I shoot the very, very similiar scores with all of them.

My experience only....


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

qdobahunts said:


> Two years ago I went to a longer ATA bow. I was shooting a 33" bow in Bowhunter Freestyle. I stayed in the Bowhunter class and shot better with the longer bow immediately....but this is what I have learned since then.
> 
> For me it was the WEIGHT of the longer bow that allowed me to hold steadier and not fight the pins...which in turn allowed me to shoot more relaxed.
> 
> ...


Your post, my good man, is going to haunt manufacturers - who have spent countless hours and dollars to design the absolute lightest possible bows on the planet - for YEARS to come.

Some poor engineer at Bows-R-Us slaved away for months, putting in 60-70 hours a week, ignoring his family, sweating over the latest drillium and unobtanium materials, finite element analysis and CNC programming, to shave 0.0001 oz. off your latest Nitro-Slayer-Pledge-Allegiance bow and what do you do? Immediately slap on a couple pounds of steel shot and rubber to make it stabil enough to shoot.
HILARIOUS!!


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

hammerheadpc said:


> Your post, my good man, is going to haunt manufacturers - who have spent countless hours and dollars to design the absolute lightest possible bows on the planet - for YEARS to come.
> 
> Some poor engineer at Bows-R-Us slaved away for months, putting in 60-70 hours a week, ignoring his family, sweating over the latest drillium and unobtanium materials, finite element analysis and CNC programming, to shave 0.0001 oz. off your latest Nitro-Slayer-Pledge-Allegiance bow and what do you do? Immediately slap on a couple pounds of steel shot and rubber to make it stabil enough to shoot.
> HILARIOUS!!


Nah. The beauty of the light riser is that you can put the weight where you want it, where it works best for you.

I do appreciate the irony in your post however 

-Andrew


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

I'm not trying to pick a fight here but there are some contradictions in what people are saying. For example some are saying that a heavier bow will minimze any minor errors at the moment of release due to the higher inertia of the bow. To offeset this, however is the fact that the longer bow is inevitably slower so the arrow stays on the string longer and hence any so-called stabilising effect of the higher mass bow could easily be ruined by longer "on the string time".

The idea that heavier is clearly better should be able to be demonstrated in some way. In rifle shooting, if I am selecting a new match rifle, I put the contenders in a return to battery machine rest, which eliminates all outside influences and, using a range of different match grade ammo, I shoot the rifles until I find a barrel/ammo combination the is as near to perfect as is possible. THEN I shoot it using my full shooting gear and a powerful telescopic sight, to see if it is performing just as well in my hands without the machine. If it is then this is what I will choose.

Similarly, if you are saying that a heavier bow is more *intrinsically * accurate than a lighter or short bow then by putting them in a shooting machine, the difference in performance should show. If there is no difference then any right thinking person would have to say that for all intents and purposes, the bows are as good as one another.

If this is so, then it ought to be clear that the only factor which "might" have an influence on how the bow performs when used by the shooter is the form of the shooter and his/her mental processes.

It may well be that some shooters have this idea that heavier bows are "better" or that longer ATA bows are "better", based on what reasoning God alone knows but I say that unless you can show me a measureable difference in a shooting machine, then any so-called "better" performance is in the mind of the shooter only.

Therefore it amounts to the shooter having a superstition that a longer heavier, slower bow is somehow more accurate and "forgiving" (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean). So the pros use them. What, in Indoor comps at short ranges???: I hardly call that a true test of whether a bow is more intrinsically accurate than another. I understand some shooters are using bows of 8 and 10 lbs !!! Why for God's sake??? To punish yourself for some transgression?? I'll bet such a bow won't show any improvement in performace out of a shooting machine.

If the shooter performs better with it then that becomes a form/mental thing for that shooter only. If you really think one bow is better than another then I say take the human out of the equation and provide sound empirical evidence that it is so. Then I'll believe you.


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

Corsair,
Just plain old, generic heavier is not better.
Heavier in the *right place*, at the *right distance *from the pivot point is better, from a physics standpoint, at resisting torque and other movements at the critical release point and "arrow on string" time slice.
Defining the term "right" becomes more complex.

In this context, the contradiction melts away and you're left with figuring out YOUR ideal set of trade-offs.

Notice i said "YOUR". That places the responsibility (and freedom) for finding what works for YOU on YOUR shoulders.

Viva la difference.


IMHO, there's a LOT of really good bows out there right now.
You could put on a blind fold, spin around and randomly stop and point at any of the bows in the "Pro" section of your favorite multi-bow-company shop and, properly set up, shoot pretty durn good with it.


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

hammerheadpc

My point exactly. Those who adhere to the idea that longer AtA bows and/or heavier bows are in some way "better" than shorter and/or lighter bows are simply talking about a perception "to them".

There is no *empirical* evidence available to support the argument.

In the end it comes down to what feels better to the shooter - which is a mental thing.

Personally I don't care much if you want to shoot a 25" AtA which weighs 8 ounces or a 60" AtA bow which weighs 12 lbs. If the shooter has good form and has practised properly he/she will shoot well regardless. I just don't want people telling me, dogmatically, that one type of bow is "better" or "more forgiving" than another. When they say this I'm always inclined to say - "prove it"


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

[begin open can of worms]

do you believe a larger brace height is more forgiving than a shorter one?

If so, why? Where is your proof?

I think this is a job for Mythbusters.

We need to rig up a hooter shooter that uses an approximation of the human anatomy, with all it's frailty and motion to hold the bow, to see if, upon both finger and trigger release, a short ATA bow moves, torques, vibrates more or less than a long ATA bow.
The bow "hand" would have to have a wrist-like normal range of motion. The tester could just stand behind and pull.

Or maybe even simpler would be a high-speed camera setup to film actual human releases from top, side, bottom and front, with calibrated graph paper on all sides and some post filming digital analysis of system (ie bow) response.
A very loose sling would grab the bow, hopefully after the arrow leaves the string.
Then we could quantify the motion characteristics of long vs short ATA, non-parallel vs parallel limbs. BHFS 12" stabilizers vs. 30+" FITA stabilizers.
Jager grips vs. stock grips, finger vs release. etd...

I bet we'd ALL learn some pretty cool stuff, if this was done as professionally and scientifically as possible.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

hammerheadpc said:


> [begin open can of worms]
> I think this is a job for Mythbusters.


After watching them "prove" that you can't "Robin Hood" an arrow I think the only job I can find for them is to swab the toilets out at the local restaurant.

-Andrew


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

hammerheadpc said:


> [begin open can of worms]
> 
> do you believe a larger brace height is more forgiving than a shorter one?
> 
> ...


Actually there is a discussion on Archery-Forum about this. 
Forget a word like forgiving. It is a stupid meaningless word. 
Now lets say "Torque Resistance". How easy is a bow to torque. 
To quote James Park


James Park on Archery Forum said:


> - The holding weight at full draw (not necessarily the minimum weight in the valley, but how firmly the archer pulls into the wall).
> - The proportion of the draw length of the bow, at full draw) that is taken up by the riser and limbs versus that taken up by the string. That is: at full draw measure the distance from the grip to the point where the string leaves the cams (as measured along the arrow) compared to the distance from there to the nocking point.


OK so look at the second point. 
Now 2 bows of exactly the same spec etc, if you have one with an extra inch of brace height that one will be more torque resistant. 
However that does not mean that ALL bows with higher brace heights are better. 
For example Jame's AR34 has a higher brace height than my Allegiance, but my Allegiance was better. 
A UltraElite tested with the shortest brace height was even better again. 
Now here is one you will love. 
The bows with the BIGGER cams faired better than the ones with the smaller or more centrally drilled cams. 
For example we tested a 2005 and a 2006 Constitution. 
Exactly the same bow but in 2006 they changed to a much smaller cam. This one change reduced it's torque resistance. 

So if you ARE using torque resistance as a guide for a bow being more forgiving then a longer bow with higher brace height is not always the determining factor. They are features that help, but it is not as easy as just reading the specs in the catalog. 
BTW the tested bows listed from best to worst. 
Hoyt Protec XT3000 (9)
Bowtech Constitution 2005 (8)
Bowtech Constitution 2006 (2)
Hoyt UltraElite XT2000 (6)
Bowtech Allegiance 2007 (3)
Bowtech Guardian (4)
AR34 Ram Plus (1)
Mathews Q2 (5)

The number is brackets is where they ended in a recent indoor competition between the tested. So clearly torque resistance won't win you competitions by default, which as Corsair said is a VERY overrated issue. 



> What are you going to say if i try to shoot in BHFS with a 32" stabilizer?


I'ld say nothing. Why would I care what you shot?


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

> After watching them "prove" that you can't "Robin Hood" an arrow I think the only job I can find for them is to swab the toilets out at the local restaurant


Those who think this are missing a fine but important point.
The Myth they were trying to investigate was the ORIGINAL claim in Robin Hood.
That a solid *WOODEN* arrow can be split equally down the ENTIRE center of the shaft, by another *WOODEN* arrow.

In so far as i have Robin Hooded far too many expensive arrows of my own, for my liking, with my modern equipment and hollow arrows, i've never seen or heard of a WOODEN arrow being split equally in twain, as occured in the tale of Robin Hood, with the equipment they had back in that setting.

All you have to understand is the nature of the grain of wood to see it's impossible to do.
Myth busted.
Just like they said.

:wink:


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

hammerheadpc said:


> Those who think this are missing a fine but important point.
> The Myth they were trying to investigate was the ORIGINAL claim in Robin Hood.
> That a solid *WOODEN* arrow can be split equally down the ENTIRE center of the shaft, by another *WOODEN* arrow.
> 
> ...


Nah. They "busted" it using wooden dowels from the hardware store which had the grain going the wrong way, they didn't use real arrows which have the grain going down the length of the shaft. If you have the grain going the correct way, it sure can be done.

I personally have seen a 70# longbow shooter come within 1 inch of doing it to wooden arrow during a knock-nock competition. In twain. I watched that episode and they spouted so much incorrect garbage it was disgusting.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

spangler said:


> Nah. They "busted" it using wooden dowels from the hardware store which had the grain going the wrong way, they didn't use real arrows which have the grain going down the length of the shaft. If you have the grain going the correct way, it sure can be done.
> 
> I personally have seen a 70# longbow shooter come within 1 inch of doing it to wooden arrow during a knock-nock competition. In twain. I watched that episode and they spouted so much incorrect garbage it was disgusting.


Besides they tested that from like 10-15 yards. Chances are the arrow couldn't recover fast enough anyway...


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

Well then,
Let's hang 'em.
:angry:


----------



## lasse5214 (Mar 6, 2007)

I got my Rytera BulletX with 33,5 ata. And i have a Mathews LX ata 35,5.
I shoot these two bows better than my Bowtech Constitution and Martin Shadowcat elite. Both with ata 40 and 43"
I,m a beginner with only 8 months pracksis. Shooting everyday 50, 60 and 70 meter. About 100 to 150 arrows a day 7 days a week. Wenn raining i shoot inndoors. 
For me ata is only a number.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Corsair said:


> Similarly, if you are saying that a heavier bow is more *intrinsically * accurate than a lighter or short bow then by putting them in a shooting machine, the difference in performance should show. If there is no difference then any right thinking person would have to say that for all intents and purposes, the bows are as good as one another.


A bow is part of a *system* which includes the support and release mechanism. Since there is no such sport as "bench rest" archery, a bow with a larger moment of inertia and angle of momentum is inherently more stable _when held by a human_. This stability is largely irrelevant when a bow is immovably and inelastically clamped into a shooting machine which has it's own inertia and is also generally bolted to the floor.

The bench rest comparison of a bow tells you the mechanical accuracy of the bow, not accuracy "for all intents and purposes" since your intents and purposes specifically include how the bow performs when held by humans. You can't remove humans from the equation and still claim to be talking about the accuracy of the full system as it is used in practice unless you have a mechanical exoskeleton and plan on bolting your feet to the ground.

If, somehow, you could prove that a certain light pistol could group as well as a certain heavy long gun in mechanical rest tests (this is not an argument about barrel length and accuracy...) you would _not_ have proved that a _person_ can shoot that pistol from a standing position as well well as a rifle, you have only shown that a mechanical rest can shoot the guns the same. That's why we use mechanical rests, because they don't act like people. However, long guns are "inherently" more accurate than pistols not just because of the ballistic properties of the long barrel but because of the inherent stability of the extra mass--as well as other properties such as the better bracing provided by the butt and the longer sight radius.

So, when you invent "bench rest archery" (I imagine somebody already has), then you can ignore the mass and angle of momentum of the bow. Until then, they will have a significant stabilizing affect when used by archers with the corresponding down side of requiring more strength to hold up.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

spangler said:


> Nah. They "busted" it using wooden dowels from the hardware store which had the grain going the wrong way, they didn't use real arrows which have the grain going down the length of the shaft. If you have the grain going the correct way, it sure can be done.
> 
> I personally have seen a 70# longbow shooter come within 1 inch of doing it to wooden arrow during a knock-nock competition. In twain. I watched that episode and they spouted so much incorrect garbage it was disgusting.


They re did the test with proper self-nocked Medieval arrows from proper straight grained wood. They still failed.

However, declaring that their failure to replicate a myth means the myth is "busted" is probably the biggest failure of Mythbusters, especially when it comes to low probability events, replication complex inventions and performance of high skill tasks. As a hyperbolic example I can imagine Mythbusters testing the myth that it is possible to win the lottery, trying a bunch of times (with their own Mythbusters Pick 52 lottery) and declaring "Myth Busted." Or I can see them testing the myth that it is possible to play the Paganini Variations on a piano and have Adam try it, fail and declare "Myth Busted." Ok, so I exaggerate, but I think the Mythbusters do as well. They use far too few data points to express their certainty. All they really can say for most of their tests where there isn't _positive_ contradictory evidence is "Myth Not Confirmed" or "Myth Unproven" or, maybe, "Mythshion Improbable."


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

Couple of REALLY good posts in a row there, Warbow.

I still like Myth-busters though. I don't use them as my end-all of scientific knowledge, but they provide at least amusing and IMHO worthwhile annecdotal evidence on occasion.
I'm also secure enough in my own experience and knowledge of archery (and other topics) to not go off the deep end wanting them strung up for a few inconsistancies or errors on our topic.
Last i checked, i didn't know anyone that knew everything about everything.

They're doing the best they can, having a figurative and literal BLAST doing it. Even their failures can be enlightening to intelligent and discerning viewers such as us.

If i'm mad at them for anything it's that they're getting paid to have that much fun and i'm not.

:darkbeer:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

hammerheadpc said:


> Couple of REALLY good posts in a row there, Warbow.
> 
> I still like Myth-busters though. I don't use them as my end-all of scientific knowledge, but they provide at least amusing and IMHO worthwhile annecdotal evidence on occasion.
> I'm also secure enough in my own experience and knowledge of archery (and other topics) to not go off the deep end wanting them strung up for a few inconsistancies or errors on our topic.
> ...


I actually love Mythbusters. But part of science is criticizing flawed methodology wherever it occurs even if it is performed by someone you like and who generally does a good job. I think MB sometimes make firmer conclusions than are justified by their evidence and I just wish they would acknowledge the difference between unproven but highly improbable and "busted."


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Warbow



> A bow is part of a system which includes the support and release mechanism. Since there is no such sport as "bench rest" archery, a bow with a larger moment of inertia and angle of momentum is inherently more stable when held by a human. This stability is largely irrelevant when a bow is immovably and inelastically clamped into a shooting machine which has it's own inertia and is also generally bolted to the floor.
> 
> The bench rest comparison of a bow tells you the mechanical accuracy of the bow, not accuracy "for all intents and purposes" since your intents and purposes specifically include how the bow performs when held by humans. You can't remove humans from the equation and still claim to be talking about the accuracy of the full system as it is used in practice unless you have a mechanical exoskeleton and plan on bolting your feet to the ground.


If you re-read my post on this matter, you will notice that I said that the first thing rifle shooters do is to machine test their rifle/ammo combinations. The two are closely interrelated. I then stated that when a good combination had been found, the shooter then did grouping practice with the rifle usually in the prone position, with sling and shooting jacket and a high powered scope to see how the combinqation works for him in his normal shooting position. By the way, I'm talking ISSF target shooting, not bench rest.

However no serious rifle shooter ever buys a rifle or ammo until he has machine tested both first. SImilarly if you end up with a combination that produces a .5inch maximum spread group at 50m out of a machine rest, I can assure you that the performance will not drop off markedly once the shooter tries it from the prone position - unless he has hopeless form.

Getting on to bows out of machine rests, they will tell you how the bow/arrow combination works. For example, I'm prepared to wager that no serious FITA shooter is going to pick the cheapest carbon arrow he/she can find and expect it to shoot as well as X10s at 90m. It simply won't happen. So I repeat, if you want to speak from a position of authority, then start with empirical testing of the bow/arrow combination, without human interference. Then when you have a suitable combination, let the shooter try it. It should perform nearly as well in his/her hands as it does out of the machine, if his/her form is good. If it isn't good, then don't even bother and buy what ever takes your fancy.

There is nothing magic that happens when you put a bow in human hands and get them to shoot it. If they can't shoot worth a damn then regardless of the bow/arrow combination they still won't be able to shoot worth a damn.
As I also said earlier, I don't care whether an archer shoots a 25"AtA bow weighing 8 ounces or a 60" AtA bow weighing 12lbs. Providing that it can be shown that both poerform equally well out of a machine rest, then use whatever turns you on. But you'd have to be a mug to buy the bigger bow, simply because it is a bigger bow and "ought " to be more "forgiving", if the smaller one is outgrouping it out of the machine.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Corsair said:


> As I also said earlier, I don't care whether an archer shoots a 25"AtA bow weighing 8 ounces or a 60" AtA bow weighing 12lbs. Providing that it can be shown that both poerform equally well out of a machine rest, then use whatever turns you on. But you'd have to be a mug to buy the bigger bow, simply because it is a bigger bow and "ought " to be more "forgiving", if the smaller one is outgrouping it out of the machine.


I can't help but think you didn't parse my post.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

I should probably elaborate.

Your insights into machine rest testing, Corsair, would be good ones if you didn't insist on trying to overreach. The "bows and guns that machine test the same will work the same in a shooter's hands unless their form/mental game is off" theory is an amalgam of truth and falsehood.

We can easily disprove your idea that bows and guns that machine rest test the same have the same potential when shot by people. Take two rifles that test the same and give one a light crisp trigger and the other a terrible gritty creep with a random 20-30 pound break. They will both machine test the same but it is rather doubtful a person could shoot the second one as accurately as the first--and you couldn't pin the problem on their poor form or "mental game." Granted, that is an extreme, though legitimate, example. So, let's try an every day, real-world example: stabilizers. Your "machine tests are everything" position necessarily holds that stabilizers have no value what so ever because bows machine test identically with or without stabilizers. This is directly related to your short bows are just as good as longer, heavier bows because they machine test the same argument.

If you really believe that machine tests are everything--as you have explicitly stated and stated without qualification--then you don't use a stabilizer of any kind since they don't add any value in a machine test.

If you don't I'll give you props for consistency, though your arguments will still be lacking. If you do have a stab on your bow, then your machine-rests-are-everything-and-if-you-disagree-it-is-because-your-form/mental-game-is-off argument is more than a bit disingenuous. I'd say it is a hyperbolic argument with just enough grounding in facts to make it seem reasonable if you don't look to closely.

I'm not saying that people can't score well with short bows. There are advantages to a lighter bow that may offset the gains you get from more inertia, but don't get all empirical about machine testing and then throw empirical physics out the window when it comes to how bows actually work when shot by people. If you want to use science and empirical data you have to apply you analysis to the entire system, not just an isolated part.

I'm also not discounting the value of machine rest testing. Machine testing is a useful adjunct to shooting that tells you the mechanical potential of a gun/cartrige combination or bow/arrow combination but that is not the end of the story, it is just the starting point.


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

> We can easily disprove your idea that bows and guns that machine rest test the same have the same potential when shot by people. Take two rifles that test the same and give one a light crisp trigger and the other a terrible gritty creep with a random 20-30 pound break. They will both machine test the same but it is rather doubtful a person could shoot the second one as accurately as the first--and you couldn't pin the problem on their poor form or "mental game." Granted, that is an extreme, though legitimate, example.


SIGH!!!
No it isn't a legitimate example at all. No match rifle - which is what I have been talking about all along - has a crap trigger. This is a given. If it has it ain't a match rifle. You're talking to a guy with some 50 + years rifle shooting experience. How many you got?

Stabilizers have NO effect on pure accuracy. They do a couple of useful things for the archer - add some inertia without excessive weight, provide a better balance to the bow (depending on your preferences) and cancel out vibration, if you have the right type of damper fitted.

I have shot bows with and without stabilizers and there is no difference in their accuracy. Don't believe me? Take your stabilizer off and shoot some ends. If you have good form there will be no difference in the grouping capacity of the bow. The group will be in a somewhat different place but if your form is good it will still be the same size.

There is absolutely no difference how a bow works when either in the machine or in the hands of the user. It works by being drawn back, with an arrow fitted thereto and then the string is released allowing it to travel forward with the arrow attached until it reaches the end of its travel whereupon they part company. Now this is how it works ALL THE TIME.

Put it in the hands of a person and the only thing that changes now is that you can either have a person who really knows what they are doing and can shoot it really well by virtue of having a good steady hold, a nicely relaxed grip, a consistent anchor point, a decent sight picture and a smooth consistent release - or you can have a person who is an absolute klutz who has none of these things and couldn't hit the side of a bus if he were shooting from inside it. It's the same bow, however, so you can't blame the bow.

My point about putting a bow in a machine rest isn't to prove that one bow will perform better than another. All other things being equal you would probably find ALL bows (compounds) would perform exactly the same. What would nmake the difference is the bow/arrow combination just as it is with a rifle - it isn't the rifle per se, it's the rifle/ammo combination that matters.

Now if a long ATA bow were more "forgiving" there should be some evidence of this out of a machine rest but I'll bet you won't see anything that's different from a short ATA bow. WHere you will see a difference is if you shoot some crap arrows through each and then some genuine tournament quality arrows through each.

THe only reason that the results obtained when you put the bow in the hands of an archer are different from those obtained out of the machine rest is how good or bad the archer's form is. Don't blame the poor bloody bow.
Now you can load it down with long rod stabilizers and short rod side stabilizers and vibration dampers everywhere you can fit them, plus tie ribbons on them if that's what turns you on but you will not in any way affect the intrinsic accuracy of the bow/arrow combination that was demonstrated in the machine rest.

My poinit about machine testing a bow is this and you must have missed it somewhere along the way. For the vast majority of compound bows there will be no demonstrable difference in performance. The reason there MIGHT be would be cases where you have ill fitting limb pockets, slop in the axles of the cams/idlers and errors of a similar type but you WON'T see a demonstrable difference between a good short compound bow and a good long compound bow.

The fact that some people seem to like long ATA bows and some short has more to do with personal preference (and perhaps long held and erroneous beliefs) than any real, demonstrable difference in the intrinsic performance of the bow. Nothing about the bow changes when it is in the hands of the user. It is the user that is the weak link in the chain and how much easier is it to blame the bow than blame your own poor form which is the result of little or no practice and false expectations that pure muscle power will win through in the end.

You want to be a great shot? Forget about ATA and bow weight and spend most of your time practicing good form. Works every time - but it takes dedication and determination and a lot of honest self analysis.

Finally:


> I'm also not discounting the value of machine rest testing. Machine testing is a useful adjunct to shooting that tells you the mechanical potential of a gun/cartrige combination or bow/arrow combination but that is not the end of the story, it is just the starting point.


Had you read my original posting and then my most recent posting you will see that this is precisely the point I have made - several times now. I don't now how often I need to repeat it. WHat you don't understand is that with a rifle /ammo combination what you are testing for in the shooting position is whether the stock fit is comfortable and aligns well and that the rifle recoils nicely in YOUR shooting position - but you can only truly assess this if you have good form.

Ditto the bow/arrow combination. In the hands of the user (assuming the person has good form), the shooter will be able to determine whether the grip feels OK in the hand, what it feels like to draw, whether there is hand shock on release and how the bow behaves following release. These are the important issues for consideration and they can only be judged by someone who has sufficient experience and form to know how a good bow should feel.

But the one thing that WON"T change is the *inherent* accuracy of the bow/arrow combination. The ONLY factor likely to impair this is the shooter him/herself and nothing else.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

There are a number of tests I run when I use a Hooter Shooter on my bow to test for 'forgiveness' of a bow and axle length has no impact on any of the results as yet. I would be keen on seeing a test that actually was repeatable in the hooter shooter that showed the advantages of a long axle to axle bow. 
From that we can then measure the impact of the result and what it's effect on the target is. 

For example if I draw my Allegiance 3 clicks past full draw I could move my groups 1" low and 1" left at 18m. However as this equals around 60# of additional force into the wall and about 1" of extra draw length it is of no concern to me. 

If you can not repeat something then it's not a valid scientific test. (and scientists would agree with that, unless it's in the biology field)


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

> There are a number of tests I run when I use a Hooter Shooter on my bow to test for 'forgiveness' of a bow and axle length has no impact on any of the results as yet. I would be keen on seeing a test that actually was repeatable in the hooter shooter that showed the advantages of a long axle to axle bow.


 Uhm... A hooter shooter *cannot* show any adantages over a long or short bow, whether it has nothing or anything on it. 

In order for you to understand inertia, you must understand physics and how enertia works.

A stablizer is designed around the basis of enertia, a longer ATA is the exact same principal. Since we are human, we cannot hold that bow perfectly steady like a hooter shooter.

In order to become a perfect archer, we must become a hooter shooter. This is impossible. So, with certain gadgets (like stabilizers) it helps "soften" or "lesson" the errors that we have by helping "stablize" the movement of the bow. Longer ATA inherently stablizes the bow from movement, and a added stabilizer is even more pronounced in stabilization of the bow.

There is a reason why the FITA folks use long bows and long stablizers..:wink:

Dwayne


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Corsair said:


> SIGH!!!
> No it isn't a legitimate example at all. No match rifle - which is what I have been talking about all along - has a crap trigger. This is a given. If it has it ain't a match rifle. You're talking to a guy with some 50 + years rifle shooting experience. How many you got?


Good grief! And I though I was verbose... Anyway, while I'm impressed with the length of time you've been shooting it doesn't get you a "get-out-of-rational-thinking--free" card.

My example was specifically posited as not a real world example, however it was a _legitimate_ example for proof by contradiction. You stated in unqualified terms that two weapons that test the same are "for all intents and purposes" the same.



> if you are saying that a heavier bow is more intrinsically accurate than a lighter or short bow then by putting them in a shooting machine, the difference in performance should show. If there is no difference then any right thinking person would have to say that for all intents and purposes, the bows are as good as one another.


Your claim is false and easily falsified. My example of two weapons with wildly varied trigger qualites, though a bit extreme, demonstrates that your blanket statement is false. And your claim of the two weapons being the same "for all intents and purposes" ignores the plain and absolute meaning of the phrase since clearly one "intent and purpose" is how well a weapon can be shot by a _person_ as opposed to a machine rest. A machine rest does not test for any human interface issues and therefore cannot be said to determine that two weapons are the same for "all intents and purposes."



Corsair said:


> Stabilizers have NO effect on pure accuracy. They do a couple of useful things for the archer - add some inertia without excessive weight, provide a better balance to the bow (depending on your preferences) and cancel out vibration, if you have the right type of damper fitted.


Stabilizers have no effect on the mechanical potential of the bow when shot from a machine rest where the bow is _stabilized_ by the machine rest.

And of course they add "a couple of useful things for the archer." That is what I'm refering to when I talk about the entire _system_, of which the archer is part of when shooting a bow. You can't minimized the importance of things that are meant to assist the archer in shooting. In rifles, such things include the _rifle stock_ which has no positive affect on accuracy in a machine rest test (if you clamp the rifle by the barel). The gun stock is strictly a "useful thing" for the shooter and one that has no value to the machine rest. I don't suppose you plan on dismissing a proper gun stock as being irrelevant to the shooter? I also suppose that a bi-pod or bench rest does not lead to higher scores since it does not increase the gun's "pure accuracy?" Of course they do, because the weapon's mechanical accuracy is subjugated by human interface issues.



Corsair said:


> I have shot bows with and without stabilizers and there is no difference in their accuracy. Don't believe me? Take your stabilizer off and shoot some ends. If you have good form there will be no difference in the grouping capacity of the bow. The group will be in a somewhat different place but if your form is good it will still be the same size.


Interesting what you are _not_ saying. I wondered aloud if you used a stabilizer because if you do it undercuts your argument that properties that aren't measured by a machine rest are irrelevant. You dance around the issue and don't actually say if you use one or not.



Corsair said:


> There is absolutely no difference how a bow works when either in the machine or in the hands of the user. It works by being drawn back, with an arrow fitted thereto and then the string is released allowing it to travel forward with the arrow attached until it reaches the end of its travel whereupon they part company. Now this is how it works ALL THE TIME.


You are equivocating the phrase "how a bow works." While you have described the mechanical action of the bow you are ignoring basic physics. The mass and distribution of mass in a bow affects how the bow acts not only when being held by an outstretched arm while aiming, but also loosing and when accelerating the arrow, as we have known since Newton posited his Third Law of reciprocal actions. 



Corsair said:


> My point about putting a bow in a machine rest isn't to prove that one bow will perform better than another. All other things being equal you would probably find ALL bows (compounds) would perform exactly the same. What would nmake the difference is the bow/arrow combination just as it is with a rifle - it isn't the rifle per se, it's the rifle/ammo combination that matters.


That's a bit of a tautology. Of course "all things being equal" all bows will perform the same--because "all things are equal" by your definition.

And of course I agree with the contention that the quality of the arrow is vital, though with a machine rest the arrows just need to be identical. Tuning is nice but irrelevant to a machine test as long as they are in the ballpark since even a poorly tuned arrow will hit the same exact spot when shot in a perfectly repeatable manner.



Corsair said:


> Now if a long ATA bow were more "forgiving" there should be some evidence of this out of a machine rest...


This is false. You are equivocating the term "forgiving." Used in the common sense in archery, "forgiving" means forgiving of human failings. Shooting machines are not human and are meant specifically to exclude human qualities. They are, therefore, not designed to test for that kind of "forgiving" quality. That is not to say that you couldn't create a machine to quantitatively measure certain aspects of bows that are considered to make them "forgiving," just that a machine rest does not.



Corsair said:


> THe only reason that the results obtained when you put the bow in the hands of an archer are different from those obtained out of the machine rest is how good or bad the archer's form is. Don't blame the poor bloody bow.


This is yet another in a long line of examples where you start with a valid premise but insist on making it into an absolute which is easily disproved.
As I have demonstrated earlier, machine rests do not test any human interface aspects of a bow and have nothing to say about the "shootability" of a bow, just the mechanical accuracy. A machine rest will conclusively demonstrate that a 200# bow is extremely accurate even though such a bow is _completely_ unshootable.



Corsair said:


> Now you can load it down with long rod stabilizers and short rod side stabilizers and vibration dampers everywhere you can fit them, plus tie ribbons on them if that's what turns you on but you will not in any way affect the intrinsic accuracy of the bow/arrow combination that was demonstrated in the machine rest.


You really delight in equivocation. This time you use the term "intrinsic accuracy." Previously you used "pure accuracy" and later in the post you used the term "inherent accuracy." All of which are terms for the mechanical accuracy of the bow that are based solely on the machine rest tests of the bow--tests that are extremely valuable but say nothing about the _shootability_ of the bow, the stability when actually used and ignore the physics of how bows are affected by being shot by "people" who do not have steel exoskeletons and feet bolted to the floor.


Corsair said:


> My poinit about machine testing a bow is this and you must have missed it somewhere along the way. For the vast majority of compound bows there will be no demonstrable difference in performance. The reason there MIGHT be would be cases where you have ill fitting limb pockets, slop in the axles of the cams/idlers and errors of a similar type but you WON'T see a demonstrable difference between a good short compound bow and a good long compound bow.


Ah, the equivocation _again_, this time it is the term "demonstrable," by which you mean "demonstrable on a _machine rest_" which specifically does not test for human interface factors. I would argue that the differences are "demonstrable," just not on a machine designed not to be affected by them!


Corsair said:


> The fact that some people seem to like long ATA bows and some short has more to do with personal preference (and perhaps long held and erroneous beliefs) than any real, demonstrable difference in the intrinsic performance of the bow. Nothing about the bow changes when it is in the hands of the user. It is the user that is the weak link in the chain and how much easier is it to blame the bow than blame your own poor form which is the result of little or no practice and false expectations that pure muscle power will win through in the end.


I do I even need to spell it out? Once again you are talking about the machine testing as being the only "demonstrable" measure of any difference in a bow. This is false when stated as an absolute.



Corsair said:


> You want to be a great shot? Forget about ATA and bow weight and spend most of your time practicing good form. Works every time - but it takes dedication and determination and a lot of honest self analysis.


And of course I agree! Do you really think I consider stabilizers and riser weight to be more important than good form? Don't be ridiculous. A good archer with decent arrows and no stabs will beat a bad archer loaded with every gadget known to man every time.


Corsair said:


> Finally:
> 
> Had you read my original posting and then my most recent posting you will see that this is precisely the point I have made - several times now. I don't now how often I need to repeat it. WHat you don't understand is that with a rifle /ammo combination what you are testing for in the shooting position is whether the stock fit is comfortable and aligns well and that the rifle recoils nicely in YOUR shooting position - but you can only truly assess this if you have good form.
> 
> ...


Sigh...you know, it isn't your general position that I take issue with as much as your attempt to paint it in indefensible absolutes. Your summary takes a much more moderate approach that is much more defensible, and yet not entirely so. Machine rest tests are completely silent on the shootability of a bow or gun. The mechanical accuracy tells you the theoretical maximum accuracy that a perfect archery could attain provided that the equipment is shootable. Not all human interface issues are a function of form, some are a function of equipment and physics and cannot be overcome by form or "mental game". Machine rests do not test for these aspects and are not meant to. This is why machine rest results are a tool and not an absolute.

If your point were merely that the shooter is more important than the bow, I'd agree. If your point were that form is more important than stabilizers and riser weight, I'd agree. But when you claim that machine rest tests that show bows have the same mechanical accuracy mean that those bows will therefore be equally accurate when shot people and any difference is due to form/mental game, then I have to disagree. Machine rests do not test _any_ human interface aspects of a bow, nor are they designed to. As a loose principle you could get away with claiming that mechanical accuracy == shootability; however, as a strictly stated principle it is demonstrably false and one that I have demonstrated to be so in multiple ways.

I have little doubt that your knowledge and talent in shooting are exceptional. However, your high degree of experience and talent in those endeavors may give you the false impression that your reasoned argumentation is as good as your shooting.


----------



## Paradoxical Cat (Apr 25, 2006)

Marcus said:


> If you can not repeat something then it's not a valid scientific test. (and scientists would agree with that, unless it's in the biology field)


Not to hijack, but as a recovering biologist, I feel quite confident in informing you that repetition of results carries as much weight in the biological sciences as in the physical. If you want a science which cares not a whit about repetition, I suggest astronomy. They still haven't repeated the Big Bang. 

PC-


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Marcus said:


> There are a number of tests I run when I use a Hooter Shooter on my bow to test for 'forgiveness' of a bow and axle length has no impact on any of the results as yet. I would be keen on seeing a test that actually was repeatable in the hooter shooter that showed the advantages of a long axle to axle bow.
> From that we can then measure the impact of the result and what it's effect on the target is.
> 
> For example if I draw my Allegiance 3 clicks past full draw I could move my groups 1" low and 1" left at 18m. However as this equals around 60# of additional force into the wall and about 1" of extra draw length it is of no concern to me.
> ...


I'm curious about your tests for forgiveness.

In my response to Corsair I noted that machine rests don't test for any human interface issues. While that is generally true, I realize that I can't state that as an absolute and I must retract my over-broad assertion, especially since I chided Corsair for holding to his absolutes. There are some human interface aspects that a Hooter Shooter can test for, though inertial dampening does not seem to be one of them.

What besides overdrawing do you do to test for certain types of "forgiveness" using your Hooter Shooter?


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Warbow

I only rave on at length when I am answering someone else who is raving on at length.

I can only say this - take off the pedagogic glasses and try reading my posts again with a view to trying to understand what I am actually saying. I'm not even going to begin to critique your clearly limited knowledge of match rifles and how they do what they do. ANd let's drop the debating techniques - this forum is meant to be helpful to archers, not to brush up on your rhetorical skills.

If you want to believe that a bow suddenly transforms itself into a great or lousy shooting machine in the hands of the individual archer, then please, be my guest.

There is only one really important point I wish to make and it is the use of this term "forgiveness". Everyone uses it but no one seems to be able to define it. Is it a bow that whispers in your shell pink ear when you've just released a shot " Well, that was terrible dear, but I forgive you".

Is it a bow that, when I am aiming at the 8 ring on release, the bow will somehow magically transform that into a 10 every time. If so I want one.

Personally I don't want a forgiving bow. If I fire off a crap shot, I want that shot to go exactly where I aimed it, otherwise how am I to learn anything from my mistakes?

I'm all agog awaiting your explanation.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

*OT:*


Corsair said:


> Warbow
> I only rave on at length when I am answering someone else who is raving on at length.


I would generally also claim to respond in kind. Now we can debate which of us is the chicken and which is the egg.



Corsair said:


> I can only say this - take off the pedagogic glasses and try reading my posts again with a view to trying to understand what I am actually saying. I'm not even going to begin to critique your clearly limited knowledge of match rifles and how they do what they do. ANd let's drop the debating techniques - this forum is meant to be helpful to archers, not to brush up on your rhetorical skills.


I'll admit that my last paragraph in my previous response to you was a bit of rhetorical flourish, but I do think it also is likely to be true and the the rest of my post stands as reasoned discourse with the aim of getting at the truth of the matter. I sometimes argue strongly when I see irrationality being proffered as rational and misinformation being spread as proven truth. I'm not always right and sometimes I'm the one inadvertently spreading the misinformation--no man can be perfect all the time. So by all means if you can prove me wrong please do so. So far, you haven't.

BTW, you can't credibly suggest dropping "the debating techniques" in the same paragraph after you condescended to tell me to "take off the pedagogic glasses and try reading my posts again with a view to trying to understand what I am actually saying. I'm not even going to begin to critique your clearly limited knowledge of match rifles and how they do what they do." Pardon me if I don't consider your suggestion to dispense with the rhetoric a sincere one.



Corsair said:


> If you want to believe that a bow suddenly transforms itself into a great or lousy shooting machine in the hands of the individual archer, then please, be my guest.


That's funny. You seem to be arguing with someone other than me. An imaginary person, perhaps--they are so much easier to debate. Let's look at my last post to you, and what the actual--not the imaginary--me said:


> Do you really think I consider stabilizers and riser weight to be more important than good form? Don't be ridiculous. A good archer with decent arrows and no stabs will beat a bad archer loaded with every gadget known to man every time.


It does seem to me that you don't have a point that relates to anything I've actually said.



Corsair said:


> There is only one really important point I wish to make and it is the use of this term "forgiveness". Everyone uses it but no one seems to be able to define it. Is it a bow that whispers in your shell pink ear when you've just released a shot " Well, that was terrible dear, but I forgive you".
> 
> Is it a bow that, when I am aiming at the 8 ring on release, the bow will somehow magically transform that into a 10 every time. If so I want one.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, so one may conclude that your ultimate bow is an unforgiving one. While that might make an excellent bow for practice it might not be a good choice for competition. Also, I don't think that anyone is claiming that a "forgiving" bow aims for you, rather that the bow will still help you hit the point you are aiming at and be forgiving of _other_ issues, not bad aim.

However, just so you don't think that I am strictly argumentative. I do agree that it would be useful to define and quantify the nebulous quality called "forgiveness" and test it and see to what degree, if any, certain aspects of the bow can affect shooting and scoring over the course of a full round of competition. That would be an interesting and challenging area of research.

BTW, I notice that you haven't said if you use a stab? Surely you don't since you want the least forgiving bow possible and you have clearly stated that stabilizers have no affect on accuracy. (_"I have shot bows with and without stabilizers and there is no difference in their accuracy. Don't believe me? Take your stabilizer off and shoot some ends. If you have good form there will be no difference in the grouping capacity of the bow. The group will be in a somewhat different place but if your form is good it will still be the same size."_)

So, what is it? *Do you ever use a stabilizer? *If I see you at a range or a competition will I ever see you with a stabilizer? (Hmmm, might there be photos???)

Please, please, don't hold back for my sake. Show where my reasoning and examples are factually in error. <Superfluous Rhetorical Flourish> I humbly await your further devastating blows to my argument.</Superfluous Rhetorical Flourish>


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Sure I use a stabilizer. If I shoot 3D is use a short one, about 8 inches. If it's blowing a gale on the FITA range I use a slightly longer one that I made (about 18inches long, just to forestall the question) and on a still day I use a 28 inch stabilzer.

None of these has any effect on the bows accuracy at all. They make it a little more comfortable for me to shoot but that's all they do. I also shoot a Mathews Prestige bow - 35.5 " ATA and 6" (aaarrrggghhh!!!!!) brace height and you know what - it is probably the sweetest bow I have ever shot and it groups extremely tightly right out to 90m, using either Cartel Triples or Easton X10s

And just to set your mind at rest, as a demonstration to some reasonably inexperienced archers at the club a couple of months ago, I showed the grouping capacity of the bow WITHOUT any stabiliser at all at 50m.The groups were identical to what I usually shoot, but in a slightly different location. 

All that changed was the way the bow reacted AFTER release. Why did I do this? Because I had a number of newbies who had this idea that a bow full of stabilisers of extraordinary length (and cost) is essential to good accuracy. Pity you weren't there - you might have learnt something. Then again..............

The main reason I use a 28inch stabiliser when I shoot in normal light wind conditions is so that I can rest the toe of the stabilser on my left shoe top and take a load off the muscles. When I use my mid length stabiliser on very windy days, I'm forced to use a small tripod I made to make up the height difference at rest. Why don't I use the shorter one all the time? Because I prefer to carry as little kit as possible and I need another tripod in my kit like a hole in the head.

There was actually a time (most of you little kiddies wouldn't have been around in those days) when there were no such things as stabilisers and top world shooters were shooting amazingly good scores with the most basic of equipment. In the 60s when stabilisers first appeared, the were short rods affixed to the top and bottom limbs only. Long rods came into the picture later on again.

So I go back to my original premise and that is that an archer who has been taught to shoot well and has good form brought about by intensive practice will always shoot well regardless of what ding-a-lings he/she hangs from the bow, whereas a bad archer who has no form whatsoever will never shoot well, even if the bloody thing is fitted with gyro stabilisers and ground wheels.

It's the shooter who maketh the score, matey, not the bow.


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

And just to show that I am not avoiding your other issues:


> Hmmm, so one may conclude that your ultimate bow is an unforgiving one. While that might make an excellent bow for practice it might not be a good choice for competition. Also, I don't think that anyone is claiming that a "forgiving" bow aims for you, rather that the bow will still help you hit the point you are aiming at and be forgiving of other issues, not bad aim.


Since you can't define what you mean by the term "forgiving" then I'll explain to you that the type of bow I prefer to shoot is one that will place the arrow precisely where I am aimng it at the moment of release. Now, as I said earlier, if you know of a bow that will plonk the arrows in the 10 regardless where I am aiming at the moment of release, then I want one of them. It would save me so much hard work and practice.



> [rather that the bow will still help you hit the point you are aiming at and be forgiving of other issues, not bad aim.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> See - you are being very vague on this issue. What other issues will a "forgiving" bow be forgiving of and how will the BOW help me hit what I am aiming at? Is this last statement meant to agree with my contention that a good bow should send the arrow precisely where it is aimed at the moment of release or do you mean something else?
> ...


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

DwayneR: Sorry as a FITA type I can tell you that you are incorrect there. 
The plane in which the axle length matters does not work the same as a longer stabilizer. A shorter or longer bow requires different setups to balance the same, but once those setups are identified then you will get the exact same stability from both bows. Tested, proven. 
One is not easier to setup that another, just that many never take it into account. (of course many just regurgitate someone else who made the same statement so they sound like they know what they are talking about)

Paradoxical Cat: My wife is a biologist and I give her crap how they operate all the time. LOL. You are right about astronomy though. 



> plonk the arrows in the 10 regardless where I am aiming


Exactly. 
I recently setup a 48" round wheel deflexed bow and shot some indoor with it. It shot where I aimed. It never once magically put the arrows into the 10 despite where I aimed. 


We are human but if you want to shoot like a Hooter Shooter then learn how to shoot like one, stop spending time BSing about axle length and pretending that's what will get you points, cause it won't, it makes no difference.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

*OT:*


Corsair said:


> So I go back to my original premise and that is that an archer who has been taught to shoot well and has good form brought about by intensive practice will always shoot well regardless of what ding-a-lings he/she hangs from the bow, whereas a bad archer who has no form whatsoever will never shoot well, even if the bloody thing is fitted with gyro stabilisers and ground wheels.
> 
> It's the shooter who maketh the score, matey, not the bow.


If that was all you had said I'd have had nothing to disagree with  I have never claimed that stabilizers will make a bad archer beat a good archer. However, I do think that a decent archer with an unlimited class compound will generally beat a somewhat "better" Longbow-class archer in a marked yardage shoot. Equipment classes _do_ make a difference. The scores prove it with very limited exceptions. You can blame it on form, but in practical terms almost nobody can mimic the perfectly consistent draw check of a FITA clicker, though technically the bow is _mechanically_ just as accurate with or without it.

Your use of stabilizers does still seem contradictory to your contention that they do nothing to affect scoring (hitting in a different spot at the same group size doesn't count since you would adjust your sights to compensate), though the "comfort" argument is a good save. But I remain unconvinced that is really the full answer to their utility.



> You seem to be very keen on precision in language, so let's see some precision in your ideas as to what a "forgiving" bow is


Nope, I can't define it. I think that is a valid point which is why I generally steered clear of that minefield. 

But then, in my posts I was generally arguing not about "forgiveness" but about the inertial stability of mass and a larger moment of inertia, not specifically about the more nebulous "forgiveness."

While I still have disagreement with your earlier premises, I have no doubt that you'd beat me hands down in just about any shooting sport.  Of course, that doesn't mean I will defer to everything you say and not subject your claims to the same rational scrutiny that I would subject other people's claims to. That is how a lot of misinformation gets spread. A knowledgeable person like yourself gets to the point where people get used to believing them all the time because they are so often right, thus when they say something that is false, everyone merely credulously accepts it as true without question and out of habit. I am much less automatic in my deference to authority and I have found that many authorities are unused to being challenged and are incredulous that they could actually be wrong even in the case of clear evidence that such is so.

Please don't mis-interpret my stubborn advocacy of rationality as being mere argumentativeness. Big fan of Hegel and synthesis. I think that learning can come out of argument. I do make concessions when it is clear that I'm wrong and have already done so several times in this thread. I'm not sure you have done the same, though not because you haven't been demonstrably wrong on some points


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Whatever mate. I'm cool on this issue. It simply isn't worth getting heated over:smile:

As to WHY I use a stabiliser. For me it is to ensure that the bow tilts foward following release and doesn't rock back and hit me on the head. If I could, I'd avoid using a stabiliser all the time. If you've ever shot in a screaming side wind, you'll understand why. So that's it. There will be a lot of psuedo scientific resons why I should use a stabiliser but since I don't prescribe to them, they don't bother me.

It truly staggers me what some archers believe that their stabilisers do for them. It would be wonderfully instructive if they could take them off and shoot without one for a while.

As to the guys I demonstrated grouping to without a stabiliser - they all looked askance and went off and bought their fancy stabilisers anyway. It seems that they thought stabilisers were "cool" and hell, who am I to argue wth a teenager?


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

After all of this conflab, I really have to say in all seriousness that if there are any aspiring FITA shooters here and they want to know what is the latest thinking on this and other FITA issues, then you should pay attention to what Marcus says.

He is one of the finest compound archers in Australia and what he doesn't know about the technicalities and practice of the sport probably isn't worth knowing.

You all want some good advice? Then listen to what he says.


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

> None of these has any effect on the bows accuracy at all.


Your problem here is you keep insisting that it's only the bow's inherent accuracy that is necessary for a good shot. You completely ignore the *entire *shooting system, which includes HUMAN and Human-Bow interface, both of which are inherently INaccurate and unstable. THAT's why stabilizers are necessary for humans and not for Hooter-Shooters.



> They make it a little more comfortable for me to shoot but that's all they do.


A completely incorrect statement. And if you don't understand WHY what you just wrote is incorrect, there may be no help for you. Decades of match rifle competition and relatively good success with your current archery equipment do not authorize you to rewrite the most basic laws of physics, as it relates to the motion of systems.

Your argument only holds up in your own mind, because you're still only allowing yourself to think and speak in terms of your bow's inherent 'accuracy', as demonstrated in a mechanical rest. A model's ability to become asymtotic to reality is based on the how well the model takes into account ALL the variables and the how close to the truth the values come.

Stabilizers on bows work. If they didn't work, you wouldn't use them. They work for the exact reasons that Warbow and i have been stating. That really is the end of the argument. Longer ATA measurements are additional stabilization in the vertical plane (using the EXACT same physics principles as your horizontal stabilizer and v-bars and counter-weights dejour). Whether or not you and your compatriots can shoot better, worse or the same with a particular version of said bow, is of no consequence to the discussion. A poorly executed long ATA design will probably not score as well, with a particular archer, as a short ATA brilliant design. The myriad variables of "archer preference" means there is no one true perfect design. If there was that holy grail, there would only be a single specification for a FITA bow. One for freakcurves and one for training wheels. Right down to the molecule of each material, to 0.00001" tolerance of dimension. That there isn't, is proof by contradiction.

Taking results from a hooter-shooter session and directly translating that to the reality of humans firing bows is a heinous ignorance of model fidelity.

But don't worry much, Corsair. I'm fairly certain that you can be wrong on this subject and still kick my butt on any archery or rifle range! I'm okay with that. :wink:

PS. The only PROPER Hooter Shooter is a shot of whiskey, drunk from a shot glass held between the cleavage of a waitress in orange hot pants.

:darkbeer:

PSS. Shoot as many different styles of bow as you can, pick out the one that feels the best to you, most comfortable, natural extension of your consciousness, fits you and yields the highest scores for you and buy it, cling to it, nurture it, and love it.

The WORST thing you could possibly do is make a purchase based SOLELY on a hooter shooter's recommendation.


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

Hello Marcus,



> DwayneR: Sorry as a FITA type I can tell you that you are incorrect there.
> The plane in which the axle length matters does not work the same as a longer stabilizer. A shorter or longer bow requires different setups to balance the same, but once those setups are identified then you will get the exact same stability from both bows. Tested, proven.


 And I am sorry, you are totally incorrect. ATA works on EVERY PLANE PERIOD. It is called Physics and deals with inertia.

What you do not realize, is ATA affects different planes differently. The Stablizer is used to amplify the inerta that the ATA has a much smaller effect upon.

For example:

ATA has much less effect on the wobbling or wrist bend(left and right) of a bow, but much more on the pitch and turning (Arm twist). A Stablizer can tremendously help the wobble, but not help near as much on the pitch. Yet the Stablizer is almost worthless on the "turning" (Arm Twist) of the bow

Dwayne


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

hammerheadpc

SIGH!!!!!
Some of you guys just can't leave well enough alone.



> Your problem here is you keep insisting that it's only the bow's inherent accuracy that is necessary for a good shot. You completely ignore the entire shooting system, which includes HUMAN and Human-Bow interface, both of which are inherently INaccurate and unstable. THAT's why stabilizers are necessary for humans and not for Hooter-Shooters.


If you have read ANY of my earlier posts, you will have read that in my opinion virtually all modern compound bows of good quality have no great advantage , one over the other, in terms of their ability to plonk arrows into a neat tight group at all ranges.

I've then gone on to say, IN EVERY CASE (whether rifles or bows) that it is necessary, then, to test out how the implement in question performs in the hands of the user. In the case of a match rifle it can be a question of stock fit, stock attachments adjustability, the balance of the rifle in the hands even with a tight sling, the overall weight of the rifle and above all the manner in which the rifle reacts under recoil which WILL have a major impact on accuracy for each particular user. Rifles are far more complex beasties than bows, if you are into the target game - and we won't even talk about rifling methods and their effect on accuracy, choice of barrel steels , lengths, diameters, fluting, stress relieving, vibration on firing etc etc, to say nothing of the minefield of trying to find a compatible ammo for your particular choice, which will perform well consistently under a wide range of temperature and wind conditions. I could go on and write you a whole book about the subject but I don't think you really want me to do this do you?

Having said all of the above, the very first thing a serious match rifle shooter does is to take his barrel and action to Eley in the UK where, on appointment, and depending on his/her standing in the shooting community at that time, he /she will be given 15 to 20 lots of Eley Tenex Ultimate EPS to test in the barrel/action assembly, which will be clamped by Tenex staff into a simple machine vice via the barrel and off you go.

If you are a REALLY serious shooter then you might trot yourself off to Germany and try the latest batches of RWS, then Finland for the latest that Lapua has to offer, then perhaps Russia for their Olimp and maybe even the USA to try Federal if they ever get back to making real match ammo as they once did, etc etc.

WHen you have selected the best ammo lot for your partuclar rifle (or rifles) and bought as much of it as you can afford and which will not upset customs into thinking that you are about to start a private war (I'm not kidding), you then take all of this back home, reassemble your rifle into the stock, ensuring that the torque on the action screws is perfectly the same for all screws, put the whole rifle into a return to battery machine rest and then start testing all over again to find out how the ammo you selected performs in your full rifle configuration. You will then play around with action screw torque settings to see if you can tweak the tiniest bit of extra performance out of your rifle. I won't go on about the other things that you might try because if you aren't bored to death by now, you would be by the time I'm finished. 

And we haven't even come to testing out the rifle/human interface at this stage, under a wide range of shooting conditions.

Being of a scientific bent and an astute observer of all things physical, I am certain that you will have realised that at this stage all that the shooter has been concerned with is the pure accuracy of the rifle/ammo combination. No rifle shooter in his right mind is going to do anything other than I have described above, because it's useless having the best rifle/ammo combination possible and no form to back it up (although this is a contradiction in this case because a serious shooter WOULD have the form) and more particularly the best shooter in the world would NEVER think of using a rifle/ammo configuration that hasn't been tested as I have described.

There is one other small aspect of this that has some parallels with archery and it is on the question of barrel length. For long enough the "ideal" match barrel length was felt to be 26 to 28". WHy? Well because it had been shown to be accurate and it had always been that way so it had to be right - right? A certain Dieter Anschutz (the guy who set up the Anschutz factory) decided to find out once and for all what was the most accurate barrel length via machine rest testing. I believe he chopped about .5 inch off of a top grade barrel recrowned it and started grouping out of the machine rest and then continued doing this until he got down to around 12" or thereabouts and what he discovered was that the most accurate barrel length was 19.5 inches and so started producing a series of match rifles with that barrel length and overcame the resulting shortage of sight radius by fitting these rifles with an extension sleeve so that the sights could be mounted back to their original sight radius without any detriment to accuracy.

He still keeps making the long barrels because there are still shooters around who won't believe the evidence of improved accuracy through shorter barrels. As in rifle shooting, so in archery it seems.

If you now believe that the shooter in question will throw all of that away because the rifle didn't FEEL right when he started using it in his chosen shooting position, then you are nuts. He will tweak what he has (unless he is a fully sponsored shooter and can have anything in the world he wants) to get it to perform properly in his hands.

What he is trying for now, is to see if the rifle can be made comfortable for HIS position and most importantly of all, whether the rifle can be made to recoil consistently, shot to shot, in his chosen position. It is this latter aspect that is most important. You can load the rifle down with stabiliser weights up to the ISSF limit of 8 kilograms but the bloody thing still recoils and why put another pound or two on your barrel when it has virtually no effect other than to make your left elbow (if you are a right hand prone shooter) experience even more pain by trying to keep a further couple of pounds upright for no good reason. Sound familiar?? SO how do these shooters get around this recoil issue? They do it by adjusting their shooting position. They can't eliminate recoil so they try to control it and make it consistent and so recoil control becomes a FORM issue not a PHYSICS issue.

Archery is a far less complex business, thank God, but the principles I have outlined above should hold true for the bow/arrow combination as for the rifle/ammo combination. Bows possess no particular magic and like rifles are designed to do one thing only and that is to project an arrow over a given distance in such a manner that successive arrows will hopefully land on top of each other. Without that, just like the rifle shooter, you may as well toss the thing into the bin, if it won't group.

So the bow/arrow combination's inherent accuracy, it's intinsic accuracy, it's pure accuracy or however else you would like to describe it, is the most important aspect of all because without it you ain't going anywhere fast.

Now and ONLY now do we come to the shooters form and this is where we part company because I still maintain that a shooter with good form does NOT need stabilisers, or any other geegaws to shoot the bow to its full potential and the reason this is so is because unlike a rifle, an archers position is inherently unstable. Really good archers, who put in the time and practice can make their positions really stable and can hold the bow at arms length reasonably steady under most conditions.

Now put the uncluttered bow in their hands and what do you get? According to you and a lot of others, you get a very unstable sitaution which can only be corrected by using strategically placed stabilisers. That, I regret to say, is crap. What you actually get is a bow that can be held very steadily and more importantly very comfortably by any reasonably competent archer. Don't believe me? Try it and see for yourself.

Now let's shoot the uncluttered bow. What happens? Well nothing out of the ordinary. You are still holding very steadily because you have GOOD FORM, your grip is totally relaxed and perfectly placed because you have GOOD FORM and you execute a perfect release using your release aid, because you have GOOD FORM and you don't torque the bow on release because you have GOOD FORM and you know what? At the very instant of release just as the arrow is moving along and clearing the bow, if you are doing things properly and watching your sight picture carefully as you should be, you will see your sights still perfectly superimposed on the target as the arrow leaves the bow - they won't have moved at all, if you have GOOD FORM.

Now let's load the same bow down with 2 or 3 pounds of stabilisers. What is the result of this if we now fire a shot? Well nothing much will have changed except the bow will be heavier and MAY be somehwhat more stable, depending on the strength and fine muscle control of the shooter. If the shooter has GOOD FORM, all of the things I described above for the bow without stabilisation will still hold true and what will change at the moment of release? The answer is - nothing. If you have GOOD FORM and are concentrating on your sight picture, you will find that it is still perfectly superimposed on your target as the arrow leaves the bow.

The great truth here is that the arrow doesn't know that you have changed anything. All that happens to it is that it still gets the same kick in the butt of the same intensity and heads off down range. The bow string doesn't know anything different has happened because the stabilisers, thankfully, haven't slowed it down at all. All that has really happened is that the bow has become heavier and debateably more stable - if you have GOOD FORM. However at the moment of truth, ie the point at which the arrow leaves the string, if you are holding well and focussing on your sight picture you will see clearly that in terms of the bows behaviour with and without the stabilsiers NOTHING will have changed. The bow will behave identically in both cases.

How do I know this? Because I practice with and without the stabiliser on a regular basis and I KNOW that if my sight picture is perfectly superimposed on my target at the instant of release, whether I have a stabiliser fitted or not, I will have a good shot, so much so that I don't even have to scope it.

AS to why I don't load my bow down with stabilisers well it's because I don't have the strength or endurance anymore due to health problems and this is only going to get worse not better, so in order to keep going as long as possible in the sport I needed to reduce the weight of the bow as much as was feasible which is why I started experimenting with smaller and smaller stabilisers, and smaller, lighteer bows, being quite prepared to accept some loss of performance if necessary to be able to continue shooting. I was truly surprised to find that the stabilisers and the short light bow, made absolutely no difference to my performance. What I found did make a huge difference was :
1. A poor grip on the bow handle. It needs to be totally relaxed right through the shot and the hand needs to be placed in precisely the same place shot to shot. If you do this you elimiinate torque. 
2. A fairly steady hold. This is a relative term but since none of us can hold perfectly still then you practice so that you can hold as still as possible. I have been photographed with a videocamera by a friend during a demo of hold stability in slow and normal motion and it appears that I barely move the bow at all when I am on hold with or without the stabiliser.
3. A perfectly executed release with an aid that you enjoy using. By perfectly executed I mean a nice smooth relaxed break of the triggering sear. No jerks, no stabs, no punching.
4. Absolute concentration on the sight picture right through the moment of release. Most people don't do this. Most people actually blink as they fire. I learnt not to during my rifle shooting days because I needed to be able to see how the barrel was recoiling shot to shot and now I can transpose this experience and skill over to archery.

And that's about it. Do those things well and you will shoot well. There is nothing arcane or esoteric about the process at all. It's very simple, in fact, and just requires that you practice carefully the things that really matter.

And now I'm calling this diatribe quits because I've been up since 3 am and I'm longing for a cuppa tea.

See ya!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Corsair said:


> hammerheadpc
> 
> SIGH!!!!!
> Some of you guys just can't leave well enough alone.


Ditto :wink:


Corsair said:


> They can't eliminate recoil so they try to control it and make it consistent and so recoil control becomes a FORM issue not a PHYSICS issue.


Errr, no. Recoil is a rather fundamental physics issue (Newton and all that) Adjusting form is a way of compensating for the physics of recoil and the weapon. For example, guns recoil upwards for one and only one reason, because the barrel is above the fulcrum. Put the barrel below the fulcrum and the gun will recoil down. The barrel is just as accurate in a rest either way, but guns with barrels below the stock and above the stock are not equally shootable even if they have the same barel/ammo accuracy. (No doubt you could lecture on how the control of recoil benefits from certain configurations, but that is not relevant to my point.)

In the example you give, form is used to compensate for the recoil vector that is created by the arrangement of the barrel and the stock. It is physics issue. If you could create an equally accurate gun that had no recoil (you can debate the merits/possibility/impossibilty of that on your own since it is a hypothetical and the actual practicallity of such is irrelevant), there would be no form needed to compensate for recoil. Ergo: it is a physics issue.

I'll check out more of your post later


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

> Errr, no. Recoil is a rather fundamental physics issue (Newton and all that) Adjusting form is a way of compensating for the physics of recoil and the weapon.


Err, actually I believe that is precisely what I said. So why repeat it back to me?



> In the example you give, form is used to compensate for the recoil vector that is created by the arrangement of the barrel and the stock. It is physics issue.


No - you can vary the recoil and its direction by where you place the butt plate into the shoulder, how you angle it, how you rest your face on the stock, how tightly or not you grasp the forestock and pistol grip, how tight you have your sling and the postition of the sling. Unless all of these things are perfectly adjusted for YOU the shooter and *unless you set up and maintain this position perfectly from shot to shot*, the rifle will not recoil consistently. It is this issue more than any other that is the greatest problem that all shooters have, and it is a *form issue*. The form aspect comes in by virtue of having to obtain that perfect hold each time without variation.

Physics is certainly the cause of recoil force and direction as barrel placement in the stock is the cause of the degree of barrel rise (or fall) but consistency of recoil intensity and direction can ONLY be accomplished by perfecting your form.

Frankly Warbow, I think you are being overly pedantic and nitpicking in your selection of some of the phraseology I have been using, as I believe you are aware. If you want absolutely precise language from me I can give it and in the process bore everyone to death. I believe you understand clearly enough what I am saying. Pretending otherwise does you no honour:tongue:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

*OT:*


Corsair said:


> I believe you understand clearly enough what I am saying. Pretending otherwise does you no honour:tongue:


I pretend nothing Corsair, certainly no more than you.

While it is true that I can go on about clear language and reason, part of that reason is that many debates on archery forums often turn out to be based on unclear use of language or on a word that is equivocal, yet the participants have no idea that each means the word in a different way. Likewise, people sometimes form an idea in their head and think they are clearly communicating that idea when in fact they are not because their writing omits many of their assumptions.

"Accuracy" is one such equivocal word, form is another. You use the former as a term of art--a reasonable thing to do as long as your stipulative definition is defined and as long as you don't use your stipulative definition as an argument by assertion. As long as we explicitly define how we mean these terms we can avoid argument that is not substantive. Suggesting that 'I know what you are saying' even if you aren't explicitly saying it is a clear example of the opposite way of doing things. I try _not_ to imagine what you mean but, instead, go by what you have actually written. You have on at least one occasion done the opposite and _imagined_ what I said and responded to that imagined position. I wonder which is the better default position?

This isn't to say I have nothing to learn from you. Indeed, I think the opposite is true and that you are exceptionally knowledgeable--however, there is little bit of false information mixed in with the huge amounts of true information, and without a way to automatically tell which is which I must subject all of your contentions to scrutiny.

For some people, the fact that _I do learn _from their posts has the annoying effect of my learning from their writing and then pointing out that their previous comments contradict their current position. This shouldn't be a problem for them if they admit that one or the other must then be wrong, but more commonly people try to justify holding two contradictory positions simultaneously or attempt to remain silent on the contradiction. Since you haven't retracted any of your previous statements such as the over-broad assertion that identical machine rest accuracy bows means that the bows are identical for "all intents and purposes," you are in this category of people.

I try to keep my mind open, just not so much so that my brain falls out.


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Well at least I know where you are coming from now so I think I'll just leave my comment at that rather than start a real brawl.

I note that you avoided answering my points about recoil. What's wrong - getting caught up in your own rhetoric?



> Since you haven't retracted any of your previous statements such as the over-broad assertion that identical machine rest accuracy bows means that the bows are identical for "all intents and purposes," you are in this category of people.


No I won't be retracting that statement because I believe it to be true - and I don't really care what category of people that puts me in.

I've come to the conclusion that you don't believe that there is such a thing as "form" in any of the shooting sports, only Physics. Well that should be easy to prove. Pick any person on the street, give them a bow set up according to your theories, a set of decent arrows and get them to shoot 6 x 10s at 90m. Since form doesn't come into it according to you, it should be the easiest thing in the world, since physics seems to be the only thing in yours.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

All right you guys. You've gotten a good thread going here, so please don't get derailed by semantic's or artistic lingual use. Inherent accuracy vs user achievable accuracy is a worthwhile topic, so carry on:wink:


BTW longer ATA bows are better, they just *are*!:tongue:


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Hutnicks

You are no doubt correct. There are just some things I can't stand at my age and I guess this debate started heading that way some time back.

As for my contentions about bows and rifles - I can sum them up very simply. Providing a bow or rifle has proven itself to be accurate by virtue of machine rest testing and providing you have a decent set of arrows or ammo, then any shooter with good form will be able to produce good scores and will be able to do so without adding any extras to the bow or rifle.

I know this to be true because I have done it with both the bow and the rifle. All the rest - stabilisers, dampers, string speed knobs (God!) etc are just so much fancy dressing. No one really NEEDS them, if they have good form. All I say to those who disbelieve me is to try it for yourself. 
If you do have good form and can shoot really well, then if you want to add stabs etc go ahead but don't expect that they are going to affect your accuracy. They won't

The simple test for this, as I said before, is to observe the sight picture at the exact moment of release and if your form is good it will be holding steady on the aiming mark as the arrow leaves the bow. If it isn't then you've made a form mistake. This fact is true whether you have a light or heavy short or long stabilised or unstabilised bow. Again it is easily proven by trying it yourself.

End of story.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Corsair said:


> I've come to the conclusion that you don't believe that there is such a thing as "form" in any of the shooting sports, only Physics. Well that should be easy to prove. Pick any person on the street, give them a bow set up according to your theories, a set of decent arrows and get them to shoot 6 x 10s at 90m. Since form doesn't come into it according to you, it should be the easiest thing in the world, since physics seems to be the only thing in yours.


Do I really have to do your work for you? I used form in an equivocal manner without properly defining what I meant! 

The point I was trying to make is probably not so different from one you might agree with. That point was that it is the "physics" of the gun that form is designed to compensate for. If you could change the physical aspects of the gun's recoil to nill (hypothetically) then there would be no form needed to correct for this. So, two identical hypothetical guns have the same machine rest accuracy but the no recoil gun needs no form to compensate. Thus, in this hypothetical case the difference in a shooter's performance between the two guns wouldn't be based on the shooters form but on the totally different physical forces acting on the shooter. Granted, this is a hypothetical and your years of experience seem to bristle at hypotheticals.



Corsair said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Since you haven't retracted any of your previous statements such as the over-broad assertion that identical machine rest accuracy bows means that the bows are identical for "all intents and purposes," you are in this category of people.
> ...


Now I have to think you are just being obstinate. While you might reasonably assert all manner of conclusions about two guns that machine rest the same--that they are similar for purposes of maximum potential, or some other such thing--you cannot reasonably claim by any stretch of logic that they are the same for "all intents and purposes."

Perhaps our disagreement is based on an equivocal use of this phrase? I mean it literally, is in identical "for all purposes" and "for all uses and intentions." Given that two barrels with receivers can test the same but be fitted with completely different stocks and bedded with different techniques and perform differently for the same shooter, the two guns cannot be said to be literally the same for all uses and purposes when the empirical evidence conclusively contradicts such a claim.

Maybe you mean "for all intents and purposes" in a casual sense, such as "not literally the same for all intents and purposes, but generally similar in theoretical maximum ballistic accuracy?"


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Warbow


> Granted, this is a hypothetical and your years of experience seem to bristle at hypotheticals.


Only at ridiculous ones such as a 32 pound trigger pull.

When I say that two bows are identical "for all intents and purposes" I mean that they are identical from the accuracy point of view, otherwise I wouldn't be talking about them in this manner. The "intent" of the bow is to project an arrow, the "purpose" is to hit a target, so when I say that two bows are identical for all intents and purposes, what else could I possibly mean? Carrying it further, all bows are therefore the same "for all intents and purposes" What else would you use them for? Ya can't play a tune on them, ya can't saw wood with them, ya can't paint with them, ya can't paddle a canoe with them - do I need to go on?

Same with rifles. I don't think I need to elaborate further.

By the way there is one other thing I should correct you one. In your previous posts you kept at me about my using the term " all things being equal" - what I actually said was "all OTHER things being equal", (look back at those postings if you wish) which changes the meaning of what I wrote quite considerably.

I don't mind being critiqued but I do object to being misquoted.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

I think what wee need to consider here is the actual amount of work required by the archer (Bow platform) to get the bow to perform to its potential. How we measure that is another question (and to the smart arse who was about to post "in joules" don't bother).

I *prefer* the longer ATA as I find it quicker to stabilize and hold on target. At the same time I like short ATA bows for weight and compactness (anybody who's spent string time on a Hoyt appreciates light, afterward). The increased string angle and the lesser distance between the axles makes for a bow which I call twitchy, ie: I _*know*_ it wanders the X more. I liken the stability issue to a camera on a tripod if you squeeze the legs in close it is a lot less stable, much like the closer the limbs are together. I am sure the accuracy potential is there, and I shoot the shorty quite well (for me) but I am more comfortable with the long ATA for pure target work.

Incidentially I am quite taken with the concept of "Bench Rest Archery" that would indeed be a fascinating discipline. Maybe a long bipod that bolts into the stabilizer hole or something. And targets at 100 meters, lets go for the first MOA bow!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

*OT:*


Corsair said:


> By the way there is one other thing I should correct you one. In your previous posts you kept at me about my using the term " all things being equal" - what I actually said was "all OTHER things being equal", (look back at those postings if you wish) which changes the meaning of what I wrote quite considerably.
> 
> I don't mind being critiqued but I do object to being misquoted.


Naturally I apologize if you feel I've misstated your position. I was actually _paraphrasing_ you in my response--directly below my full and exact quote of your position, so I thought the paraphrasing was clear by context:


> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by Corsair
> > My point about putting a bow in a machine rest isn't to prove that one bow will perform better than another. All other things being equal you would probably find ALL bows (compounds) would perform exactly the same. What would nmake the difference is the bow/arrow combination just as it is with a rifle - it isn't the rifle per se, it's the rifle/ammo combination that matters.
> 
> ...


So, as I've said I'm happy to update my positions to the latest information or objections:



> "That's a bit of a tautology. Of course "All other things being equal" all bows will perform the same--because "All other things [are] equal," by your definition."


Funny, it still seems to make the same point! 

Now, of course _you_ would never misstate _my_ position, would you?
[Dreamy Flashback]


> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by Corsair
> > If you want to believe that a bow suddenly transforms itself into a great or lousy shooting machine in the hands of the individual archer, then please, be my guest.
> 
> ...


[/Dreamy Flashback]
Me thinks thou dost protest to much...


Corsair said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Granted, this is a hypothetical and your years of experience seem to bristle at hypotheticals.
> ...


That was an example of reductio ad absurdum or proof by contradiction. In such a case I used an exaggerated example to make the point clearer, however it is still a valid proof by contradiction even in a less extreme version so the extremely high value is not legitimately objectionable regardless of whether the example was a realistic one or not.


Corsair said:


> When I say that two bows are identical "for all intents and purposes" I mean that they are identical from the accuracy point of view, otherwise I wouldn't be talking about them in this manner.


Then what you should say is "they are identical from the accuracy point of view" and not say "for all intents and purposes" since accuracy is only _one _intent and purpose not _all_ intents and purposes.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Hutnicks said:


> Incidentially I am quite taken with the concept of "Bench Rest Archery" that would indeed be a fascinating discipline. Maybe a long bipod that bolts into the stabilizer hole or something. And targets at 100 meters, lets go for the first MOA bow!


Just turn your adjustable V-Bar down with the appropriate length stabilizers. 

What exactly is the best machine rest accuracy recorded for a bow?


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Warbow said:


> Just turn your adjustable V-Bar down with the appropriate length stabilizers.
> 
> What exactly is the best machine rest accuracy recorded for a bow?


 I was actually thinking of an old Slik tripod I have lying around. Weighs a metric tonne, and you could probably jack up an SUV with it.

I have no idea. It would certainly be a great topic for a hooter shooter test. I keep hearing that all bows will shoot x's all day long, but have not seen any actual scoring. It would be interesting to start moving the ranges out and see how they all fare when really pushed. Most of the test are 20M and that proves all bows are equal at 20M period. I have also asked for some testing of older bows like the sl50 and no one has expressed any interest in that


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Hutnicks said:


> I was actually thinking of an old Slik tripod I have lying around. Weighs a metric tonne, and you could probably jack up an SUV with it.
> 
> I have no idea. It would certainly be a great topic for a hooter shooter test. I keep hearing that all bows will shoot x's all day long, but have not seen any actual scoring. It would be interesting to start moving the ranges out and see how they all fare when really pushed. Most of the test are 20M and that proves all bows are equal at 20M period. I have also asked for some testing of older bows like the sl50 and no one has expressed any interest in that


I'll still put in a vote for dueling Hooter Shooters. I think that could be a great hobby for someone as detail oriented as match rifle shooter like Corsair.


----------



## hammerheadpc (Mar 15, 2006)

I know you are, but what am i?

:wink:

Corsair and Warbow.

2 doods i'd like to meet, have a beer with and discuss the relative accuracy of carbon vs aluminum arrows.

:darkbeer:


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

Hutnicks said:


> I keep hearing that all bows will shoot x's all day long, but have not seen any actual scoring. It would be interesting to start moving the ranges out and see how they all fare when really pushed. Most of the test are 20M and that proves all bows are equal at 20M period. I have also asked for some testing of older bows like the sl50 and no one has expressed any interest in that


Author James Park has a Hooter Shooter and has done lots of shooting with it at long range. At 90m he shot a 180/180 with it outdoors but got bored. LOL. 
He said it was pretty easy to keep em in the X on an 80cm face at 70m. 
I did a fair bit of shooting with my setup at 70m on a small face and could keep them grouped in the 10 with the HS. 
The killer is drift and also it is difficult to aim them well, takes some practice. 
It is pretty easy to shoot well with the HS, but IMHO that is a waste of the tool. You can test so many other things with it such as the effect of facial contact, release angles and hook styles, creeping and pulling into the wall, etc.


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

> I'll still put in a vote for dueling Hooter Shooters. I think that could be a great hobby for someone as detail oriented as match rifle shooter like Corsair.


Just for the record, I've tried bench rest shooting briefly but to be honest I found it boring in the extreme.

I much prefferred 3P while I was fit. It's the personal/instrument thing that I enjoy. Same with archery. I love the feel of the bow at full draw, the release and the special feeling you get when you make a really good shot.

I think you'd find "bech rest" as a form of competition using HS would bore you all to tears very quickly. It's a good rig for testing various things just as Marcus said.

Marcus

Interesting results for James and his testing. Does he intend ever publishing his findings or is it a work still in progress?

hammerheaddoc

It'd be great if we could all get together for a drink and discuss a wide range of aspects of our sport. Would be great, but, regrettably, unlikely to ever happen.

Cheers:darkbeer::darkbeer::darkbeer:


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Corsair said:


> Just for the record, I've tried bench rest shooting briefly but to be honest I found it boring in the extreme.
> 
> I much prefferred 3P while I was fit. It's the personal/instrument thing that I enjoy. Same with archery. I love the feel of the bow at full draw, the release and the special feeling you get when you make a really good shot.
> 
> I think you'd find "bech rest" as a form of competition using HS would bore you all to tears very quickly. It's a good rig for testing various things just as Marcus said.


I'm sure you are correct  When I referred to you as detail oriented, I consider it a good thing in an archer and a rifle shooter.

Now back to important things  Happy Shooting!

Cheers,


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Marcus said:


> Author James Park has a Hooter Shooter and has done lots of shooting with it at long range. At 90m he shot a 180/180 with it outdoors but got bored. LOL.
> He said it was pretty easy to keep em in the X on an 80cm face at 70m.
> I did a fair bit of shooting with my setup at 70m on a small face and could keep them grouped in the 10 with the HS.
> The killer is drift and also it is difficult to aim them well, takes some practice.
> It is pretty easy to shoot well with the HS, but IMHO that is a waste of the tool. You can test so many other things with it such as the effect of facial contact, release angles and hook styles, creeping and pulling into the wall, etc.


Marcus, I for one would not want to have to keep moving that contraption around and anchoring it for every shot. I'd do it, but I'd gripe about it all day long However we wouldn't have known that that type of testing was going to yield low value data until it was tried. Now that we know I partially concur with your assessment. There are indeed better uses of the tool for testing. When you refer to hook style are you inferring that you solved the problem of testing recurves in the HS or are you referring the the release hook of a compound?

Pass my thanks on the Mr. Park, and it would be great to see published results:thumbs_up


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Corsair said:


> Just for the record, I've tried bench rest shooting briefly but to be honest I found it boring in the extreme.
> 
> I much prefferred 3P while I was fit. It's the personal/instrument thing that I enjoy. Same with archery. I love the feel of the bow at full draw, the release and the special feeling you get when you make a really good shot.
> 
> ...


Truth be told the one thing that would interest me given the new generation of equipment available would be a combination of flight and clout. The performance of a flight bow put to an accuracy test at an extreme range, say 200 to 300 yards. The ballistics and environmental problems are intriguing:tongue:
Then again it would probably incite some whacked out bowhunter to take a 225 yard shot on some poor critter


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Hutnicks

I'd love to try my hand at flight archery but the distance required for it makes finding a suitable venue a bit difficult.

In a way, I suppose what would appeal as a compromise is what you suggest or limiting the flight bows to a certain weight and thereby making people come up with creative solutions for the arrows to get max distance at that weight. Arrow design and their performance fascinate me.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Corsair said:


> Hutnicks
> 
> I'd love to try my hand at flight archery but the distance required for it makes finding a suitable venue a bit difficult.
> 
> In a way, I suppose what would appeal as a compromise is what you suggest or limiting the flight bows to a certain weight and thereby making people come up with creative solutions for the arrows to get max distance at that weight. Arrow design and their performance fascinate me.


Long hike to the Western Desert?

I would really love to see the limits of the technology today. There are no real venues which currently test the limits, and flight has decayed into an arcane art due to the space limits you mentioned. I think there is a whole life for archery out at the extreme limits, and it would be neat to see the technology driven there.


----------



## Marcus (Jun 19, 2002)

He may publish some of his findings, he does have a new book coming out soon that covers some of his HS testing. 
Hook refers to the release aid. 

We shoot Flight archery sometimes out at an airstrip here in Victoria. 2.5 hour drive, shoot 6 arrows, find em, drive home again. 
My PB was 527m with a 70lb Hoyt Cybertec and a 550 X10 and 298m with a 70lb longbow and a 410 X10. James shot 410m with a 90lb longbow and an X10. Impressive distance from a bent stick.


----------



## Hutnicks (Feb 9, 2006)

Marcus said:


> He may publish some of his findings, he does have a new book coming out soon that covers some of his HS testing.
> Hook refers to the release aid.
> 
> We shoot Flight archery sometimes out at an airstrip here in Victoria. 2.5 hour drive, shoot 6 arrows, find em, drive home again.
> My PB was 527m with a 70lb Hoyt Cybertec and a 550 X10 and 298m with a 70lb longbow and a 410 X10. James shot 410m with a 90lb longbow and an X10. Impressive distance from a bent stick.


Look forward to the book. Do subscribers to your site get a discount?

Yes 410 meters is quite impressive. We've progressed how far since the Medieval ages?


----------



## Corsair (Nov 21, 2005)

Marcus



> He may publish some of his findings, he does have a new book coming out soon that covers some of his HS testing.
> Hook refers to the release aid.


Be great if he does. I'd buy one gladly.



> We shoot Flight archery sometimes out at an airstrip here in Victoria. 2.5 hour drive, shoot 6 arrows, find em, drive home again.
> My PB was 527m with a 70lb Hoyt Cybertec and a 550 X10 and 298m with a 70lb longbow and a 410 X10. James shot 410m with a 90lb longbow and an X10. Impressive distance from a bent stick.


Amazing distances for the equipment concerned. RE the venue - hell of a way to have to get a shot though. THAT'S dedication!!


----------

