# My competition sight tape method, Padett



## Padgett

Now for the good stuff, I have been studying sight tapes for years and I have found that there are some things that you absolutely positively do not want to do and the biggest mistake is.

SETTING THE NEEDLE WHEN YOU ARE AT 20 YARDS, just don't freaking do it because it is to easy to hit the 12 ring at 20 yards when you stinking sight is off by as much as 2 yards hot or cold and you will suffer thinking that something is wrong. Well something is wrong, you don't set the needle when you are at stinking 20 yards, you should do it at a longer distance where things are easier to see when slightly off.

Now in the beginning I would leave my needle set perfect at 60 yards but being a math teacher and studying my needle and the sight tape I got to thinking about making the whole set up more FORGIVING, and after studying it for a while I saw something in my mind and on the sight.

I was a open a guy and now am a semi pro guy and most of my shots are right at 40 yards so why not set the sight to where it is absolutely perfect at 40 yards so that as you move away from 40 yards if the sight tape is a little off as you leave the 40 yard setting the problem spreads from a perfect 40 needle setting to the two extreme distances away from 40 at 20 and 50 yards. 

Think about it, if you had to choose between 20 or 60 then 60 yards is the better choice because 60 is going to show you a better accurate needle setting but if you choose 60 get it perfect but the sight tape is wrong being a little to short or long then all the way from 60 to 20 yards every one of those distances are progressively worse all the way to 20 yards being the worst problem. Likewise, by setting the needle at 20 yards is going to cause you to have two big issues. If you don't get it dead on perfect at 20 and the sight tape is a little long or short then you have two issues getting worse the farther back you go to 60 yards.

By setting the needle when you are shooting at 40 yards as your perfect distance you are picking a normally used yardage that you shoot a bulk of your shots for the tournament and from there to 50 is only 10 yards for the problem to get worse and 20 total yards from there to 20 for it to get worse so you have set your sight needle to a very forgiving setup.


----------



## harley36

Great post how do you make the water proof tapes when you are ready to install your final tape?


----------



## Padgett

So for a guy in the known 45 class i would still suggest making the sight tape using 20 to 60 yards as the two numbers to generate a good sight tape for the first week and then I would ask myself what the average distance shot was for that class and I have a feeling that it is around 36 yards and that would be the distance that I would set my sight tape needle to make it a forgiving setting.


----------



## cbrunson

If you start out a full turn below max on your limbs you can also fine tune with your limb bolts. The diffierence in speed isn't enough to worry about.


----------



## grantmac

For those of us who like free, the Xsight 1.5 program will produce a decent tape from shot-in marks.

You definitely have to go out and shoot it though and I don't trust it for marks beyond what you've shot in.

-Grant


----------



## Padgett

I don't have a lazer printer but I bought some water proof labels at office depot and some actual laminate, once I get the tape finalized after a week of shooting then I print off a good one on the water proof label and I cut it out with scissors to the perfect size. 

Now for the important part, You peel the laminate backing and put the not sticky side down on the table and you lay the sight tape face down on the laminate and it doesn't have to be perfect because now you are going to trim off the laminate right next to the edges of the sight tape on both sides and I personally leave about 1/8 inch of laminate on top and bottom of the sight tape. 

Then peel the backing off the sight tape and put it on your sight and you are good to go, what I really like about this system of doing it is that real laminate is way tougher than scotch tape or packing tape and if I want to peel off my sight tape and move it I can without it tearing or doing something weird. With scotch tape or packing tape they are both so easy to screw up that it is basically one and done with them.


----------



## Lazarus

I have yet to print a sight tape, I shoot my marks in, so this is a beginners question.

I get how your 20 yard mark could be easily screwed up because it's so close. So why not use, say, 40 and 90 to print a tape? I ask because I might start printing tapes if someone can convince me it's more accurate than shooting them in. (which I've never found to be a bad practice.)


----------



## Padgett

Lazarus, I was just like you back when I fist got a surelock with a scope and I totally made my own marks and I spent a lot of time trying to get them perfect. In fact I was winning a lot of local stuff with them so I really believed that they were spot on. All I can tell you is that the minute that i finally dropped the 15 bucks and made my first sight tape with TaPeS I saw the truth for the first time and even though I was really confident in my hand made ones the confidence I have in my real sight tapes made the way I described above is way way way more.

One of the things that I have learned being a 3d unknown shooter is that our bows can win tournaments even when things aren't right and in fact many times I don't really want to know the truth because my yardage judging and sight needle are working together and producing really good shots. I know a few years ago that I showed up to a state shoot and shot about 14 up on the unknown side and on the known side I shot 4 down because I kept ranging the targets and shooting out the bottom and by the time I realized the problem it was to late to catch up. I got home and my bow was shooting about 1 inch low at every yardage but when I was guessing my brain was compensating for the poorly set up bow.

I also didn't really say it in my original post but the reason I spend a week making a final sight tape is because I have learned over and over that just because I am dead on one day at some distance doesn't mean that it is sighted in. There are days where for some reason I am at 50 yards and my pin is settling on the 12 ring a little high or low every shot maybe because of the glare or shade and the next day I am totally hitting different. That is why I go to 60 yards for a week and make sure that it is consistently hitting dead on and then go straight to 20 without messing around in the middle and shoot at 20 to see if I am good to go. a Week to me seems to be a good amount of time to get things right.

Now, why do I not make my sight tapes out to 100 yards. Because I really don't ever shoot out there and in the back of my mind I want to narrow down my variables just a little. I know that a arrow really starts to loose a lot of elevation past 50 yards and on its way to 90 or 100 yards the drag on the feathers is having huge effects on how much drop the arrow is having and since I don't shoot out that far I just don't have the confidence or need for my sight tape to go that far. So, I do it from 60 to 20 yards which is where I spend most of my time.

I do shoot out to 70 or so yards sometimes when at a friends house or in the summer at my house but that is about it.


----------



## Padgett

Lazarus, another reason is the fact that i shoot for hours a day every day and I go to a lot of shoots and I really think that my sight tapes actually help me with the way I make them look. I have good vision but when I print them on water proof labels the ink just pops out like a beacon and I can see them very easily, I also only have a line for every 2 yards so to shoot a target for 31 I split the gap between 30 and 32. I simply never really have problems with setting my sight to the wrong distance like some people because I really think my sight takes care of me by being idiot proof.


----------



## Lazarus

Fair enough. Good explanation. Thanks! A few points for discussion probably but no need for it. It's good to see other folks outlook on things. 

I'll prolly keep shooting mine in. I'm pretty confident in that. I would like to have one of those pretty tapes though.


----------



## Padgett

I just got sick of my cpxl after shooting it since august and after sundays 3d shoot I stripped it down and put everything on my old specialist, I know that there is no way they are shooting the same speed but I stood at 40 yards and set my needle on the cpxl sight tape and it is hitting dead on at all of my normal distances. Over the next week or so I will shoot at 60 and then 20 to verify if the tape needs to be a little longer or shorter and then I will make a good one.


----------



## Padgett

I just noticed that I didn't spell my own freaking name right in the title of this thread, I suck at spelling.


----------



## Lazarus

Padgett said:


> I just noticed that I didn't spell my own freaking name right in the title of this thread, I suck at spelling.


:lol: Since it was your own name I'd rather think it was typing you sucked at. I would hope anyway. :teeth:


----------



## ar1220

Very good read as usual padgett


----------



## SonnyThomas

How are your black yardage marks as per distance, 1 yard, 5 yards? 

Just wondering as the Brown Program can print a "cheat sheet" to your scale in 1 yard increments. ASA legal, you don't have to cover your scale as it isn't marked for yardage. And the Brown program is free.....
You use 3 sight input yards, like, 20, 25, and 35 yards. These are dead nuts because you sighted in. The program then prints out a "cheat sheet" for every yard, 15 thru 54 yards. You may use more than 3 sight in yardages. I've used 4 and 5. Like any program the more accurate you are the more accurate the yardages.... I dial in 23 yards for a 23 yard target and it's dead nuts. The "cheat sheet" is about the size of a credit card.
Example; Cheat sheet for 23 yards gives 28.11. Sure Loc sight scale, grid mark 28 and 11 clicks. 

It also will print a sight tape, but I've never used it.


----------



## cbrunson

Lazarus said:


> I have yet to print a sight tape, I shoot my marks in, so this is a beginners question.
> 
> I get how your 20 yard mark could be easily screwed up because it's so close. So why not use, say, 40 and 90 to print a tape? I ask because I might start printing tapes if someone can convince me it's more accurate than shooting them in. (which I've never found to be a bad practice.)


My take on it is this, I shoot a lot of known yardage and a little unknown. If it ranges at 49.5 yards, I set the little needle on my sight at 49.5 yards. If it is about a 25 deg up or down angle, I'll set it at 48.5 yards. I used my own marks for a couple years and then after making my first one, I'll keep doing it. Well worth the time spent IMO. 

I shoot in every ten yards and then compare the tapes with my marks. I put more trust on the longer yardages unless something is way off, then I'll go reshoot it.


----------



## redman

great info


----------



## thunderbolt

Maybe it's just me, but for setting 2 marks to enter into the software, I use 30 yds and 60 yds. It is way too easy to be off quite a bit at 20 and still be in the dot, which leads to an inaccurate tape. Another way is to use a horizontal tape line on the target instead of a dot. Makes for more precise vertical settings on your sight in less time.


----------



## jhinaz

thunderbolt said:


> Maybe it's just me, but for setting 2 marks to enter into the software, I use 30 yds and 60 yds. It is way too easy to be off quite a bit at 20 and still be in the dot, which leads to an inaccurate tape.


Perry (Archer's Advantage software developer) recommends 30yds instead of 20yds for this same reason; too easy to be off at 20yds and *still *be in the dot. - John


----------



## SonnyThomas

thunderbolt said:


> Maybe it's just me, but for setting 2 marks to enter into the software, I use 30 yds and 60 yds. It is way too easy to be off quite a bit at 20 and still be in the dot, which leads to an inaccurate tape. Another way is to use a horizontal tape line on the target instead of a dot. Makes for more precise vertical settings on your sight in less time.


What I use.


----------



## wolf44

if your max distance is 50 yds, why would you want to set your tape off of your 60yd mark? Its not that big of a deal if you are shooting a heavy arrow without much vane to slow it down, but with a relatively light arrow(that most people use for 3d) and a higher profile vane(which most people use for 3d), anything over 50 the vane slows the arrow down a ton. Unless you can take that into account with your tapes program you middle distances will be off using 20/60 with a light arrow/high profile vane combo. It will show a "slower" arrow than you're actually getting out of your bow. 

I personally if I'm using an actual tape I will get my 20/50 marks and find the corresponding tape. after I am 100% sure my 50 is correct I will set my needle. I'll check my 20 to make sure that is on, then I use my middle distance(35yds) to check the validity of the rest of my tape. If my 35 is hot, my tape need to be "slower" vice versa if its low. Like you said a few clicks at 35 will make a bigger difference than a few clicks at 20.

My perfered method is to use an ipod touch, archers mark, and the sight scale on the back side of my sight. No need for a tape magnifier, you can be click perfect, and you can adjust on the fly if need be. way easier to use than a tape and you can print off sight cards for back ups if your ipod happens to malfunction


----------



## grantmac

Lazarus said:


> Fair enough. Good explanation. Thanks! A few points for discussion probably but no need for it. It's good to see other folks outlook on things.
> 
> I'll prolly keep shooting mine in. I'm pretty confident in that. I would like to have one of those pretty tapes though.


Try Xsight:
http://www.huntsvillearcheryclub.com/xsight.htm

It's stupid simple, uses your marks and produces a nice clean tape.

-Grant


----------



## SonnyThomas

grantmac said:


> Try Xsight:
> http://www.huntsvillearcheryclub.com/xsight.htm
> 
> It's stupid simple, uses your marks and produces a nice clean tape.
> 
> -Grant


What I use. XSight by Richard C. Brown


----------



## yeroc

Padgett said:


> I just noticed that I didn't spell my own freaking name right in the title of this thread, I suck at spelling.


im still laughing over this lmfao!!!


----------



## field14

I use OT2 and FIVE distances. Then I run the iterations that the program allows to compare each site mark to all the others and it corrects them for you. I then look at the "bad one" and go out and shoot it again, just to be sure.
*HUGE MISTAKES TO AVOID*: 
ALWAYS 'count the clicks' between numbers! if your setting on the scribed numbers side of your site bar is 36 and "some", then you MUST put in how many clicks past 36 and enter that complete number into OT2 (or any other program you use). 
NEVER use a chronnie for anything regarding site tapes other than to get you onto the paper! OT2 and AA both recommend using a chronnie reading as a last resort.
NEVER move your indicator pin once you start doing your 'numbers' or sighting in.
NEVER use 20 yards as one of two marks if your program only gives you two options!
ALWAYS shoot at a horizontal piece of tape across the target and set the site in clicks until you get ALL your shots to impact within the top and bottom of that horizontal piece of tape. I use 1/2" wide tape at 30 yards and 1" wide tape at 65 yards. I don't shoot for "groups" I shoot for vertical displacement, since that is what "numbers" you are after
NEVER "round up or round down", again, those "clicks" are important.
ALWAYS have a written back up of those site marks! You never know when/if the tape could come loose or even fall off. If you don't have an extra set of "numbers" you are screwed.

I only use the site tape as a backup. I have a placard on the same side of the site as the scribed numbers that I originated the settings from. My placard has those numbers on it for the yardages I used for FIELD and for HUNTER rounds. My spare is in my quiver and has all the yardage settings (numbers and clicks) from 2 to 100 yards. For my 3-D site, I also use a placard, but I only have settings on the placard for up to 60 yards, and it is easy to interpolate if I go every 2 or 4 yards on the placard.
I have my placard size done in Excel and my "numbers" are color coded: BLUE for Field, Red for Hunter. For the 3-D site settings, BLACK are the 5 yard increments, you know, 10, 15, 20, 25, and RED are the intervals. Obviously once I get out to 35 yards, I tighten up the intervals to one yard increments, ha.

This is all explained in "ProActive Archery". Google it, and you'll find it easily. "ProActive Archery" is now also available in Kindle format.

field14 (Tom D)


----------



## tmorelli

I go about this the simplest, most dumbed down way possible. 

I use the preprinted sheets of tapes available from CBE, Lancaster, LP, etc.

I "rough in" a 20-30 and a 50-60 (just a short and a long....not overly important). Then I select a tape that matches that spread. Then, I shoot it for a while. I can pretty quickly tell if it is long or short and if it is, I'll go to the next tape. 

As wolf44 said, on some of my high-drag 3d arrows, if I go too long for the long mark, I will always end up with a tape that is hot in the middle so I tend to set my 3d long mark at about 53-55 yards.

For my field/hunting arrows, I rarely have any trouble using a 20&60 (or more) and getting a tape that is really close to 100+....and like my 3d bows, if it proves out long/short, I just stick the next one in its place.


----------



## EPLC

This reminds me, I need to make a tape for my new Dominator Pro. The entire process takes about 1/2 hour with Archers Advantage. First I get a good sight setting at 7 yards, then I use a Chronograph to get my speed, feed the bow specs into the SW along with the speed and spit out a tape. I set the pin to whatever 21 feet equals in yardage and go shooting. I'll fine tune my needle setting at 30 yards and adjust if needed. I've had a couple of occasions where I was off a tad but this is a rare happening. I shoot a lot of Field so I know my tapes are correct right away.


----------



## Padgett

Sweet, I am so glad that some guys are giving their personal methods for making sight tapes. I have only been making them for probably 5 years and am still learning the tricks. I think that the one thing that was said that is really making me think was wolf44 when he asked me why are you using 60 yards as your long distance when your max yardage is 50. 

Well crap, I don't have a stinking good reason. I guess that just using my common sense approach the wider the gap between the two numbers you choose to make the sight tape on my program the better the sight tape you are going to get but there is a limit to me where you might cause issues. So I guess to me since my max is 50 by going to 60 to help myself print my sight tape along with 20 yards just seems like a good idea but I do agree with you that the drag of the fletching and I do use 2 inch shield cut feathers could cause issues as the distance stretches out.

The one thing that many of the guys mentioned is that using 20 as one of the numbers is a bad idea because you can hit pretty much dead on even when it is off by as many as two or three yards and that is why I spend a week going from 60 to 20 yards and checking it over and over. The problem I have with 20 yards is that it is so freaking important to me in competition that I need to trust it, even though in open a and semi pro the 20 yard shot may only happen one time per weekend when I do have that shot I have to know that it is dead on perfect. So that is why I don't use lets say 60 and 30 to make my sight tapes, I don't know I may have to go ahead and do some thinking.

You know I just set up my old specialist because I am sick of my cpxl and I am going to have to make a good sight tape for it in the next week or so and I may do two of them and see how they turn out. I am going to make one of them normally by doing the 60 20 yardages and I am going to do 50 30 for the other one and when I am done I can compare them and see how similar they turn out. I wouldn't be surprised if they were exactly the same.


----------



## JV NC

I don't think I'm good enough at 60yds to be as accurate as my TAPES program is. But, I use it (60 yd mark) and 30yds to get me in the ballpark. After that (I shoot max 40yd class), I tweak it with ydgs I AM confident at to see how accurate my tapes are. It usually takes me 4-5 tries, but when I finish I'm good to the yd or so (at least I am in my head.....which is more than half the battle).

My program cost me $15. I have packing tape at the house, and I make my own "waterproof" tapes by cutting down strips of packing tape before applying. 

All of this (using the programs) assumes you have a printer available to the machine you have the program on.....because you can only load it onto one machine.


----------



## EPLC

field14 said:


> I use OT2 and FIVE distances. Then I run the iterations that the program allows to compare each site mark to all the others and it corrects them for you. I then look at the "bad one" and go out and shoot it again, just to be sure.
> *HUGE MISTAKES TO AVOID*:
> ALWAYS 'count the clicks' between numbers! if your setting on the scribed numbers side of your site bar is 36 and "some", then you MUST put in how many clicks past 36 and enter that complete number into OT2 (or any other program you use).
> NEVER use a chronnie for anything regarding site tapes other than to get you onto the paper! OT2 and AA both recommend using a chronnie reading as a last resort.
> NEVER move your indicator pin once you start doing your 'numbers' or sighting in.
> NEVER use 20 yards as one of two marks if your program only gives you two options!
> ALWAYS shoot at a horizontal piece of tape across the target and set the site in clicks until you get ALL your shots to impact within the top and bottom of that horizontal piece of tape. I use 1/2" wide tape at 30 yards and 1" wide tape at 65 yards. I don't shoot for "groups" I shoot for vertical displacement, since that is what "numbers" you are after
> NEVER "round up or round down", again, those "clicks" are important.
> ALWAYS have a written back up of those site marks! You never know when/if the tape could come loose or even fall off. If you don't have an extra set of "numbers" you are screwed.
> 
> I only use the site tape as a backup. I have a placard on the same side of the site as the scribed numbers that I originated the settings from. My placard has those numbers on it for the yardages I used for FIELD and for HUNTER rounds. My spare is in my quiver and has all the yardage settings (numbers and clicks) from 2 to 100 yards. For my 3-D site, I also use a placard, but I only have settings on the placard for up to 60 yards, and it is easy to interpolate if I go every 2 or 4 yards on the placard.
> I have my placard size done in Excel and my "numbers" are color coded: BLUE for Field, Red for Hunter. For the 3-D site settings, BLACK are the 5 yard increments, you know, 10, 15, 20, 25, and RED are the intervals. Obviously once I get out to 35 yards, I tighten up the intervals to one yard increments, ha.
> 
> This is all explained in "ProActive Archery". Google it, and you'll find it easily. "ProActive Archery" is now also available in Kindle format.
> 
> field14 (Tom D)


I use a chrony all the time to make my tapes. It's all about process Tom, if you have a good one then they work just fine. As far as tape being used as backup only? Why would you want to do that except due to a lack of trust in modern technology?


----------



## Padgett

I think that if I was a field shooter where I had to be good to go from very short distances to 100 yards I would consider field14's method of generating a card that I could be much more precise with counting click on my sight. My method for producing a sight tape is for unknown 3d which is my primary game that I play and for me when I am shooting a competition I really never have my bow dead on because I am guessing the distance and also adding safety yardage to my guess to stay in the 10 ring.

I do know that my friend Sam who is a multi time shooter of the year known 50 shooter that he makes sight tapes with the two known distances method, in fact he is the one who told me about it a few years ago. I haven't asked him how he makes them since then so he may have changed but knowing sam he probably hasn't.


----------



## redman

I like to use 30 yards and 65 yards to get my sight tape' and use The Archery Program' and use preprinted sight tapes . For field shooting 30y and 65 yards will get you a good set of marks .


----------



## shawn_in_MA

I shoot 30 and 60, find the matching LAS, or CBE tape and then check it at all distances (in 10yd increments) out to 100. I will often shoot at 80, then move right up to 20...it doesn't let your mind compensate if you know in your mind that your tape is just off. I've used this for Field, Redding, Full Fita and 3-D...I have not found a preprinted tape yet that doesn't work.


----------



## Padgett

Somebody mentioned the pre made ones from cbe or lancasters and they are nice and get the job done, i have a buddy that likes them and he trims them with scissors and then attaches them and you just pick the one that matches your two known distances. My problem with them is that they have marks every yard and it makes it hard to see and not screw up when setting distances because there are so many little lines.


----------



## rohpenguins

I set my peep height and sight radius where I am perfectly centered at 40 yards. I make marks for 30 and 60 yards from that reference point. I used to use 20 and 50 but have found that the 30 and 60 yard distances produce the more accurate tapes for me. I use a caliper to record the spread and input the data into a program and position the tape from there. I then check all my marks out to 80 yards in 5 yard increments. I don't use a chrono because the sight radius will effect the results you cannot make a tape for say 300 f/sec that is going to work on every setup.


----------



## EPLC

Padgett said:


> I think that if I was a field shooter where I had to be good to go from very short distances to 100 yards I would consider field14's method of generating a card that I could be much more precise with counting click on my sight. My method for producing a sight tape is for unknown 3d which is my primary game that I play and for me when I am shooting a competition I really never have my bow dead on because I am guessing the distance and also adding safety yardage to my guess to stay in the 10 ring.
> 
> I do know that my friend Sam who is a multi time shooter of the year known 50 shooter that he makes sight tapes with the two known distances method, in fact he is the one who told me about it a few years ago. I haven't asked him how he makes them since then so he may have changed but knowing sam he probably hasn't.


Well I "am" a field shooter and the programs that cut tapes far surpass any outdated method you can come up with. I watch some of these "refuse to change" shooters struggle with their "marks" and their "charts" constantly over the entire season. More mistakes are made using these "charts" than anyone using a computer generated tape, so long as the tape was created correctly. Why make this more difficult than it really is? We have advise that says "don't do this or that, on and on" and then when you're done don't trust the tape? Give me a break.


----------



## 60435

one thing I learned is to set your sight to your indexing point , this should be where you can hit the same hole repeatedly. Some where between 13 and 20 yards , and use this when you warm up adjust your needle here and leave it. if you do this at the beginning of a tournament you can be confident that your shot is going to be right on at all ranges. trying to set your needle at 60 is asking for trouble you cant hit the same arrow hole at 60 consistently your sight tape (arrow speed) does not change day to day , your ability to shoot does , if your bow is tuned to hit dead center @your index point and as close as possible at 80 it should never change, I have been using the same tape for 3 years the only thing I do in the spring is what im doing now is fine tune it with the limb bolts. if from day to day you have a 6 inch difference @80yds its your form . the math dosnt lie and arrows don't change speed to any noticeable extent. Im able to shoot in the 550s doing this . I rarely change my needle, if I need to im looking at the bow. I haven't cleaned a field yet but I thing this may be the year. last year I shot 2-558s hunter rounds missing on the same bale 28 yards both times all 4 arrows 1/2 inch right


----------



## EPLC

60435 said:


> one thing I learned is to set your sight to your indexing point , this should be where you can hit the same hole repeatedly. Some where between 13 and 20 yards , and use this when you warm up adjust your needle here and leave it. if you do this at the beginning of a tournament you can be confident that your shot is going to be right on at all ranges. trying to set your needle at 60 is asking for trouble you cant hit the same arrow hole at 60 consistently your sight tape (arrow speed) does not change day to day , your ability to shoot does , if your bow is tuned to hit dead center @your index point and as close as possible at 80 it should never change, I have been using the same tape for 3 years the only thing I do in the spring is what im doing now is fine tune it with the limb bolts. if from day to day you have a 6 inch difference @80yds its your form . the math dosnt lie and arrows don't change speed to any noticeable extent. Im able to shoot in the 550s doing this . I rarely change my needle, if I need to im looking at the bow


I generally set mine at 30 but this may actually be a better method. Thanks.


----------



## Padgett

Eplc, i am more than on board with using a sight tape for any of my shooting that I may do. Actually I haven't thought about being good from 20 to 100 yards for some time but to me I think that I would make two different ones and put one on each side. Since my program needs two distances and i use 20 to 60 yards for my shots there then I could use 60 and 100 for the other sight tape instead of doing a whole one from 20 to 100. Then just mount it on the other side of the sight and use the other needle, Obviously the 60yd setting both needles could match up and go from there.

In fact from 60 to 100 it would be nice to have a mark for every yard instead of every other yard since things are spreading out nicely with the longer distance.


----------



## tmorelli

LP makes some sight tapes that have 2.5 yard marks and alternating colors (on the 5's or 10's). They also are available in black background or white back ground. You might check them out at a shoot in the future.


----------



## 60435

that's just ridicules, this is how a sight tape looks individual hash marks from 13 to105 yds, my furthest programed yardage is 50 yards(my longest consistently accurate shot in the x). I also use a scale on the bow the gives me exact settings from 1yd to 15 yd 1yd increments. i also carry angle cuts as a quick reference for making up hill and down hill adjustments.


Padgett said:


> Eplc, i am more than on board with using a sight tape for any of my shooting that I may do. Actually I haven't thought about being good from 20 to 100 yards for some time but to me I think that I would make two different ones and put one on each side. Since my program needs two distances and i use 20 to 60 yards for my shots there then I could use 60 and 100 for the other sight tape instead of doing a whole one from 20 to 100. Then just mount it on the other side of the sight and use the other needle, Obviously the 60yd setting both needles could match up and go from there.
> 
> In fact from 60 to 100 it would be nice to have a mark for every yard instead of every other yard since things are spreading out nicely with the longer distance.


----------



## SonnyThomas

When shooting Field I shot in every distance. Quite a bit of shooting, but it proved worth it.


----------



## 60435

software for archers, is what I use its simple accurate and cheep, simply print out on plain paper back with a piece of double sided tape cut out-apply and cover with a piece of clear cellophane tape , print out cut charts and manual sight settings to match tape. anyone serious at all about archery should have a taps program they are dead nuts accurate the math doesn't lie


tmorelli said:


> LP makes some sight tapes that have 2.5 yard marks and alternating colors (on the 5's or 10's). They also are available in black background or white back ground. You might check them out at a shoot in the future.


----------



## 60435

sonny that's a very hard and inaccurate way to go but I guess old dogs do what they do.
you have to shoot very accurate at a whole lot of ranges , technically if you can hit the same hole @15yds and the same hole @30 yds the program will have you good out to 100


SonnyThomas said:


> When shooting Field I shot in every distance. Quite a bit of shooting, but it proved worth it.


----------



## redman

For me shooting field I use a Leupold RX-1200i TBR Rangefinder with DNA I find it better then using cut chart . Fast and easy


----------



## 60435

your not going to beat a cut chart for accuracy its pure math


redman said:


> For me shooting field I use a Leupold RX-1200i TBR Rangefinder with DNA I find it better then using cut chart . Fast and easy


----------



## tmorelli

60435 said:


> software for archers, is what I use its simple accurate and cheep, simply print out on plain paper back with a piece of double sided tape cut out-apply and cover with a piece of clear cellophane tape , print out cut charts and manual sight settings to match tape. anyone serious at all about archery should have a taps program they are dead nuts accurate the math doesn't lie


I used to print tapes with the On Target software program. I eventually decided the pre-printed tapes were just too easy not to use. Whatever works for you though, a good tape is a good tape, no matter who or how it was made.


----------



## tmorelli

60435 said:


> your not going to beat a cut chart for accuracy its pure math


The cut chart is only as accurate as the angle input. How do you determine the angle? The RF redman mentioned has an inclinometer in it, so even if it isn't used for the final cut, it could be used to find the cut on your chart more accurately than "a good guess."


----------



## 60435

iv just had too many problems with range finders giving inaccurate readings figuring a angle is easy , a whole lot easier than guessing yardage


tmorelli said:


> The cut chart is only as accurate as the angle input. How do you determine the angle? The RF redman mentioned has an inclinometer in it, so even if it isn't used for the final cut, it could be used to find the cut on your chart more accurately than "a good guess."


----------



## montigre

60435 said:


> technically if you can hit the same hole @15yds and the same hole @30 yds the program will have you good out to 100


This is not correct. All of these programs run their marks based on a set of averages-- not the shooter's average, but a random sampling of average shots at each of the distances. If you get say a good 35 yard and a good 50 yard mark, the chances are very good that your other marks will be within a couple clicks of spot on. However, if you use those short distances that we all know can hide a plethora of form flaws, then your own shot average just may skew the results enough that you end up with nothing but crap at the long ends of the sight tape.


----------



## field14

montigre said:


> This is not correct. All of these programs run their marks based on a set of averages-- not the shooter's average, but a random sampling of average shots at each of the distances. If you get say a good 35 yard and a good 50 yard mark, the chances are very good that your other marks will be within a couple clicks of spot on. However, if you use those short distances that we all know can hide a plethora of form flaws, then your own shot average just may skew the results enough that you end up with nothing but crap at the long ends of the sight tape.


ABSOLUTELY!

I've also found out over years of experience that:
1. If your "longer yardages" after 45 yards are "off" then it is because your 50, 60, 65 (which every you used) is WRONG. Re check that/those settings for correction.
2. If your bunny, 15, and yardages below 45 yards are "off", then it is because you likely used a 20 yard setting this is way off, or your 30 (hopefully you use 30 and NOT 20) is off and you need to correct that setting. 
3. For my particular set-ups over the years, my "setting" for 20 yards can be off nearly 2 "numbers" and I'll still hit the bullseye, it can be off a number or more and I can still hit the "X"..Obviously, just shooting for groups to get 'em in the bullseye or in the X-ring" isn't good enough!! ESPECIALLY from 20 yards! That is why I always use 30 yards to start my settings for computer entry (the "calculator based method" is different, and I must use 20 yards, but an ACCURATE and I do mean ACCURATE 20 yarder is imperative) and I shoot at a horizontal tape 1/2" wide at 30 yards and will set and re-set the site until ALL my arrows are impacting on that 1/2" wide horizontal tape. I prefer the upper half of that 1/2" tape, since I tend to shoot low when I tire later in the round.
4. I ALWAYS shoot in my bunny settings!! ALWAYS. Yes, I cross -check what the computer systems "gives" me for a setting, but...I still shoot those in. Due to my peep height, rather than aim high or low for each bunny setting, I MUST move my bow sight for them, and aim dead center. Much of the time, what I get from the AA and/or OT2 are within a few clicks of what I get when I shoot 'em in...but to be on the safe side.... I've seen and done it myself, a LOT of great scores wrecked by that $)%@[email protected] bunny target by people that "aimed off" to "cover" those "foot settings."

5. I shoot at a 1" wide tape (sometimes 3/4", if I'm having a good "hold day.") horizontally at 65 yards and will shoot and re-set until ALL of my shots are impacting the 1" wide tape, preferably in the upper half of that 1" horizontal tape. The more accurate you are, the better the site tape, or the better the numbers are that come out of AA, OT2, or which ever system you are using.

Like I said, I rarely use the site tape; I use the placard system that uses the numbers scribed on the site bar. Those are what I used for input, so why not use something I don't have to mess with and worry about stretching it, waterproofing it, mounting it properly and such other things?

"Garbage in = garbage out". The "tape" or settings calculations are only as good as the date you feed into the system and "corrections" don't always work out either.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## field14

tmorelli said:


> The cut chart is only as accurate as the angle input. How do you determine the angle? The RF redman mentioned has an inclinometer in it, so even if it isn't used for the final cut, it could be used to find the cut on your chart more accurately than "a good guess."


Don't forget another thing...a taller person's "cut" can and will differ from your cut because the ANGLE from which they are viewing their rangefinder to the target is different from a short person's angle! If you are going to trust someone else to give you the cut or the "angle"...rotsa ruck! Better to use YOUR instrument, and EXPERIENCE than to trust someone else.
In addition, you must know how you handle uphills and downhills and sidehills due to footing differences and release style, too! THOSE will affect you a lot with regard to your "cut." Not everything will be peachy keen just cuz you got a fancy gadget...FORM issues are an important aspect, too! If you haven't practiced with front foot up or front foot down or toes up or toes down with regard to stance...you have a problem and knowing the cut won't help you much! Still gotta have the form experience to handle the situation. "ProActive Archery."


----------



## 60435

wrong dude, precise accurate shots do not hide anything ,, what kind of scores are you shooting using this method?


montigre said:


> This is not correct. All of these programs run their marks based on a set of averages-- not the shooter's average, but a random sampling of average shots at each of the distances. If you get say a good 35 yard and a good 50 yard mark, the chances are very good that your other marks will be within a couple clicks of spot on. However, if you use those short distances that we all know can hide a plethora of form flaws, then your own shot average just may skew the results enough that you end up with nothing but crap at the long ends of the sight tape.


----------



## henro

Sub'n.


----------



## Mahly

Back to the topic ladies/gentlemen.

P.S. Please do not quote any of the inflaming posts here, just more work for me to delete them.


----------



## field14

Ok. Here are some photos that go along with what I've tried to explain about the Placard method as opposed to site tapes.
I don't mind new technology, but being "ProActive" and very observant, I"ve too often seen stick 'em on (used 'em, so I know) site tapes get damaged, stretched, wet, moved, come loose and all sorts of bad things. Most often the people that had these failures had nothing to back them up; no printed yardages on a laminated sheet in their quivers, no nothing...Obviously it cost them dearly! 
I have used the placard system since around 1980 when I started using the calculator based method for getting site settings. In Section 5 of ProActive Archery, I discuss this system, and compare it among it, OT2 and Archer's Advantage and compare the "accuracy" of the "computed" yardage marks. We weren't so "dumb" or inaccurate before the advent of the sight tape software programs!
So you have Field/Hunter settings placard...with the color coded system of numbers. Then there is the Calculator settings 3-D placard, and then a photo showing the placard mounted next to my scribed number side of my site bar on my Axcel bow sight.
Yes, you see some "rounding" down to one decimal. However, when I print a placard for OT2 with the "clicks" included, you will see the + sign after the main number....the numbers after the main number represent the number of "clicks" to add. Of course, it is mandatory that the site and needle be "zeroed" and not messed with after zeroing. How to zero your site and needle are outlined in the instructions on OT2.
Yes, you see a "difference" with OT2 and the "calculator based" method, but it amounts to only a few clicks, and I'm sorry folks but at longer distances, this old boy cannot hold well enough for one or two clicks, and I don't kid myself about it. But FIVE clicks? Well, now...
Calculator based system doesn't operate on "clicks", but AA and OT2 can. I just never had to change the calculator based system over to convert the decimal to "clicks"...ha. You can see the "decimals" converted to "clicks" out of OT2. If your site doesn't have "clicks", then you MUST use the decimals and "wag (wild-*****ed guess)" in between "numbers/lines" on the site bar's scribed lines.
These are the numbers that were generated for my Merlin SuperNova at the time, shooting aluminum 1914 arrows. When gathering data, I NEVER manipulate stuff to make things look better!! It is not the way of the "Scientific Method"...it is what it is, period, no fudging allowed.


----------



## cbrunson

I never would have guessed sight tapes would be such a sensitive subject. It's not like we're talking about hinge techniques or float.


----------



## field14

cbrunson said:


> I never would have guessed sight tapes would be such a sensitive subject. It's not like we're talking about hinge techniques or float.


People today tend to want to do a rush job on things and don't quite think them through. The biggest thing is "garbage in = garbage out" and "close enough" is NOT good when dealing with those site marks and numbers you are putting into the computer software programs! Doesn't "cut it" (pun intended!) In addition, I know that I cannot hold as steady now as I could 5, 10,15 years ago, so...You do the best you can, you shoot as many arrows for those settings you need for your computer system as you can and get them as close as you can. If you cannot hold decently on a 1" wide horizontal tape at 65 yards, then go to 1.5" wide or 2" wide...fine. Most of us at longer distances can live with 5 clicks off...or on...but much more than that can be really serious business and screw up a site tape in a hurry.
You guys today have some huge advantages what with the efficiency of the bows, AND having something in the way of electronic aids to use to "help" you along. But misuse of the electronic aids to becoming totally dependent upon them to do ALL the work for you and for you to forget the FORM issues involved with field, target, and 3-D cost beginners, and mid-level archers lots of points that could be avoided by becoming "ProActive" and thinking things thru.


----------



## 60435

that's fine but id rather look at a tape with yardage numbers, less chance of a mistake. I use a placard for 1 through about 15 yards one good thing with yours it makes a good sun shade


field14 said:


> Ok. Here are some photos that go along with what I've tried to explain about the Placard method as opposed to site tapes.
> I don't mind new technology, but being "ProActive" and very observant, I"ve too often seen stick 'em on (used 'em, so I know) site tapes get damaged, stretched, wet, moved, come loose and all sorts of bad things. Most often the people that had these failures had nothing to back them up; no printed yardages on a laminated sheet in their quivers, no nothing...Obviously it cost them dearly!
> I have used the placard system since around 1980 when I started using the calculator based method for getting site settings. In Section 5 of ProActive Archery, I discuss this system, and compare it among it, OT2 and Archer's Advantage and compare the "accuracy" of the "computed" yardage marks. We weren't so "dumb" or inaccurate before the advent of the sight tape software programs!
> So you have Field/Hunter settings placard...with the color coded system of numbers. Then there is the Calculator settings 3-D placard, and then a photo showing the placard mounted next to my scribed number side of my site bar on my Axcel bow sight.
> Yes, you see some "rounding" down to one decimal. However, when I print a placard for OT2 with the "clicks" included, you will see the + sign after the main number....the numbers after the main number represent the number of "clicks" to add. Of course, it is mandatory that the site and needle be "zeroed" and not messed with after zeroing. How to zero your site and needle are outlined in the instructions on OT2.
> Yes, you see a "difference" with OT2 and the "calculator based" method, but it amounts to only a few clicks, and I'm sorry folks but at longer distances, this old boy cannot hold well enough for one or two clicks, and I don't kid myself about it. But FIVE clicks? Well, now...
> Calculator based system doesn't operate on "clicks", but AA and OT2 can. I just never had to change the calculator based system over to convert the decimal to "clicks"...ha. You can see the "decimals" converted to "clicks" out of OT2. If your site doesn't have "clicks", then you MUST use the decimals and "wag (wild-*****ed guess)" in between "numbers/lines" on the site bar's scribed lines.
> These are the numbers that were generated for my Merlin SuperNova at the time, shooting aluminum 1914 arrows. When gathering data, I NEVER manipulate stuff to make things look better!! It is not the way of the "Scientific Method"...it is what it is, period, no fudging allowed.
> 
> View attachment 2199033
> View attachment 2199034
> View attachment 2199035
> 
> View attachment 2199044
> View attachment 2199051


----------



## field14

60435 said:


> that's fine but id rather look at a tape with yardage numbers, less chance of a mistake. I use a placard for 1 through about 15 yards one good thing with yours it makes a good sun shade


I can see your point. That is precisely why my placard is mounted where it is. I'm looking at the placard right next to my numbers. I can say I have never ever mis-set my site while using the placard system exclusively.
However, I cannot say that about when I use the site tape stuck on the other side of the site bar! I've seen a LOT of people mis set their sites by 5 or 10 yards even when using the site tape method. 32 yards mis-set to 23, 53 mis-set to 35 (UGLY!!)

Which ever trips your trigger.
However, that being said, whether I'm using the placard or a site tape, I have a complete set of sight settings that are laminated and I carry them in my quiver as a backup. Those using sight tapes that are stuck on...WARNING...carry a complete set of sight marks printed out and laminated! Sometime, somewhere, it just may be that your site tape will get ripped, come loose, move, or fall off...and....oh, oh! ALWAYS have a backup plan.
If you are using electronics for storing your site settings...carry a completely NEW set of batteries in your quiver...you won't get a "time out" for an equipment failure of that computer goes on the blink! You had better have a set of sight marks printed and ready to go in the event of said failure of the electronics.
Many options, pick one as a primary and always have a backup for WHEN something goes on the blink or gets fouled up.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## sharkred7

field14 said:


> I can see your point. That is precisely why my placard is mounted where it is. I'm looking at the placard right next to my numbers. I can say I have never ever mis-set my site while using the placard system exclusively.
> However, I cannot say that about when I use the site tape stuck on the other side of the site bar! I've seen a LOT of people mis set their sites by 5 or 10 yards even when using the site tape method. 32 yards mis-set to 23, 53 mis-set to 35 (UGLY!!)
> 
> Which ever trips your trigger.
> However, that being said, whether I'm using the placard or a site tape, I have a complete set of sight settings that are laminated and I carry them in my quiver as a backup. Those using sight tapes that are stuck on...WARNING...carry a complete set of sight marks printed out and laminated! Sometime, somewhere, it just may be that your site tape will get ripped, come loose, move, or fall off...and....oh, oh! ALWAYS have a backup plan.
> If you are using electronics for storing your site settings...carry a completely NEW set of batteries in your quiver...you won't get a "time out" for an equipment failure of that computer goes on the blink! You had better have a set of sight marks printed and ready to go in the event of said failure of the electronics.
> Many options, pick one as a primary and always have a backup for WHEN something goes on the blink or gets fouled up.
> field14 (Tom D.)


I, too, carry back ups. I have laminated cards, extra laminated cards in ziplock bag, (I have lost laminated sight cards in heavy rain due to bleeding through) and I take a picture of them with my phone. 

I also use sight tapes to "rough" in my setting, then verify with sight cards. WAY more accurate! I have miss set my sight by 5 turns too many times using just one method. This just is a double check for my "Dory" moments


----------



## EPLC

field14 said:


> ABSOLUTELY!
> 
> I've also found out over years of experience that:
> 1. If your "longer yardages" after 45 yards are "off" then it is because your 50, 60, 65 (which every you used) is WRONG. Re check that/those settings for correction.
> 2. If your bunny, 15, and yardages below 45 yards are "off", then it is because you likely used a 20 yard setting this is way off, or your 30 (hopefully you use 30 and NOT 20) is off and you need to correct that setting.
> 3. For my particular set-ups over the years, my "setting" for 20 yards can be off nearly 2 "numbers" and I'll still hit the bullseye, it can be off a number or more and I can still hit the "X"..Obviously, just shooting for groups to get 'em in the bullseye or in the X-ring" isn't good enough!! ESPECIALLY from 20 yards! That is why I always use 30 yards to start my settings for computer entry (the "calculator based method" is different, and I must use 20 yards, but an ACCURATE and I do mean ACCURATE 20 yarder is imperative) and I shoot at a horizontal tape 1/2" wide at 30 yards and will set and re-set the site until ALL my arrows are impacting on that 1/2" wide horizontal tape. I prefer the upper half of that 1/2" tape, since I tend to shoot low when I tire later in the round.
> 4. I ALWAYS shoot in my bunny settings!! ALWAYS. Yes, I cross -check what the computer systems "gives" me for a setting, but...I still shoot those in. Due to my peep height, rather than aim high or low for each bunny setting, I MUST move my bow sight for them, and aim dead center. Much of the time, what I get from the AA and/or OT2 are within a few clicks of what I get when I shoot 'em in...but to be on the safe side.... I've seen and done it myself, a LOT of great scores wrecked by that $)%@[email protected] bunny target by people that "aimed off" to "cover" those "foot settings."
> 
> 5. I shoot at a 1" wide tape (sometimes 3/4", if I'm having a good "hold day.") horizontally at 65 yards and will shoot and re-set until ALL of my shots are impacting the 1" wide tape, preferably in the upper half of that 1" horizontal tape. The more accurate you are, the better the site tape, or the better the numbers are that come out of AA, OT2, or which ever system you are using.
> 
> Like I said, I rarely use the site tape; I use the placard system that uses the numbers scribed on the site bar. Those are what I used for input, so why not use something I don't have to mess with and worry about stretching it, waterproofing it, mounting it properly and such other things?
> 
> "Garbage in = garbage out". The "tape" or settings calculations are only as good as the date you feed into the system and "corrections" don't always work out either.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


This is why I use a cronograph &#55357;&#56836;


----------



## Kenro287

Tag


----------



## Padgett

I am really enjoying hearing from everyone and how they go through their process to set up a sight and then have confidence in it. Right now I can honestly say that for my 3d shooting with a max yardage of 50 and my bread and butter distance of 40 yards I am very confident in my method for producing a good sight tape. 

I do think that a guy needs to have a open mind to what kind of shooting he is doing because if you have to be able to shoot a 3 yard shot and then 10 minutes later you are standing at a 87 yard target you are going to have to possibly have a different more thought out system than mine. For me I need to be able to hit a 1.25 inch 12 ring that is located on the bottom of a 12 ring and I can't afford to be dropping out into a 8. So I am adding some safety yardage to my guess to hopefully stay dead on or slightly high on impact. This is the game that I am playing and I make my sight tape accordingly. Even the way I set my needle is based on my 40 yard bread and butter shots that I shoot all the freaking time.


----------



## SonnyThomas

I came close to my input, 1 click off (top left). Okay, my entered yards and marks. See variances in chart. Chart was dead on.
2012, Pekin, Illinois, Novelty shoot, known yardage, 51 yards. I followed Steve Boyan. Done, missing all 3 shots, Steve said it was the longest 51 yards he ever shot. I took heed of Steve's remark and won. I set my sight for 53 yards. 3 shots and I missed the 2" orange clay disc once. I remember the miss well. My arrow just hit under the disc and it fell out of it's hole and on to my arrow and just sat there. Everyone yelled or moaned  After, the target was ranged again for 51 yards. Still, no one who shot it for the known 51 yards hit the disc. 
Rare for me keep old "cheat sheets," but I believe this was the one I used. As Padgett noted, you can make a program give that safety shot or use a pre-made sight tape to give that safety shot.


----------



## Padgett

Field14, I do have a back up plan for a sight tape that dies.

1. I have a spare sight tape in my release pouch.

2. On the back side of my sight I set my other needle on the 0 setting on that unit scale on my sight at 40 yards so that if I had a problem I can turn the sight to 0 on that side and fix the needle on my sight tape or I can replace the tape.

I actually had to use the back side setting last year because I was on the practice range and I noticed that something was wrong and when I put a allen in my needle screw it totally stripped out and my needle totally moved and I didn't really even know where it was when I tightened the screw and it failed so now I am screwed. About 5 seconds later i remembered that I had 40 yards set on 0 yards with the unit scale and I turned my sight there and was back to perfect without a disaster.


----------



## Padgett

Another thing that I use that 40 yard setting matched for the 0 unit scale setting is that when I am working on my vertical poi and I find a good setting I can go ahead and get the 0 unit scale set with the needle on the back side of my sight and then during the week if I make some changes I will leave that needle alone and then I can totally make changes all week and at a moment notice use that 0 setting as a reference mark and go back to it if needed. 

I just hate getting lost and when you set a needle and shoot with it for a few days it sucks when you move it and loose that setting because there is no auto save function on the sight so that you can go right back there. Especially when you only intended to add a half yard to the needle because you were so close to being perfect and you accidentally do it in the wrong direction and now you have lost that first postiton. So when I get a really good setting I save that setting with the needle on the back at 40 yards so that if I am stupid or murphys law decides to kick in I can push the reset button.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> This is why I use a cronograph ��


OT2 and AA will give you your "REAL" arrow speed if you allow them to do so. Like I said, if you read their instructions....the use of a chronograph for your "gospel" for getting your marks is the last resort and not really recommended.
Whatever trips your trigger....but accurately shot marks for input into the computer will beat the heck out of your chronnie hands down.
Especially with OT2 when you utilize all FIVE sight mark inputs and run the iterations/comparisons. No two chronnies will read the same. There is no "S-1 Standard" for calibration of the chronnie, period. So, if you have a hot chronnie, you get one thing, if a "cold" chronnie you get another. True, using ONE instrument is the best option...but is it REALLY good enough to be better than actually shooting in those marks/numbers? Doubtful.
The REAL thing, especially for field/hunter/target shooting is critical...not that it will take a 540 shooter and immediately get them to 555+ on field or hunter rounds...but ACCURATE site marks done through actual shooting WILL move your scores upwards.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> This is why I use a cronograph ��


It is interesting that "practice range" was mentioned. I cannot believe the number of people I've seen over the years that will spend all that time getting a good set of sight marks and a good site tape only to go to a tournament, get onto the PRACTICE RANGE and start messsing around with their needle or sight marks!!!! Practice ranges are notorious for being inaccurately marked for distance, and practice ranges, especially those you aren't really familiar with are the LAST place you want to sight in, or "check out" your sight marks. Then even worse...to trust a practice range to "check out your marks" for that day? Insanity, I say, pure insanity!
Me? I always intentionally set my sight "hot" by 2-3 yards or more and shoot on the practice range for MY groups. Normally everyone else is shooting for the middle trying to impress everyone as to how good they are, and playing psych jobs...and getting their arrows busted up or getting discouraged when things aren't going well...or they think those sight marks are off because on the PRACTICE RANGE, they aren't hitting the middle? Nope, I save MY arrows, shoot high intentionally, and go from there. I never ever mess with my sight marks or needle on a PRACTICE RANGE.
The "practice" of intentionally setting my sight 3-4 yards hot has served me well over the years. I'm loosening up, I'm not going to get my arrows ruined by somebody else on the practice range. They'll get opportunities to ruin my arrows out on the course, hahaha.
One other thing is that YOU must know YOUR tendencies as a round progresses! You must know YOUR tendencies for lousy footing and uphill and downhill shots and how YOU react to those less than perfect conditions that WILL arise! Yes, I'm saying you need to know YOURSELF and how YOUR equipment and you perform when conditions are way less than desirable.
I know from many years of experience that I tend to shoot low if I start to get tired. So, I intentionally set my sight so that I'm clipping the upper half of the horizontal tape when I'm getting my sight "numbers." Shooting the bottom half of the tape to me is unacceptable for a site mark for that distance.
Even then, once my placard and/or sight tape is completed and mounted on the site...I go out and shoot several shots at every single distance to cross check and make sure. IF I'm mounting a printed sight tape, then I always make darned sure that the tape is mounted with the site set at 40 or 45 yards, dead on with the scribed numbers + clicks on the opposing side of the site bar. Then, I CHECK and RECHECK for the shorter distances AND the longer distances...those 5 distances that I use for OT2 data entry are the minimums that are checked. I want to make absolutely sure that the printed site tape is mounted correctly, no if's and's or but's. I know many don't do this. they put on the site tape with matching up the needle at 20 yards...never check the other 'settings' and go out and wonder why their marks are "off?"
Check, re-check, and cross-check...and NEVER go into "battle" with an untested set of site marks or a site tape that hasn't been checked out before-hand and not messed with.
The calculator based method I used since the early 1980's was plenty good enough to shoot personal best field and hunter scores of 557...and those could have been "clean"...except for SHOOTER failure to execute (Missed two shots on a 28 fan (low out the bottom on both), and of all things one shot at the 14 yarder (again low out the bottom). This had nothing to do with the sight settings, it was the idiot that shot those 3 arrows out!
We didn't have computerized site mark programs, but the hand held calculator method was obviously plenty good enough...and still is to this very day. However, that being said, I still use that as the starter and "tester" and then go home to enter the numbers into OT2 AND AA for comparisons and corrections, then print out the information and go back out and check/re-check again.
As Michael Douglas said in "The Ghosts in the Darkness"..."You NEVER go into battle with an untested weapon."

In this case, MORE is better in archery...the MORE you shoot in those site marks/numbers, the MORE you can trust them! In today's competitions, either 3-D or field/target..."close" isn't good enough.
field14 (tom D.)


----------



## Cdpkook132

I use padgetts method as well with good success.


----------



## Padgett

The first asa that I ever went to I took one arrow, my buddy had given me two x jammers that week to try and I loved them and I made a sight tape for them and the day before going to my first asa to shoot open b I broke one. Well, I had my old sight tape on one side of the sight for my regular hunting arrows and I had the x jammer sight tape ont the other side for it. I bought a sight tape hider from AEP that rotates out of the way and I put it on the x jammer side since that was the one that I planned on using all weekend until I broke it and then I would just use the other sight tape that was set for the hunting arrows. I would shoot my shot and peg a 12 and then sit my bow down next to my stool and I would watch some guys hover around and take a peek at the number by my needle. Then they would shoot out the bottom because what they were looking at was my sight tape for my hunting arrows and it was about 3 yards short of the xjammer one that I was actually using.

Finally a guy asked me on the second day how in the crap was I shooting so good when my sight tape was at least three yards short and I told him that I wasn't using that one, the look on his face was PRICELESS.

I actually did make it all three days through the team shoot and open b weekend with that one x jammer. Actually I believe most of my 12's came on the second day because that first day was probably my famous 2 up day. Back then I didn't aim at 12's because I was a newby and I shot 2 up without shooting a 8 or a 5 that first day. It is the most freaking pathetic score card ever and I still have it somewhere in my house. All 10's and one little 12.

I think it was the devil that made me do it.


----------



## ThunderEagle

One thing I'll offer up to this discussion is that I like to have at least two distinct shooting sessions to verify the marks I shoot in before I consider a tape good. I also use SFA (OnTarget2) and try to get 4 or 5 good marks in. I can also vouch for not using the 20 yard mark as Tom suggests, using 30 has allowed me to create much more accurate site marks.

I do put the yardage tape on my sight, but really only use it for getting close, for Field I'm checking my site mark card and setting explicitly to the sight markings. I use the same sight on my hunting bow, and there I do use the yards, but we are talking quarter accuracy vs paper plate accuracy.

If my shot in marks are not cross checking, I go and shoot some more and figure out where I'm off.


----------



## SonnyThomas

field14 said:


> It is interesting that "practice range" was mentioned. I cannot believe the number of people I've seen over the years that will spend all that time getting a good set of sight marks and a good site tape only to go to a tournament, get onto the PRACTICE RANGE and start messsing around with their needle or sight marks!!!! Practice ranges are notorious for being inaccurately marked for distance, and practice ranges, especially those you aren't really familiar with are the LAST place you want to sight in, or "check out" your sight marks. Then even worse...to trust a practice range to "check out your marks" for that day? Insanity, I say, pure insanity!
> Me? I always intentionally set my sight "hot" by 2-3 yards or more and shoot on the practice range for MY groups. Normally everyone else is shooting for the middle trying to impress everyone as to how good they are, and playing psych jobs...and getting their arrows busted up or getting discouraged when things aren't going well...or they think those sight marks are off because on the PRACTICE RANGE, they aren't hitting the middle? Nope, I save MY arrows, shoot high intentionally, and go from there. I never ever mess with my sight marks or needle on a PRACTICE RANGE.


Tom, cut your reply short.... You nailed it. Why would anyone show up a archery and not be sighted in? You know Charlie Rogers, Galeburg? Charlie got me off this years ago. Never fired one shot and Charlie drug me out on the course. Shot one of the best scores I ever shot. Now, I show up, I'm ready.
Metropolis years back. Hoyt dealer booth? We were watching those on the practice range. One spoke up; "If those out there didn't bring it with them, they sure ain't going to find it out there."


----------



## reylamb

field14 said:


> I use OT2 and FIVE distances. Then I run the iterations that the program allows to compare each site mark to all the others and it corrects them for you. I then look at the "bad one" and go out and shoot it again, just to be sure.
> *HUGE MISTAKES TO AVOID*:
> ALWAYS 'count the clicks' between numbers! if your setting on the scribed numbers side of your site bar is 36 and "some", then you MUST put in how many clicks past 36 and enter that complete number into OT2 (or any other program you use).
> NEVER use a chronnie for anything regarding site tapes other than to get you onto the paper! OT2 and AA both recommend using a chronnie reading as a last resort.
> NEVER move your indicator pin once you start doing your 'numbers' or sighting in.
> NEVER use 20 yards as one of two marks if your program only gives you two options!
> ALWAYS shoot at a horizontal piece of tape across the target and set the site in clicks until you get ALL your shots to impact within the top and bottom of that horizontal piece of tape. I use 1/2" wide tape at 30 yards and 1" wide tape at 65 yards. I don't shoot for "groups" I shoot for vertical displacement, since that is what "numbers" you are after
> NEVER "round up or round down", again, those "clicks" are important.
> ALWAYS have a written back up of those site marks! You never know when/if the tape could come loose or even fall off. If you don't have an extra set of "numbers" you are screwed.
> 
> I only use the site tape as a backup. I have a placard on the same side of the site as the scribed numbers that I originated the settings from. My placard has those numbers on it for the yardages I used for FIELD and for HUNTER rounds. My spare is in my quiver and has all the yardage settings (numbers and clicks) from 2 to 100 yards. For my 3-D site, I also use a placard, but I only have settings on the placard for up to 60 yards, and it is easy to interpolate if I go every 2 or 4 yards on the placard.
> I have my placard size done in Excel and my "numbers" are color coded: BLUE for Field, Red for Hunter. For the 3-D site settings, BLACK are the 5 yard increments, you know, 10, 15, 20, 25, and RED are the intervals. Obviously once I get out to 35 yards, I tighten up the intervals to one yard increments, ha.
> 
> This is all explained in "ProActive Archery". Google it, and you'll find it easily. "ProActive Archery" is now also available in Kindle format.
> 
> field14 (Tom D)


You missed one of the biggest mistakes I see folks make....

They will actual somehow stretch the physical tape when they put it on!!!!!


----------



## Padgett

Sonny, one of the reasons many people have to sight in their bows when they get to a asa shoot is because they don't know how to sight in a 3d bow. It took me a long time to figure it out and then I finally realized the problem. 

SHOOTING AT DOTS

Shooting at dots absolutely does not work when it comes to sighting in a bow for 3d competition, you will be nailing the dots and then by target 4 on the range you will be making changes and by target 10 you will finally be decent.

The solution is to not shoot dots during the week and draw scoring rings on card board and shoot the same scoring rings that you shoot on foam animal targets all week long and then your arrows will hit dead on like they are supposed to.

Now when I am making a sight tape, sure I use a vertical black tape line to shoot at and find my two marks but once the sight tape is made I then go straight to shooting my asa scoring rings on card board. obviously guys with a full range of asa targets has a advantage because they are shooting the actual targets but card board works really well also.


----------



## EPLC

field14 said:


> OT2 and AA will give you your "REAL" arrow speed if you allow them to do so. Like I said, if you read their instructions....the use of a chronograph for your "gospel" for getting your marks is the last resort and not really recommended.
> Whatever trips your trigger....but accurately shot marks for input into the computer will beat the heck out of your chronnie hands down.
> Especially with OT2 when you utilize all FIVE sight mark inputs and run the iterations/comparisons. No two chronnies will read the same. There is no "S-1 Standard" for calibration of the chronnie, period. So, if you have a hot chronnie, you get one thing, if a "cold" chronnie you get another. True, using ONE instrument is the best option...but is it REALLY good enough to be better than actually shooting in those marks/numbers? Doubtful.
> The REAL thing, especially for field/hunter/target shooting is critical...not that it will take a 540 shooter and immediately get them to 555+ on field or hunter rounds...but ACCURATE site marks done through actual shooting WILL move your scores upwards.
> field14 (Tom D.)


Like I said, it's all in the process. I've been using a Chronograph to set sight tapes for years and it works well for me. I would rather take the path of least resistance to get the best solution for me. Getting marks to feed these programs is a crap shoot if you don't get perfect marks. By using a chronograph and knowing what distance to set your needle is key. This way you only need one good mark and it can be a very short distance. I shoot at 21-22 feet and the set my needle at whatever the program says that distance equals, usually 20-25 yards, depending on the bow and setup. Occasionally I need to cut a second tape, but this is a rare occurrence.


----------



## ILOVE3D

Tagged, good stuff here.


----------



## EPLC

After setting up my new Dominator Pro, taking dimensions and shooting it through the chronograph I went to the club and shot my first 4 arrows (1 bare shaft) at 35 yards. 2.5 YDS off with my pin setting but after making the correction all marks looked good out to 50 yards. I had to cut it short because it started raining but I'm sure the tape is a good one. Once I'm more familiar with this new bow I'm sure my process will be a one shot deal as usual.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Nice rig.....


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> Nice rig.....


A little yoke tuning and perfect bullet holes!


----------



## montigre

EPLC said:


> A little yoke tuning and perfect bullet holes!


That is a nice rig. I suppose you're now going to do some creep tuning....just wondering, have you ever shot through paper following your creep tuning session? Do you still have bullet holes or has the result reverted back to a slight high left (or in your case right) tear through paper?


----------



## Reed

Padgett said:


> Sonny, one of the reasons many people have to sight in their bows when they get to a asa shoot is because they don't know how to sight in a 3d bow. It took me a long time to figure it out and then I finally realized the problem.
> 
> SHOOTING AT DOTS
> 
> Shooting at dots absolutely does not work when it comes to sighting in a bow for 3d competition, you will be nailing the dots and then by target 4 on the range you will be making changes and by target 10 you will finally be decent.
> 
> The solution is to not shoot dots during the week and draw scoring rings on card board and shoot the same scoring rings that you shoot on foam animal targets all week long and then your arrows will hit dead on like they are supposed to.
> 
> Now when I am making a sight tape, sure I use a vertical black tape line to shoot at and find my two marks but once the sight tape is made I then go straight to shooting my asa scoring rings on card board. obviously guys with a full range of asa targets has a advantage because they are shooting the actual targets but card board works really well also.



while this maybe a different subject for a different thread can you elaborate on why not to shoot dots? not getting the logic on that ( other and you are not aiming at a dot on the 3d animal you why practice on one??) how do you gauge a correct shot then? Do you have a write up on your page about this method?


----------



## montigre

Reed said:


> you are not aiming at a dot on the 3d animal you why practice on one??


This is correct. When shooting 3D, you're not aligning concentric circles as your are when shooting spots. It would make very little sense for me as a spot shooter to practice shooting a foam target in preparation for a spot tournament. Likewise, if you do not have foam targets to practice on as a 3d shooter, it would be better to make cardboard cut outs of the scoring areas for the different animal targets so that you become accustomed to scoring well on those. 

A correct shot is a correct shot no matter the target you're aiming at....


----------



## Padgett

Cool, I don't mind talking about not aiming at dots.

1. When you are a 3d shooter you have to learn to hit a small 12 ring that you can't see and to be honest to me it is the most pure form of aiming because you i vision your arrow hitting the 12 ring you can see through your binoculars but can't see with your naked eye or sights. I think that my brain floats the pin where it believes the 12 ring to be and I hit the spot.

2. When you are a Asa shooter you absolutely can't hit even 1/16 below the 12ring because that is a 8 and the suck the life out of your score. So your brain learns to create a barrier and float next to the lower barrier that you can't see and hit above.

3. When shooting a orange dot there is to much instant gratification that you hit what you could see and what you knew you could hit. Just touching the edge of a dot isn't good enough because you could see it and you could tell that your pin was on it when you fired. By shooting at something you can't see you have to visualize it and be much more pinpoint with your focus.

Last season I had just put up a new set of Asa scoring rings on my targets and my wife came out and sit down, I was at 40 yards and handed her my bino's and asked her to tell me if I was hitting the 12's. She said "what 12's" she looked through the bino's and then she could see the little sharpie lines and about that time my first arrow hit dead on and she couldn't believe I could hit what I couldn't see. Not only did I hit most of them that night I never dropped out the bottom and stayed either dead on or slightly above.

All I know is for years I sighted in on orange dots and then during most tournaments I spent the first 10 targets dialing in my sight and in fact I would get home and move my sight so that I could hit the dots and then have to spend the next Saturday suffering for 10 targets getting it back to dead on.


----------



## Padgett

Hey, I have shot at all of my normal distances from 50 40 30 20 and for the last week everything is perfect except for 30 yards and it is hitting just a little high. So I have listened to you guys and I have really concentrated on the 30 yard setting and when I move it to 29.5 yards which is basically on the edge of the 30 yard line I am hitting dead on there also. 

I am going to make a new sight tape with my 30 and 50 marks tonight and I am really curious when it gets printed off what it will do with the 20 yard location.


----------



## ThunderEagle

Padgett said:


> I am going to make a new sight tape with my 30 and 50 marks tonight and I am really curious when it gets printed off what it will do with the 20 yard location.


It very well may move it. I know I use 30+ for my sight tapes, I always get a 20, but don't use it in calculations. It is almost always a few to several clicks off of the calculated value, but the calculated value still hits the target in the right spot.


----------



## Padgett

This has been a great thread for me, I am setting up my old bowtech specialist as my 3d bow and obviously needing to make a sight tape for it so this was the perfect timing for this thread. 

For me I told you guys that I was spending a good week nailing down my 20 yard mark because I knew that it had to much variation in it and was a poor choice but I thought that I had a way of getting around that issue. The fact that I didn't really think about using 30 yards as one of my two distances is just stupid and exactly what I was hoping to get from this thread.

It amazes me here on archery talk how you can be totally confident in a method but by putting it out there and then listening to the other guys talk about their approaches you can either gain a even stronger sense of confidence in our method or find something that needs changed. I still think my general method is a really good one for unknown 3d but by switching my two known distances from 60 20 to 50 30 may allow me to produce a sight tape that performs even better.


----------



## field14

Here is what Archer's Advantage has to say about using Chronograph Speed as the primary, and I quote:
He talks about the 3 methods as follows"
"There are three methods for sighting Archer's Advantage in for printing Sight Tapes. *The Calculate Speed Method is the most accurate method and the only one that should be relied on for Long Range Shooting typical of FITA and Field Ranges.*"

Calculate Speed 
Chronograph Speed 
Build Bow Speed 

He then talks about each method and here is what he has to say about the Chronograph Speed method:

"*Chronograph Speed*
The Chronograph Speed method provides _reasonably_ accurate sight settings for typical 3D Shooting. *However, for optimum results I always recommend sighting in by getting two sight marks as shown in the Calculate Speed method above.* "

Sighting in using this method is quite simple, just shoot an arrow through a chronograph and sight in at one range.
Enter your Reference Range, Reference Mark and Chronograph Speed in the Chronograph Tab and click Sight In.

OT2 says pretty much the same thing concerning relying on a chronograph:
*Chronograph Velocity *

Shoot your setup over a chronograph and take a three or five shot average. Enter the value in the My Chrony edit field. Verify that the Program Velocity has been determined by either using one of the four methods (My Marks, Pin Gap, Arrow Drop, Sight Scale Marks) on this program tab. The value may be manually entered on the Equipment tab in the Manual velocity edit field. To use this value make sure the Manual radio button on the Equipment tab is selected. *It is strongly reccomended that you let the program calculate this value at least once to determine what it thinks your setup should be*.

Just sayin'....There is no RELIABLE S-1 standard for any chronograph, so is "yours" really "accurate", or would it be MORE accurate to get your sight settings for FIVE (or 3 or 2) distances, plug THOSE numbers in and let the program calculate what that arrow speed is based upon how YOU shoot? It is going to tell you if you have one or more "bad" settings...
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## D.B.Cooper

This thread is making me itch even more for outdoor season than I already was! One more indoor shoot this weekend, and then it's outdoors for me.

I can't recommend using a horizontal piece of tape highly enough for getting your marks. I learned that trick last summer from Tom's book, and it really helped me.

I'm very pleased with the sight marks I get from Archer's Advantage. I don't print a sight tape anymore, but take the printed mark chart from AA, trim it down, and laminate a couple copies instead. One side has the standard marks out to 80 yds or so, and the other side has the long range marks and the short range equivalent marks. It's narrow enough that it slides into the pocket on my quiver perfectly. I also use Archer's Mark on my iPhone as a backup. I like the "on the fly" way you can recalculate marks if necessary, but I'm reluctant to rely on anything that has a battery. (I always put my phone in "Airplane mode" when I'm in a competition to extend battery life and reduce distractions.) I've also never been able to get Archer's Mark to get the bunny marks right for some reason. I always check those manually, but so far AA has been on the money for me.


----------



## field14

reylamb said:


> You missed one of the biggest mistakes I see folks make....
> 
> They will actual somehow stretch the physical tape when they put it on!!!!!


Yepper....mounting the tape properly is as or maybe even more important that getting accurate numbers for the tape's generation out of the program...or...matching them up with the pre-printed tapes from Lancaster's...either way, you CAN "stretch" the tape and foul things up with improper mounting of said sight tape.
"ProActive Archery" ppg 362-368. Google "ProActive Archery" you'll find it easily.
Another mistake is improper use of the "magnifier"...OMG...looking at the magnifier from the wrong or at different angles = big time mis-set sight!
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## 60435

PRINTER ERROR, always check your tape against the marks references chart if its available


field14 said:


> Yepper....mounting the tape properly is as or maybe even more important that getting accurate numbers for the tape's generation out of the program...or...matching them up with the pre-printed tapes from Lancaster's...either way, you CAN "stretch" the tape and foul things up with improper mounting of said sight tape.
> "ProActive Archery" ppg 362-368. Google "ProActive Archery" you'll find it easily.
> Another mistake is improper use of the "magnifier"...OMG...looking at the magnifier from the wrong or at different angles = big time mis-set sight!
> field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## EPLC

Why is it that we get some of the most emphatic instructions from some folks that neither trust the method or use it?


----------



## JV NC

I've been printing my own tapes for a few weeks. You have the ultimate arbiter at your disposal. You can simply shoot the printed tapes professed ydg. and see if it's correct or not. If it's not, you adjust your numbers a little.

I'm not understanding all the mystique associated with a really simple process.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> Why is it that we get some of the most emphatic instructions from some folks that neither trust the method or use it?


If you are referring to me, it is because after "collaborating" with the authors of both OT2 and AA concerning my chapters in "ProActive Archery" and concerning the "most preferred method" for generating accurate sight tapes/settings charts, they BOTH recommend AGAINST trusting the chronnie method as the "gospel" and BOTH say it is NOT accurate for things like FITA, FITA field, or NFAA Field shooting. Sure, the chronnie will get you on the paper...but it likely isn't going to get you solidly into the X-ring at distance, if even at 30 yards.

So, I guess the authors and originators of the computer programs know nothing about what they are doing?
That and shooting field archery, and FITA for nearly 50 years worth of experience concerning sight marks, calculator method of obtaining accurate sight marks and extensive comparisons of calculator, AA, and OT2 methods for obtaining those valuable sets of marks...be it a "sight tape" or a set of printed marks; matters not.
I'd certainly trust the instructions and recommendations written by the authors of the computer programs and THEIR recommendations long before I'd trust an uncalibrated instrument that has no known "standard." Must be the former quality assurance manager and science teacher (Scientific method) in me, or something like that, hahaha.

But...whatever trips your trigger, and if what you do is "good enough" then so be it. Good for you.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Reed

Padgett said:


> Cool, I don't mind talking about not aiming at dots.
> 
> 1. When you are a 3d shooter you have to learn to hit a small 12 ring that you can't see and to be honest to me it is the most pure form of aiming because you i vision your arrow hitting the 12 ring you can see through your binoculars but can't see with your naked eye or sights. I think that my brain floats the pin where it believes the 12 ring to be and I hit the spot.
> 
> 2. When you are a Asa shooter you absolutely can't hit even 1/16 below the 12ring because that is a 8 and the suck the life out of your score. So your brain learns to create a barrier and float next to the lower barrier that you can't see and hit above.
> 
> 3. When shooting a orange dot there is to much instant gratification that you hit what you could see and what you knew you could hit. Just touching the edge of a dot isn't good enough because you could see it and you could tell that your pin was on it when you fired. By shooting at something you can't see you have to visualize it and be much more pinpoint with your focus.
> 
> Last season I had just put up a new set of Asa scoring rings on my targets and my wife came out and sit down, I was at 40 yards and handed her my bino's and asked her to tell me if I was hitting the 12's. She said "what 12's" she looked through the bino's and then she could see the little sharpie lines and about that time my first arrow hit dead on and she couldn't believe I could hit what I couldn't see. Not only did I hit most of them that night I never dropped out the bottom and stayed either dead on or slightly above.
> 
> All I know is for years I sighted in on orange dots and then during most tournaments I spent the first 10 targets dialing in my sight and in fact I would get home and move my sight so that I could hit the dots and then have to spend the next Saturday suffering for 10 targets getting it back to dead on.



is there a place to get the template's online? interesting idea to try.( mostly Reinhardt with some Mackenzie targets) Up here we shoot center X ( scored as 11) so I just got used to visualizing a dot where I wanted to hit. Used to shoot a ton of target/field, but it seems 3d is the only game up here, other than personal practice 720 rounds


----------



## Reed

field14 said:


> If you are referring to me, it is because after "collaborating" with the authors of both OT2 and AA concerning my chapters in "ProActive Archery" and concerning the "most preferred method" for generating accurate sight tapes/settings charts, they BOTH recommend AGAINST trusting the chronnie method as the "gospel" and BOTH say it is NOT accurate for things like FITA, FITA field, or NFAA Field shooting. Sure, the chronnie will get you on the paper...but it likely isn't going to get you solidly into the X-ring at distance, if even at 30 yards.
> 
> So, I guess the authors and originators of the computer programs know nothing about what they are doing?
> That and shooting field archery, and FITA for nearly 50 years worth of experience concerning sight marks, calculator method of obtaining accurate sight marks and extensive comparisons of calculator, AA, and OT2 methods for obtaining those valuable sets of marks...be it a "sight tape" or a set of printed marks; matters not.
> I'd certainly trust the instructions and recommendations written by the authors of the computer programs and THEIR recommendations long before I'd trust an uncalibrated instrument that has no known "standard." Must be the former quality assurance manager and science teacher (Scientific method) in me, or something like that, hahaha.
> 
> But...whatever trips your trigger, and if what you do is "good enough" then so be it. Good for you.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)



I have found for me that the chrono method works for getting marks for indoor 3d's but mine are usually off a couple yards starting at 50 or so. 

generally I will used the computer to "setup" the marks but I shoot them all to confirm. If I am off it seems it starts after 50 yards or so.


----------



## Padgett

I just use a chilli bowl from the kitchen and a dr pepper cap as the 12 ring.


----------



## wv hoyt man

great info.


----------



## Padgett

I am so pathetic, I went to my dads house last night but forgot to take my sight so I could make my new tape with my 30 yard and 50 yard marks. We watched the game though and had popcorn.


----------



## EPLC

field14 said:


> If you are referring to me, it is because after "collaborating" with the authors of both OT2 and AA concerning my chapters in "ProActive Archery" and concerning the "most preferred method" for generating accurate sight tapes/settings charts, they BOTH recommend AGAINST trusting the chronnie method as the "gospel" and BOTH say it is NOT accurate for things like FITA, FITA field, or NFAA Field shooting. Sure, the chronnie will get you on the paper...but it likely isn't going to get you solidly into the X-ring at distance, if even at 30 yards.
> 
> So, I guess the authors and originators of the computer programs know nothing about what they are doing?
> That and shooting field archery, and FITA for nearly 50 years worth of experience concerning sight marks, calculator method of obtaining accurate sight marks and extensive comparisons of calculator, AA, and OT2 methods for obtaining those valuable sets of marks...be it a "sight tape" or a set of printed marks; matters not.
> I'd certainly trust the instructions and recommendations written by the authors of the computer programs and THEIR recommendations long before I'd trust an uncalibrated instrument that has no known "standard." Must be the former quality assurance manager and science teacher (Scientific method) in me, or something like that, hahaha.
> 
> But...whatever trips your trigger, and if what you do is "good enough" then so be it. Good for you.
> 
> field14 (Tom D.)


Yes, I was referring to you as giving directions to something that you do not use or believe in. Of course you have no way of actually knowing this beyond what you have read, the use of a chronograph can be quite effective if you have the proper process to do just that. Now, it took time to develop this process, so it probably would not be where you would want to start... of course this assumes you would at some point actually want to use said SW?

Just to poke a couple of holes in the use of marks to generate proper tapes. Yes, this is an effective method, but you talk like getting good marks to start with is a given. It is not. I defy anyone (excepting the world's best shooters) to get a good set of long distance marks the first time out. Using sight marks it will generally take several attempts of trial and error to get a good tape. If you get really good at it you might cut the process down to 2 attempts. At "most" my method cuts a perfect tape within 2 try's, and usually I get it right the first attempt. Even if you assume 2 try's for each method, it's a tie. Another effective use of the chronograph is to use the chrono to make a first tape and then fine tune the marks and cut a second, usually perfect tape. This can sometimes cut the process in half. Sometimes you just have to think out of the box.


----------



## EPLC

Here's a process that I have found very effective that combines the use of a chronograph to generate very accurate sight tapes. 

1. Measure and enter into the SW all required Bow/Sight/Arrow data.
2. Shoot through chronograph to establish speed and enter into SW and print out tape.
3. Shoot at a thin horizontal line at 7 YDS
4. Install tape and set pin at corresponding yardage for 21 feet.
5. Set sight at and shoot at 30 YDS and adjust sight until you are confident you have a perfect 30 setting. 
6. Set pin on 30 yards on the new tape. Record sight scale setting: This is Mark 1
7. Set sight at 60 yards on the new tape and shoot and adjust sight until a good 60 yard setting has been established. Do not adjust pin during this process, only sight.
8. Record sight scale setting: This is mark 2
9. Enter new sight scale marks for 30 and 60 yards into SW and calculate.
10. Print out a very accurate sight tape for any bow.


----------



## rn3

EPLC said:


> Here's a process that I have found very effective that combines the use of a chronograph to generate very accurate sight tapes.
> 
> 1. Measure and enter into the SW all required Bow/Sight/Arrow data.
> 2. Shoot through chronograph to establish speed and enter into SW and print out tape.
> 3. Shoot at a thin horizontal line at 7 YDS
> 4. Install tape and set pin at corresponding yardage for 21 feet.
> 5. Set sight at and shoot at 30 YDS and adjust sight until you are confident you have a perfect 30 setting.
> 6. Set pin on 30 yards on the new tape. Record sight scale setting: This is Mark 1
> 7. Set sight at 60 yards on the new tape and shoot and adjust sight until a good 60 yard setting has been established. Do not adjust pin during this process, only sight.
> 8. Record sight scale setting: This is mark 2
> 9. Enter new sight scale marks for 30 and 60 yards into SW and calculate.
> 10. Print out a very accurate sight tape for any bow.


I do everything you are doing in OT2 except steps 2,3 and 4 and get an accurate sight tape on the 1st attempt every time.


----------



## ThunderEagle

EPLC said:


> Here's a process that I have found very effective that combines the use of a chronograph to generate very accurate sight tapes.
> 
> 1. Measure and enter into the SW all required Bow/Sight/Arrow data.
> 2. Shoot through chronograph to establish speed and enter into SW and print out tape.
> 3. Shoot at a thin horizontal line at 7 YDS
> 4. Install tape and set pin at corresponding yardage for 21 feet.
> 5. Set sight at and shoot at 30 YDS and adjust sight until you are confident you have a perfect 30 setting.
> 6. Set pin on 30 yards on the new tape. Record sight scale setting: This is Mark 1
> 7. Set sight at 60 yards on the new tape and shoot and adjust sight until a good 60 yard setting has been established. Do not adjust pin during this process, only sight.
> 8. Record sight scale setting: This is mark 2
> 9. Enter new sight scale marks for 30 and 60 yards into SW and calculate.
> 10. Print out a very accurate sight tape for any bow.


Honestly, you and field14 are agreeing mostly. You are using the chrony to get close, then you shoot two numbers in very exact. I believe he mentioned using a chrono reading to get on the paper. I personally like to get several distances, as I'm not always as good as I'd like to be at 60, so getting intermediate distances helps me verify everything.

I'm sure you do not advocate getting a speed reading from a chrono and then using the tape generated from that.


----------



## EPLC

ThunderEagle said:


> Honestly, you and field14 are agreeing mostly. You are using the chrony to get close, then you shoot two numbers in very exact. I believe he mentioned using a chrono reading to get on the paper. I personally like to get several distances, as I'm not always as good as I'd like to be at 60, so getting intermediate distances helps me verify everything.
> 
> I'm sure you do not advocate getting a speed reading from a chrono and then using the tape generated from that.


Actually, I do just that most of the time with excellent results. Using just steps 1-6 generally work out just fine with the option of steps 7-10 to validate. Also, the 60 yard mark can be 45, 50, 55 or whatever you are comfortable with. Even if the 1st tape made with the crono is just a starting point, it is a better starting point than having nothing. I'm not saying not to "follow directions", I'm saying sometimes there are just easier and better ways to do things that you won't find on the instruction sheet. My other point was; Instructions provided by folks that don't use, or even believe in the process make me want to scratch my head


----------



## EPLC

One more point: Archer's Advantage recommends the use of 2 marks for the best results. It also recommends the use of 20 and 80 for those marks. Ok, getting a 20 is simple enough but what about that 80? What's the process that gets you a good 80 YD mark? OMG! It's not in the instructions! Even if you wanted to use this method to make your tape, wouldn't it be much easier to start with a tape that gets you close and then fine tune your 20 & 80 for the final cut?


----------



## montigre

EPLC said:


> One more point: Archer's Advantage recommends the use of 2 marks for the best results. It also recommends the use of 20 and 80 for those marks. Ok, getting a 20 is simple enough but what about that 80? What's the process that gets you a good 80 YD mark? OMG! It's not in the instructions! Even if you wanted to use this method to make your tape, wouldn't it be much easier to start with a tape that gets you close and then fine tune your 20 & 80 for the final cut?


I've used Archers Advantage for several years and usually plug in a 30 and a 50 yard mark. I have not had any major issues using these two distances--In fact, I get more variation from my harness getting bogged down from the mid-summer humidity than I do with my sightings. There's really no need to go for the gusto (80 yarder) if you're setting up for a field run. For a full FITA; now that's another ballgame, and that 80 or at least a good 70 would serve you well. 

I would like to trial Archers Mark, as I have heard very good things about it, but it remains Android unfriendly. :sad:


----------



## wolf44

montigre said:


> I've used Archers Advantage for several years and usually plug in a 30 and a 50 yard mark. I have not had any major issues using these two distances--In fact, I get more variation from my harness getting bogged down from the mid-summer humidity than I do with my sightings. There's really no need to go for the gusto (80 yarder) if you're setting up for a field run. For a full FITA; now that's another ballgame, and that 80 or at least a good 70 would serve you well.
> 
> I would like to trial Archers Mark, as I have heard very good things about it, but it remains Android unfriendly. :sad:


unfortunately it is android unfriendly....AM is the only reason I every switched to an iphone and I am glad i did. Its one of, if not THE most useful piece of equipment that I use on a regular basis.

I still use archers advantage to print off sight tapes as a back up. The AM is nice as it gives you "per-click" settings...no guessing. and the adjust on the fly is nice


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> One more point: Archer's Advantage recommends the use of 2 marks for the best results. It also recommends the use of 20 and 80 for those marks. Ok, getting a 20 is simple enough but what about that 80? What's the process that gets you a good 80 YD mark? OMG! It's not in the instructions! Even if you wanted to use this method to make your tape, wouldn't it be much easier to start with a tape that gets you close and then fine tune your 20 & 80 for the final cut?


The key to getting a "good" 80 is to NOT shoot for "groups" at a dot. set up a HORIZONTAL tape of say 2" wide and then shoot for impact point, NOT groups. If you cannot hold on a 2" wide piece of horizontally placed tape, then go 3" wide...it is still smaller in height than the bullseye on a standard field or hunter face.
for "me", I always site in so that my arrows impact the upper half of that piece of tape, since I tend to shoot low when I get tired, and also, if I hold too long, tend to drift low and obviously miss low.
Also, shooting the 30 yarder for that first setting would likely increase your "accuracy" of that sight tape, too. On my sight, there are at least 32 clicks between the bottom of the bullseye and the top of the bullseye at 20 yards...which will throw things way off. However, you can, at 20 yards "cut this error" down immensely by sighting in on a 1/2" wide piece of horizontally placed tape and NOT shooting at the "x-ring" or for groups. You are interested only in the vertical placement of your shafts and that impact point to ascertain an accurate sight mark. So, sight in untill all your shots are impacting on that 1/2" wide piece of tape and you'll be better off than trying for groups and calling "x-ring hits" good enough. (they aren't). Proactive Archery...Chapter 32, pp. 315-321. Google ProActive Archery, you'll find it easily.

That being said, with the calculator based method, you must use 20 and 65 yards as your two settings. Those MUST be as accurate as possible, and also, you have to convert the clicks to decimals...and rounding off is NOT good. That is a quicky way to get some very, very reliable marks for entry into OT2 and AA.
FOR ME...I much prefer the accuracy of FIVE marks, so use OT2 to fine tune things by entering all 5 marks into the system, based upon my calculator computations. Most often, the two are very, very close, and then I run AA with 30 and 65 as another X-check for the heck of it.
Since I use a placard instead of a sight tape, I simply plug the "numbers" into my excel sheet that has the printout already properly sized and color coded for what I need for both field/hunter, all distances, and 3-D distances. I then mount the printout on the credit card sized placard, cover that with transparent tape, and I'm good to go.
You folks with the archer's mark can do yours on the fly, just like I don mine on the fly with the calculator based method and then improve the "accuracy" by using OT2 to fine tune things.
The calculator based method may be "off" a few clicks on the 70 and 80 and doesn't accommodate the 14 yarder or any of the bunny settings; I always shoot those in anyways, even with OT2 and AA as a "backup."
If your site radius and peep height aren't within 1/32"...then you induce inaccuracies into those bunny settings big time when you use AA or OT2.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> Yes, I was referring to you as giving directions to something that you do not use or believe in. Of course you have no way of actually knowing this beyond what you have read, the use of a chronograph can be quite effective if you have the proper process to do just that. Now, it took time to develop this process, so it probably would not be where you would want to start... of course this assumes you would at some point actually want to use said SW?
> 
> Just to poke a couple of holes in the use of marks to generate proper tapes. Yes, this is an effective method, but you talk like getting good marks to start with is a given. It is not. I defy anyone (excepting the world's best shooters) to get a good set of long distance marks the first time out. Using sight marks it will generally take several attempts of trial and error to get a good tape. If you get really good at it you might cut the process down to 2 attempts. At "most" my method cuts a perfect tape within 2 try's, and usually I get it right the first attempt. Even if you assume 2 try's for each method, it's a tie. Another effective use of the chronograph is to use the chrono to make a first tape and then fine tune the marks and cut a second, usually perfect tape. This can sometimes cut the process in half. Sometimes you just have to think out of the box.


I see where you are coming from on this, but....When I was shooting my best (my personal best field and hunter scores are 557's and lots of scores in the mid 550's) back in the early to late 1990's, we didn't have chronnies; we didn't have OT2, Archer's mark, AA, or clinometers. I was using the "trusty" (and I do mean TRUSTY) calculator based method to get my sight marks. Thus I knew that my 20 and my 65 had to be dead on (as best as I could get them). The sights didn't have "clicks" back then either, so yes, some "rounding" was needed, but I learned never to round up or down a full "number" on the Killian scribed tape I had mounted on my Killian Site Bar.
So, obviously, that calculator based method sped up the previous process of shooting every mark in and marking it on the site bar or a piece of tape!
What we have today is a huge advantage with what was available to those of us shooting into the mid to high 550's in the 1990's and before.
I agree to use this stuff to your advantage, and you, like me, developed something that saves you time and effort; mine being the horizontal tape, yours being the "chronnie method." A person that knows their equipment can get pretty efficient at "wagging" a setting to get it onto the 4-ring or even better and then clean it up from there, ha.
Nothing wrong with thinking out of the box, but...again...people with experience know what or have learned what to do...which is NOT "most" of the people that are participating on this thread. They don't know the "little secrets" that we do.
So, when the developers of the software tell you that using the chronnie method is the LEAST desirable...you go with that or if you don't, you know that you are going to be making some serious adjustments to your settings at longer distances.
No ONE method is perfect...they are all only as good as the "head" getting the numbers to plug into the system, whatever that system is.
I still use the calculator based method out in the field to get those settings because for me it is quick and efficient and I can, in a matter of minutes make adjustments and recalclulate when I find a "bad" setting after I've completed the initial calculations. I can reverse the formula (backwork it) or I can work with a % of how far off a setting is and go from there to Clean it up. Of course you have to know how to do the math while out in the field, hahaha.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> Yes, I was referring to you as giving directions to something that you do not use or believe in. Of course you have no way of actually knowing this beyond what you have read, the use of a chronograph can be quite effective if you have the proper process to do just that. Now, it took time to develop this process, so it probably would not be where you would want to start... of course this assumes you would at some point actually want to use said SW?
> 
> Just to poke a couple of holes in the use of marks to generate proper tapes. Yes, this is an effective method, but you talk like getting good marks to start with is a given. It is not. I defy anyone (excepting the world's best shooters) to get a good set of long distance marks the first time out. Using sight marks it will generally take several attempts of trial and error to get a good tape. If you get really good at it you might cut the process down to 2 attempts. At "most" my method cuts a perfect tape within 2 try's, and usually I get it right the first attempt. Even if you assume 2 try's for each method, it's a tie. Another effective use of the chronograph is to use the chrono to make a first tape and then fine tune the marks and cut a second, usually perfect tape. This can sometimes cut the process in half. Sometimes you just have to think out of the box.


I see where you are coming from on this, but....When I was shooting my best (my personal best field and hunter scores are 557's and lots of scores in the mid 550's) back in the early to late 1990's, we didn't have chronnies; we didn't have OT2, Archer's mark, AA, or clinometers. I was using the "trusty" (and I do mean TRUSTY) calculator based method to get my sight marks. Thus I knew that my 20 and my 65 had to be dead on (as best as I could get them). The sights didn't have "clicks" back then either, so yes, some "rounding" was needed, but I learned never to round up or down a full "number" on the Killian scribed tape I had mounted on my Killian Site Bar.
The KEY? The use of a horizontal tape to get those settings! We are after the VERTICAL displacement and NOT grouping (assuming you have "group tuned" your setup, that is). I know very well that when my arrows are impacting the upper half of that horizontal tape, my setting is GOOD, period. Of course it is rechecked with another volley or three of arrows with that same exact setting (including the "clicks"). Bad shots are tossed, of course.
So, obviously, that calculator based method sped up the previous process of shooting every mark in and marking it on the site bar or a piece of tape!
What we have today is a huge advantage with what was available to those of us shooting into the mid to high 550's in the 1990's and before.
I agree to use this stuff to your advantage, and you, like me, developed something that saves you time and effort; mine being the horizontal tape, yours being the "chronnie method." A person that knows their equipment can get pretty efficient at "wagging" a setting to get it onto the 4-ring or even better and then clean it up from there, ha.
Nothing wrong with thinking out of the box, but...again...people with experience know what or have learned what to do...which is NOT "most" of the people that are participating on this thread. They don't know the "little secrets" that we do.
So, when the developers of the software tell you that using the chronnie method is the LEAST desirable...you go with that or if you don't, you know that you are going to be making some serious adjustments to your settings at longer distances.
No ONE method is perfect...they are all only as good as the "head" getting the numbers to plug into the system, whatever that system is.
I still use the calculator based method out in the field to get those settings because for me it is quick and efficient and I can, in a matter of minutes make adjustments and recalclulate when I find a "bad" setting after I've completed the initial calculations.


----------



## EPLC

field14 said:


> I see where you are coming from on this, but....When I was shooting my best (my personal best field and hunter scores are 557's and lots of scores in the mid 550's) back in the early to late 1990's, we didn't have chronnies; we didn't have OT2, Archer's mark, AA, or clinometers. I was using the "trusty" (and I do mean TRUSTY) calculator based method to get my sight marks. Thus I knew that my 20 and my 65 had to be dead on (as best as I could get them). The sights didn't have "clicks" back then either, so yes, some "rounding" was needed, but I learned never to round up or down a full "number" on the Killian scribed tape I had mounted on my Killian Site Bar.
> So, obviously, that calculator based method sped up the previous process of shooting every mark in and marking it on the site bar or a piece of tape!
> What we have today is a huge advantage with what was available to those of us shooting into the mid to high 550's in the 1990's and before.
> I agree to use this stuff to your advantage, and you, like me, developed something that saves you time and effort; mine being the horizontal tape, yours being the "chronnie method." A person that knows their equipment can get pretty efficient at "wagging" a setting to get it onto the 4-ring or even better and then clean it up from there, ha.
> Nothing wrong with thinking out of the box, but...again...people with experience know what or have learned what to do...which is NOT "most" of the people that are participating on this thread. They don't know the "little secrets" that we do.
> So, when the developers of the software tell you that using the chronnie method is the LEAST desirable...you go with that or if you don't, you know that you are going to be making some serious adjustments to your settings at longer distances.
> No ONE method is perfect...they are all only as good as the "head" getting the numbers to plug into the system, whatever that system is.
> I still use the calculator based method out in the field to get those settings because for me it is quick and efficient and I can, in a matter of minutes make adjustments and recalclulate when I find a "bad" setting after I've completed the initial calculations.


What I'm saying Tom is that you "sometimes" give the impression that one should never deviate from your description of the "norm"... Topics such as this one and others such as back tension come to mind. Quite frankly, this is a Intermediate/Advanced forum and unless I miss my guess the folks here would be very interested in successful ideas that may be outside the box. Nearly ever method has another approach that can be as or more successful than the most commonly accepted ones. It's all in the process and how you use it. In the example of making sight tapes, which you have said you have little practical experience, the use of a chronograph can be very useful to get a starting tape rather than shooting blind to get a 20 and an 80 mark. In many instances using this method will produce a perfect tape that will be validated during the second step. 

So Archer's Advantage recommends entering 20 and 80 yard marks as the best method to produce accurate sight tapes. No argument from me, but without a starting point, what would the process be for getting that 80 yard mark? Ok, you shoot at a horizontal line, but where do you set the sight? It's one thing to say entering marks is the best way, but quite another if there is no process to get you those marks. I submit that my process considers how you get those marks, and if done properly you may not even need them.


----------



## Padgett

I have been really enjoying all of the guys in this thread and reading about their methods, just last night I was shooting from 5 to 7:30pm in my yard and I spend most of my time at 40 and 50 yards and both of those distances I felt like I was hitting really solid and that my sight tape was taking care of me but I was planning on going to my dads house and making a sight tape with my old 50 yard setting and my new 30 yard setting like I had told you guys that I was going to. 

But, wait a minute. 

Last night when I shot my new 30 yard setting that i had found over the last few days it was shooting out the bottom of the 12 ring over and over and over about a quarter inch and when I finally set my sight back to the old 30 yard setting I was drilling the 12 ring dead on.

To me this is one of the things that I was trying to refer to in my original post as one of my most important rules when making a sight tape, Spend a good week shooting at the distances that you are going to use to make the sight tape. I am a really good shooter capable of shooting 60x rounds and hitting 12 rings at 40 yards almost every shot but even then I am not good enough to only shoot a few shots one afternoon at some horizontal tape and call it perfect. I have learned that sometimes that your execution can be acting a little weird one day and do the same stinking thing over and over and even though you are hitting decent or even dead on it is a lie. So I enjoy my week of shooting and in the end I have something to be proud of and compete with.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> What I'm saying Tom is that you "sometimes" give the impression that one should never deviate from your description of the "norm"... Topics such as this one and others such as back tension come to mind. Quite frankly, this is a Intermediate/Advanced forum and unless I miss my guess the folks here would be very interested in successful ideas that may be outside the box. Nearly ever method has another approach that can be as or more successful than the most commonly accepted ones. *It's all in the process and how you use it.* In the example of making sight tapes, which you have said you have little practical experience, the use of a chronograph can be very useful to get a starting tape rather than shooting blind to get a 20 and an 80 mark. In many instances using this method will produce a perfect tape that will be validated during the second step.
> 
> So Archer's Advantage recommends entering 20 and 80 yard marks as the best method to produce accurate sight tapes. No argument from me, but without a starting point, what would the process be for getting that 80 yard mark? Ok, you shoot at a horizontal line, but where do you set the sight? It's one thing to say entering marks is the best way, but quite another if there is no process to get you those marks. I submit that my process considers how you get those marks, and if done properly you may not even need them.


Bingo in red above! However, I did NOT say I have 'little practical experience' in making and using site tapes!!! I couldn't possibly have included those chapters in "ProActive Archery" if I didn't have a clue or had "little practical experience" in using them.
I can say that I don't have a big use for sight tapes, but I certainly did not say "I don't know how to make them or to use them!" I use site tapes for a "backup" to my placard system.

Leave it at this: You have your "preferred method", BOTH AA and OT2 clearly state that the used of a chronnie as the FIRST CHOICE is the least accurate and isn't recommended as a first choice to be trusted.

ALL of the methods will need fine tuning, ALL of the methods are only as good as the person that is obtaining the "numbers" for entry into the system. Any selection of one or a combination of several methods will produce a tape that is "dead on" as far as the particular user goes...it is dead on above and beyond the capability of the shooter? Nope. Why? Because if a setting comes out different than what the used thinks it should be, he/she will be "checking it out"...be it right or wrong, and won't "trust it" and will massage it to "make it right" (according to the user). That is human nature.

If you cannot hold steady enough to get any mark "perfect" then the rest will also be flawed.

Now, For grins, using your chronnie and entering your stuff that way is fine and dandy, no problem with that since you've massaged "your" system and know what you are doing with it, just as I do with the several that I'm very, very, very experienced in using and have tested (had to do this all BEFORE putting this sort of stuff into that book!!! "little practical experience" won't cut it!!).
The is a "preferred method" which both AA and OT2 tell you straight up, and there are less preferred methods, too, and they tell you that in advance. Then there are "standard practices", and almost everything relating to data gathering, data entry, and computations have "standard practices", or "Best procedures"; some even dictate you WILL do it this way, and no other (standard methods for XXXX come to mind, and I have LOTS of practical experience with "standard methods as a former quality assurance manager, USAF flight crew member, and other things, haha.).

So, I do agree that there is a process to "get those marks", and different shooters have different processes; no doubt about that.

What I would like to know, however is this: Obviously, when you started the chronnie method you use, there was a DIFFERENCE between what those site tapes finally turned out your arrow speed to be, and what YOUR chronnie was reading! It would be nearly impossible for the computer's chronnie speed and what YOUR chronnie reading was/is...at least at the beginning.
Thus, like anything else, you have likely developed a "correction factor" for what your chronnie reads and what the computer program "calculates" as your actual. OR...do you OVERRIDE this by using some other "corrections" in the system. Either way, you must be using some sort of "correction factor" to get things square with your "chronnie reading."

What is your correction factor? You obviously always use the SAME instrument every single time, correct?
You probably know after using your system for so long just how far "off" your chronnie is from what the computer turns out, or you know how much to "correct" your chronnie reading to give to the computer so it generates a "good tape" on either the first or second try.
You obviously, like me, are NOT running "in the blind" with all this stuff, but there is more to it than just tossing in that chronnie speed. Massaging the thing is really applying a 'correction factor."
I'm very interested in the finer points of how you go about this, and I'm sure that the developers/writers of OT2 and AA may well be interested in it as well!!!

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## tmorelli

One of my "tricks" to manage what Padgett is talking about is this....

When I'm setting a mark, I move the sight on every good shot. Every one of them. If I break low, or high, or left, or not cleanly, etc... I disregard it. But every good shot that breaks in the middle and doesn't hit in the middle gets adjusted....until they hit what I'm aiming at. 

Then, I move to the other end of the tape and check it with the same mentality. Say I drilled at 50, move to 25, set my sight on 25 and miss high (at all) on the first good shot I know my tape is probably long. So, I adjust to hit, make a mental note of the new mark and go back to the long side.... Repeat until I can go back and forth through the tape and hit on the first shot.

The reason I do this is that my subconscious mind won't allow me to stand in one spot and miss repeatedly... I will start to put "English" on the shot to hit center within just a couple shots.

I also do not sight in on dots. I prefer to sight in on 3d targets but also use bag targets.... Except that I paint my bags brown and spend my time aiming at arrow holes, wrinkles, shadows, blank areas, etc. I also know with surprising precision where the pin was when the shot broke and where the arrow hit compared to the pin... I don't doubt I could sight in on a blank 4'*8' sheet of cardboard based on this mental image alone... Better than I can on dots.


----------



## field14

Padgett said:


> I have been really enjoying all of the guys in this thread and reading about their methods, just last night I was shooting from 5 to 7:30pm in my yard and I spend most of my time at 40 and 50 yards and both of those distances I felt like I was hitting really solid and that my sight tape was taking care of me but I was planning on going to my dads house and making a sight tape with my old 50 yard setting and my new 30 yard setting like I had told you guys that I was going to.
> 
> But, wait a minute.
> 
> Last night when I shot my new 30 yard setting that i had found over the last few days it was shooting out the bottom of the 12 ring over and over and over about a quarter inch and when I finally set my sight back to the old 30 yard setting I was drilling the 12 ring dead on.
> 
> To me this is one of the things that I was trying to refer to in my original post as one of my most important rules when making a sight tape, Spend a good week shooting at the distances that you are going to use to make the sight tape. I am a really good shooter capable of shooting 60x rounds and hitting 12 rings at 40 yards almost every shot but even then I am not good enough to only shoot a few shots one afternoon at some horizontal tape and call it perfect. I have learned that sometimes that your execution can be acting a little weird one day and do the same stinking thing over and over and even though you are hitting decent or even dead on it is a lie. So I enjoy my week of shooting and in the end I have something to be proud of and compete with.


BINGO!!! As Michael Douglas said in 'Ghosts in the Darkness": "You NEVER go into battle with an UNTESTED weapon!"
If you wait until the day before a competition to get sight settings and trust those, you could get lucky and they'll be ok; OR, as is often the case, they are untested, and you are going to be in for a long, long day of 2nd guessing yourself.

Back in the day, with my Hoyt ProVantage Carbon Plus, I shot the same strings, cables, springie arrow rest, aluminum arrow shaft sizes and specs, and the SAME SITE SETTINGS for 3 solid years! I never had to touch a thing for 3 years of shooting, and back then, I shot a lot more each day than I do now! What undid that? The cabling wore out! I was able to get the bow setup back into spec quickly, but it was not EXACTLY the same with regard to site settings; it was CLOSE, but wasn't quite as perfect as it was for the prior 3 solid years. Dang it...had to use my calculator method and sight in again. If I recall correctly, however, the bow was shooting "hotter," so my 65 yarder was a yard high or so requiring me to recalculate based upon the tighter "gap" between the super accurate 20 yarder and the newly acquired 65 yard setting, and I was good to go again in a matter of a couple of hours of shooting to make sure.
Again, "You NEVER go into battle with an untested weapon." In addition, you NEVER make sight setting corrections or needle corrections on the PRACTICE AREA!! OUCH!


----------



## EPLC

Correction factor: Chronograph reading minus 5 fps... is what I enter into AA. I then set my pin by shooting in at 21 feet. I do use a thin horizontal line. I may have to adjust the pin, which I do at 30 yards. I then validate while shooting. Sometimes the first tape is right on but there are times where a 2nd tape needs to be cut. Your results may vary.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> Correction factor: Chronograph reading minus 5 fps... is what I enter into AA. I then set my pin by shooting in at 21 feet. I do use a thin horizontal line. I may have to adjust the pin, which I do at 30 yards. I then validate while shooting. Sometimes the first tape is right on but there are times where a 2nd tape needs to be cut. Your results may vary.


Now THIS is important for those readers on here to realize, isn't it? You and I both have experience with our preferred methods and like so many other experienced people, take some things for "granted" that others don't think of and take what is said at face value and then wonder why they didn't get results like you explained you were getting.
You provided a very KEY element as to why 'your' chronnie method is working out for you. The "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would have said years ago!

I'm also assuming you always use the same instrument (chronnie) and don't vary from that, and that you also make sure your battery isn't weak or drained at lower than 60%? Just some "standard procedures" when dealing with electronics or any instrumentation; especially those instruments that cannot be calibrated to a "known standard." You have basically "calibrated" your chronnie to the computer program you are using, ha.
Would be interesting for you to enter your Numbers into OT2 and use all 5 settings from AA into OT2 and see what OT2 says your actual OT2 arrow speed is based upon AA data you provide.


----------



## EPLC

field14 said:


> Now THIS is important for those readers on here to realize, isn't it? You and I both have experience with our preferred methods and like so many other experienced people, take some things for "granted" that others don't think of and take what is said at face value and then wonder why they didn't get results like you explained you were getting.
> You provided a very KEY element as to why 'your' chronnie method is working out for you. The "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would have said years ago!
> 
> I'm also assuming you always use the same instrument (chronnie) and don't vary from that, and that you also make sure your battery isn't weak or drained at lower than 60%? Just some "standard procedures" when dealing with electronics or any instrumentation; especially those instruments that cannot be calibrated to a "known standard." You have basically "calibrated" your chronnie to the computer program you are using, ha.
> Would be interesting for you to enter your Numbers into OT2 and use all 5 settings from AA into OT2 and see what OT2 says your actual OT2 arrow speed is based upon AA data you provide.


Yes, these things are important, but also should be quite intuitive for those that delve into the unknown


----------



## Padgett

For those of you guys that are 3d shooters like tmorelli and I you need to read his last post just a few above this one because he does a good job of explaining a very important quality that asa shooters have figured out. 

I haven't done it in a while and I need to so I may do it tonight because it is a awesome drill, here it is.

1. Set your sight on some yardage such as 37 yards and walk up to 35 yards and shoot a few arrows

2. Then go to 36 yards and shoot a few

3. then 37

4. Then 38

5. then 39

6. then 40

What this does is it teaches you how you r bow is going to hit when it is set wrong at a variety of distances shorter and longer than what you have it set for. Secondly it will show you if you have your needle set correctly because if you are supposed to hit a little high but it is dead on and when you are at 37 you are hitting a little low then you know that the needle is off.

Tmorelli said something very cool when he talked about standing in one spot and the subconscious mind compensates and allows you to hit the spot even though it isn't right. I have noticed this for years and it totally corresponds to shooting at dots and not doing it because your brain will compensate and aim a little bit off and allow you to hit dead center when you are pumping tons of shots at one distance and give you a false impression of actually being sighted in.

His shooting one arrow and then moving to a different distance is a very very good idea when it comes to checking your needle setting and sight tape and windage and basically everything.


----------



## Padgett

You know actually when I do that little 37 yard drill I mentioned up there I actually aim at the same spot and I start at 35 and shoot one arrow from each yardage and if I am shooting good it will walk my arrows down to the 12 ring and then below the 12 ring and it is so cool.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> Yes, these things are important, but also should be quite intuitive for those that delve into the unknown


As a former professional educator and trainer, NEVER trust anything to be "intuitive" and don't take for granted that just because they might be "mid-level" that they already know this stuff!!! Been there to many times over the past 50+ years and trusting that your audience "already knows this stuff" isn't the best approach. You'd be amazed what "students" don't know that first off, they "should know", and even more amazed at how they tend to look right past the obvious and then also expect everything to be "given"...including answers on tests, hahaha.


----------



## EPLC

field14 said:


> As a former professional educator and trainer, NEVER trust anything to be "intuitive" and don't take for granted that just because they might be "mid-level" that they already know this stuff!!! Been there to many times over the past 50+ years and trusting that your audience "already knows this stuff" isn't the best.


Notice that I qualified my statement with, "for those that delve into the unknown"... For most folks whose comfort zone stays within the box you are absolutely correct but people that like to push the envelope had better have some intuition or they will be in a consent state of repair.


----------



## field14

Padgett said:


> For those of you guys that are 3d shooters like tmorelli and I you need to read his last post just a few above this one because he does a good job of explaining a very important quality that asa shooters have figured out.
> 
> I haven't done it in a while and I need to so I may do it tonight because it is a awesome drill, here it is.
> 
> 1. Set your sight on some yardage such as 37 yards and walk up to 35 yards and shoot a few arrows
> 
> 2. Then go to 36 yards and shoot a few
> 
> 3. then 37
> 
> 4. Then 38
> 
> 5. then 39
> 
> 6. then 40
> 
> What this does is it teaches you how you r bow is going to hit when it is set wrong at a variety of distances shorter and longer than what you have it set for. Secondly it will show you if you have your needle set correctly because if you are supposed to hit a little high but it is dead on and when you are at 37 you are hitting a little low then you know that the needle is off.
> 
> Tmorelli said something very cool when he talked about standing in one spot and the subconscious mind compensates and allows you to hit the spot even though it isn't right. I have noticed this for years and it totally corresponds to shooting at dots and not doing it because your brain will compensate and aim a little bit off and allow you to hit dead center when you are pumping tons of shots at one distance and give you a false impression of actually being sighted in.
> 
> His shooting one arrow and then moving to a different distance is a very very good idea when it comes to checking your needle setting and sight tape and windage and basically everything.


Field shooters, or at least "ProActive" field shooters have done this for years and years so that they know how THEIR bow shoots based upon a "mis-set sight". WHEN they are shooting on an unfamiliar course, this allows them to know how to "reset" their sight based upon their impact point without really "guessing." Of course, you gotta know whether or not you shot a good shot before adjusting, but knowing how high or low you shoot if off 1/2, 1, 1.5, or 2 yards is critical to shooting good or great field scores. Seems like I've always run across a target or so on most field courses that just don't quite "shoot what is marked"...be it because of a mis-placed stake or block, or just from the lay of the land. You dun gotta know!
Of course, on a field course, you won't shoot more than 4 arrows at any given distance for that target; then you move on. On a Hunter round, then things are quite different, and there are a lot of one shot and move, or two shots and move type scenarios. FITA and Target (900) rounds are shooting lots of arrows at one distance before moving, but you still gotta know your equipment and how to compensate if you or the equipment is off kilter; just like you do in 3-D.
It is the same with bubbling...you gotta know how far your impact point moves with 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and full bubble left and right on a CALM situation (if you are a "bubbler" for wind correction, that is). Myself, I only aim off center when the wind is howling or I'm at a full bubble and still not hitting center. This is a practiced thing, you don't learn it over night or try to learn how to "bubble" on a windy day. Gotta know how your equipment performs for WHEN things aren't completely right. Also, of course, you must know if that "miss" was a good shot and the "yardage" is off or if it is operator error and make a quick assessment and adjust if necessary.
All part of this lovely game of field/target/3-D shooting.


----------



## EPLC

Ok, just to prove my point. My original tape was cut using a chronograph reading of 280 fps. My process concludes that 275 would be the speed entered into AA. After sighting in and making slight adjustments I cut a second tape based on 2 marks that I am very confident in. The second calculation determined the actual speed was 272.69, an actual difference of 2.31 fps. What does this actually mean? In terms of actual sight setting it's a 10 click difference at 80 yards. Naturally I want as perfect a tape as is possible, but that first tape was very close... In fact with a plus or minus 1 fps the original tape would score a low 5 at 80 yards according to the AA trajectory chart. 

20 YD 10.2 vs 10.2
30 TD 13.4 vs 13.5
40 YD 17.4 vs 17.6
50 YD 21.8 vs 22.1
60 YD 26.5 vs 26.8
70 YD 31.4 vs 31.8
80 YD 36.5 vs 37.0
90 YD 41.7 vs 42.3
100 YD 47.1 vs 47.8


----------



## EPLC

This has all been very good for me. As mentioned I've been having to compensate my chronograph reading by -5 fps and it used to be -3. When I look back it used to be 0. This morning I was going through my process to cut a new tape because I added some draw weight to my bow and found an issue. My chronograph, which folds in half for storage, had folded slightly away from the stop. This is why it was reading faster. Had I not been involved in this thread I may not have picked up on this. The reading is now 5 fps slower than what I was getting. I should be able to cut a tape with zero compensation now. I will test out my new tape later today


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> This has all been very good for me. As mentioned I've been having to compensate my chronograph reading by -5 fps and it used to be -3. When I look back it used to be 0. This morning I was going through my process to cut a new tape because I added some draw weight to my bow and found an issue. My chronograph, which folds in half for storage, had folded slightly away from the stop. This is why it was reading faster. Had I not been involved in this thread I may not have picked up on this. The reading is now 5 fps slower than what I was getting. I should be able to cut a tape with zero compensation now. I will test out my new tape later today


I think that by bringing up the "correction factor" thing with regard to any electronic instrument...or for that matter something as simple as the magnifier on your site scale has helped immensely.
Classroom and training seminar experience tells me that most "students" look past things that the presenter may have taken as "intuitive" and take everything presented simply at face value.
To tell them to use their chronnie would imply to most to "use the chronnie" and go for it. They'd never realize, if you or I don't tell them that "the chronnie reading you enter may have to be "corrected" to match your sight marks in the 2nd or 3rd analysis." They'd just figure the computer program was "wrong" and not know what to do.
Same thing with the magnifier on the sight tape (for those of us whose arms are too short, hahaha)....most do not realize that you must hold the sight at the same angle and have your eyes aligned in the same position with regard to the magnifier. Otherwise you induce HUGE setting errors when you are setting your bow sight! This is akin to reading the "bottom of the meniscus" when measuring out any liquid in a glass or plastic cylinder or container...you hold it at EYE LEVEL, not at any other angle!
With my particular magnifier, I can "change" what I see as my sight setting by TWO full numbers simply by holding the magnifier in a different angle/position with relation to my eyes!!! Of course, without the magnifier, your induce error is way less...won't ever be "two numbers" worth...but...these old eyes have a tough time seeing the needle, let alone the numbers on the sight scale/tape!! hahahaha. There are always cheater glasses, which IMHO are better that the magnifier with regard to seeing your sight settings and that needle so you line things up correctly. BEWARE the magnifier!!
Another piece of advice: NEVER trust a single reading through your chronnie, or any other electronic instrument or any measuring instrument for that matter. THREE readings are always recommended as a "good practice", and FIVE readings are even better. You "toss" the ringers and take the best three and average them. Of course if all three or 5 readings match up, then good for you and good for the instrument...but again NEVER EVER use ONE reading as "gospel." NEVER EVER use only ONE shot thru paper for the paper test as "good enough" either.
More 'ProActive Archery' in practice!
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Lazarus

You know, I shot in a set of marks this morning from 20-80 yards from scratch in less time than it would take me to read this topic. And I can assure you there's no guesswork in it, nor can anyone tell me I did it wrong. 

Step one, got the 40 all in the white on a 35cm hunter face
Step two, got the 30 all in the x on a 35cm hunter face
Step three, got the 20 all "on" the x on a 35 cm hunter face
Step four, measured the distance between the 30 and 40 and set the 50 accordingly, made a minor adjustment to put 4 in the white on the 35cm face.
Step five, used same distance above, cranked the sight down to approximately where the 80 should be, shot four arrows, adjusted sight, shot four more all in the white on the 50cm face, marked it. 
Step six, measured where the 70 should be, all four arrows were in the white on the 50cm face, marked it.
Step seven, measured the 60, shot four, wasn't happy with it, shot four more and they still hit low, turned the screw 1/2 turn, shot four, marked it. 

Only took an hour and was interrupted several times. It escapes me how so much of the archery world will trust a computer program, (then admit they will double check the marks and often have to tweek them,) more than a set of shot in marks. Bottom line, if I can't shoot a set of marks in more accurate than some computer program I probably should take up golf. :becky:


----------



## field14

Lazarus said:


> You know, I shot in a set of marks this morning from 20-80 yards from scratch in less time than it would take me to read this topic. And I can assure you there's no guesswork in it, nor can anyone tell me I did it wrong.
> 
> Step one, got the 40 all in the white on a 35cm hunter face
> Step two, got the 30 all in the x on a 35cm hunter face
> Step three, got the 20 all "on" the x on a 35 cm hunter face
> Step four, measured the distance between the 30 and 40 and set the 50 accordingly, made a minor adjustment to put 4 in the white on the 35cm face.
> Step five, used same distance above, cranked the sight down to approximately where the 80 should be, shot four arrows, adjusted sight, shot four more all in the white on the 50cm face, marked it.
> Step six, measured where the 70 should be, all four arrows were in the white on the 50cm face, marked it.
> Step seven, measured the 60, shot four, wasn't happy with it, shot four more and they still hit low, turned the screw 1/2 turn, shot four, marked it.
> 
> Only took an hour and was interrupted several times. It escapes me how so much of the archery world will trust a computer program, (then admit they will double check the marks and often have to tweek them,) more than a set of shot in marks. Bottom line, if I can't shoot a set of marks in more accurate than some computer program I probably should take up golf. :becky:


"Never go into battle with an untested weapon." hahaha.
I'll be getting out with a new bow, a new bow sight, and my trusty "calculator based" data entry sheet. I'll shoot my 20 yard setting in on a 1/2" wide horizontal tape and "write it down" To the nearest 0.01.
I'll then shoot in my 65 on a 2" wide horizontal tape and make sure ALL my arrows are in the upper half of that. IF I can hold well onto 1.5" wide horizontal tape, I'll try and tweak the 65 from that, again writing down that to the nearest 0.01.
Then, using my trusty hand held calculator, I'll run the entire series of calculations, which will take about 5-10 minutes.
Then, I'll get my butt out on the course and shoot each distance on the field and hunter rounds and have fun doing it! I get to shoot for real and at the same time checking the "calculations".
Oh, wait, I have to SHOOT IN the bunny and 14 yard settings...while on the course, and write those down.
When I get home, I'll enter the "data" into my excel sheet that is set up to print my placard in the correct colors and size to mount on my piece of plastic that is my placard holder. 
I can then, if I choose to, go into OT2 and enter FIVE of my sight settings and get a cross-check printout AND my cut chart so that I can print it out and laminated it with packing tape.
I simply cover the placard printout with transparent tape (that I can write on), and I'm done.
This year, I probably won't bother with a printed site tape and the hassle of running it and mounting it on my vertical site bar.

IF I owned a chronnie of my own, I'd likely try what EPLC is doing, since once you know your 'correction factor' for your instrument, it seems like it would work out quite well. What EPLC does is an old "ballistics trick" my father and I used with our high powered rifles to get the VERTICAL portion of our sighting in our rifles. We didn't have a chronograph for our muzzle velocityFor our particular "load" out of our 300 H&H magnum rifle, we sighted the weapon in dead on at 23 yards. It was then "on again" at 250 yards and we adjusted the scopes "windage" to get the horizontal component on a calm day. Saved lots of ammunition that way!

Different load or rifle? Different sighting in distance to get it "back on" out at 250 yards.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## [email protected]

reylamb said:


> You missed one of the biggest mistakes I see folks make....
> 
> They will actual somehow stretch the physical tape when they put it on!!!!!


This is a very good point. The same thing can happen to the mylar replacement scales that some target sights use. If you use a stretched mylar tape to establish sight marks for a velocity, you'll get goofy results. You can check if the mylar has been stretched, by setting the pointer at a main mark at the top of the scale..say 10..then just spinning the vertical adjust knob (counting clicks as you go) up to the 90 mark on the bottom of the scale. Divide the number of clicks by the click value the manufacturer says the sight has. The result should be the number marks that you traversed from 10-90. If it isn't, either the tape is stretched or the click value provided by the manufacturer is incorrect. You don't have to actually count individual clicks..just count the turns of the vertical adjust knob..1 turn = X clicks. 




tmorelli said:


> I go about this the simplest, most dumbed down way possible.
> 
> I use the preprinted sheets of tapes available from CBE, Lancaster, LP, etc.
> 
> I "rough in" a 20-30 and a 50-60 (just a short and a long....not overly important). Then I select a tape that matches that spread. Then, I shoot it for a while. I can pretty quickly tell if it is long or short and if it is, I'll go to the next tape.


This is a very simple and easy way to approach to deciding on a sight tape to use. If I'm not mistaken, most the pre-printed sheets are spaced in 2fps increments between tapes (exception HHA are 2.5fps). If your actual velocity falls between 2 tapes, you're forced to settle for the closest one.

The Windows versions of SoftwareForArchers(SFA) and TapesAndCharts(TAC) has a feature where you can print your own sheets. With the "Create Spread" feature, you can specify the FPS spacing you want; from 0.1FPS to 2.5FPS between tapes. So 10 tapes could span 1FPS or 25FPS. An Added benefit over the pre-printed tapes is that you can customize the look of the tape at the same time. Mark spacing, mark line thickness, yard/meter number font size, etc. (post #42 shows a SFA/TAC sight tape with header and footer)




Padgett said:


> This has been a great thread for me, I am setting up my old bowtech specialist as my 3d bow and obviously needing to make a sight tape for it so this was the perfect timing for this thread.
> 
> For me I told you guys that I was spending a good week nailing down my 20 yard mark because I knew that it had to much variation in it and was a poor choice but I thought that I had a way of getting around that issue. The fact that I didn't really think about using 30 yards as one of my two distances is just stupid and exactly what I was hoping to get from this thread.
> 
> It amazes me here on archery talk how you can be totally confident in a method but by putting it out there and then listening to the other guys talk about their approaches you can either gain a even stronger sense of confidence in our method or find something that needs changed. I still think my general method is a really good one for unknown 3d but by switching my two known distances from 60 20 to 50 30 may allow me to produce a sight tape that performs even better.


The reason for it generally being easier to get better results with longer distances is because the further from the target you go, the more 1 click affects the impact point of the shot. At 20 yards it might take 10 clicks to move your impact point 1/2". Where at 40, it might just take 1 or 2. 

The finer the click value on a sight the more clicks it will take to move "x" distance at 20 yards. An Axcel sight with a 0.00156 click value will take more clicks to move 1/2" at 20 yards than a SureLoc 10 Click with a click value of 0.004. If you're a "math head" think circular sector or arc of a circle.

The user manuals for most rifle scopes give an example of how this works. 1 click = 1/4" at 100 yards. 4 clicks = 1/4" at 25 yards. The only archery sight manufacturer that I know of to publish this type of info is Copper John..
http://www.copperjohn.com/wp-conten...ical-guide-archery-sights-bow-sights-ANTS.pdf




EPLC said:


> This has all been very good for me. As mentioned I've been having to compensate my chronograph reading by -5 fps and it used to be -3. When I look back it used to be 0. This morning I was going through my process to cut a new tape because I added some draw weight to my bow and found an issue. My chronograph, which folds in half for storage, had folded slightly away from the stop. This is why it was reading faster. Had I not been involved in this thread I may not have picked up on this. The reading is now 5 fps slower than what I was getting. I should be able to cut a tape with zero compensation now. I will test out my new tape later today


I think the point about using technology (chronographs and rangefinders) is that the info they provide can be variable. Lighting affects how a chronograph reads. You'll get a different reading on a cloudy day versus a sunny day. Battery power level also can affect chronograph readings. Temperature can affect battery power as well. The other issue with chronographs is that from unit to unit the velocity output can vary. Think 3% variance rule for DQs at 3D and NFAA shoots. A 3% "error" at 280FPS is 8FPS. A sight tape off by 8FPS is not very useful. 

When it comes to measuring distance, a good metal tape would would be the most accurate way to measure distance as opposed to using a rangefinder. The same variable readings can occur with low battery or cold temperatures. Unless you use a range finder that is accurate to the 0.1 yard or meter, you get more of a distance estimate, as many rangefinders are only accurate to +-1 yard or meter. If a field course is laid out for distance using a metal tape, the measurement is generally made on, or very close to, the ground. If you use an angle compensating rangefinder, you'll get a different reading for distance depending on your height. If you use a rangefinder to set your sight marks to make your tape, use the same rangefinder to range targets (field shoots) in competition. Don't depend on a buddy's rangefinder unless you know they both give the same results.


----------



## [email protected]

Another tip..

If you're having trouble with either short or long marks, you might be floating your anchor as you adjust to keep the scope housing centered in the peep. 

To avoid anchor float, pick a mid-distance to set your peep where it is comfortable. 

Example..for field shoots you need marks between 20ft to 80yds...set your peep height with your scope set for a 35-40yd shot. The avg field shot is about 40yds. 

So, with your blah-blah sight set for a 40yd shot...

1) Close your eyes and draw the bow. 
2) Open your eyes.
3) Is the peep aligned with the scope housing?

No? Let-Down and adjust peep then repeat steps 1-3
Yes? Done.

With your peep set for a comfortable hold where you make the most shots, you will have a "tight" anchor at 20yds but your 80yd anchor will only be slightly loose. 

Contrast this with setting your peep height for a comfortable hold at 20yds and then every anchor gets looser the further distance you shoot..with the 80yd almost "floating".


----------



## Padgett

I used a tape from school for track to mark all my distances in my yard out to 50 yards and I dug a small hole and put in a brick, so now I can know that I am dead on standing at a correct distance and also click my rangefinder and make sure it is reading correctly.


----------



## montigre

[email protected] said:


> Another tip..
> If you're having trouble with either short or long marks, you might be floating your anchor as you adjust to keep the scope housing centered in the peep.
> To avoid anchor float, pick a mid-distance to set your peep where it is comfortable.


Thanks for the tip, but I have a suspicion that most of us who have been shooting distance for any length of time do this as a matter of course regardless of the method used to get their marks. :wink:


----------



## field14

The NFAA Constitution and By-Laws PROHIBIT the use of a "range finder" for setting the yardage stakes for any field, hunter, animal, or International or other NFAA approved archery range. That is, range finders to set the shooting stakes is FORBIDDEN...but you and I know that there are ranges that do just that.
Now, for "marked 3-D" that is a different story.

Read the Rules for setting up an NFAA Approved course and it is quite clear what is and what is NOT acceptable for the placement of the shooting positions. It also includes MANDATORY safety zones and angles that must be complied with...but yet again, I've been on supposedly "approved" NFAA ranges that had some targets that did NOT comply with the safety zone guidelines, too.
If you "trust" a range finder on only one reading, you are asking for problems. Sometimes, you can move forward or back only 1 foot or so and get a different yardage readout! Low Batteries, fog, rain, or poor reflective qualities of what you are ranging will also affect the "readout." ALWAYS take 3-5 readings and toss the "ringers." 

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## field14

[email protected] said:


> Another tip..
> 
> If you're having trouble with either short or long marks, you might be floating your anchor as you adjust to keep the scope housing centered in the peep.
> 
> To avoid anchor float, pick a mid-distance to set your peep where it is comfortable.
> 
> Example..for field shoots you need marks between 20ft to 80yds...set your peep height with your scope set for a 35-40yd shot. The avg field shot is about 40yds.
> 
> So, with your blah-blah sight set for a 40yd shot...
> 
> 1) Close your eyes and draw the bow.
> 2) Open your eyes.
> 3) Is the peep aligned with the scope housing?
> 
> No? Let-Down and adjust peep then repeat steps 1-3
> Yes? Done.
> 
> With your peep set for a comfortable hold where you make the most shots, you will have a "tight" anchor at 20yds but your 80yd anchor will only be slightly loose.
> 
> Contrast this with setting your peep height for a comfortable hold at 20yds and then every anchor gets looser the further distance you shoot..with the 80yd almost "floating".


Now, I'll add to this one more thing not mentioned above.
If you have had to move that peep site down (in most cases that is what you will have to do as compared to your 20 yard peep height setting).....
*You will now need to reset your site radius and peep distance that you used when you entered your bow data*!!!! That peep height and sight radius are exceedingly important in getting the computer to spit out RELIABLE settings, especially for the closer distances! I think the "book" calls for within 1/4"...but I make my measurements to the nearest 1/32" when at full draw. How do I do this? My trusty draw board with the bow at full draw with arrow on the string and arrow rest and measure it at least 5 times to validate my measurements.
"ProActive Archery", more practice and principle. Many people would forget to reset the computer program after making the above change for peep height!
For experienced shooters and detail oriented shooters, this is "intuitive", but for many, they'd forget to do this and then wonder why things didn't quite work out so well after re-setting the peep height for outdoor shooting.
Indoors, you have a 20 yard setup and a 20 yard tune. Outdoors is a different animal. Taking an indoor setup and doing well with it at ALL distances is problematical. The reverse, however works out better...but taking an outdoor setup that is tuned to group tight at distance, you have a tack driver when shooting a chip shot at 20 yards...at least until the old indoor bad habits wreak havoc with your confidence, hahaha.
All this being said, I've learned over the years of experience that FOR ME, the difference in peep height between my solid 20 yard indoor peep setting and my best outdoor setup for shooting field/hunter rounds is 2mm of peep height difference. That is, to get 'er right for OUTDOORS, I move my peep DOWN 2mm from what I like to shoot indoors. While my outdoor peep height does work really nice indoors, it is just a bit too tight for comfortable INDOOR shooting at 20 yards. 
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Padgett

Holy crap batman, I was just referring to my back yard little bricks where I shoot at my block targets. I wish we had more field events in my area so I could attend and learn to play that game because it sounds really cool and much different than my usual 3d thought process.

And I totally agree about rangefinders being iffy, my buddies all have different ones and mine never reads the same as anyone elses on the practice ranges and can be a good half yard to yard different for no stinking reason than theirs. So I can see why setting field courses with a range finder is a bad thing. 

Just for curiosity, why don't field ranges just tell you to bring your own rangefinder and you are responsible for the distance instead of spending so much time setting up the course? Then part of your field game would be to learn how to manage your own range finder and have it matched to your sight tape or card.


----------



## EPLC

Lazarus said:


> You know, I shot in a set of marks this morning from 20-80 yards from scratch in less time than it would take me to read this topic. And I can assure you there's no guesswork in it, nor can anyone tell me I did it wrong.
> 
> Step one, got the 40 all in the white on a 35cm hunter face
> Step two, got the 30 all in the x on a 35cm hunter face
> Step three, got the 20 all "on" the x on a 35 cm hunter face
> Step four, measured the distance between the 30 and 40 and set the 50 accordingly, made a minor adjustment to put 4 in the white on the 35cm face.
> Step five, used same distance above, cranked the sight down to approximately where the 80 should be, shot four arrows, adjusted sight, shot four more all in the white on the 50cm face, marked it.
> Step six, measured where the 70 should be, all four arrows were in the white on the 50cm face, marked it.
> Step seven, measured the 60, shot four, wasn't happy with it, shot four more and they still hit low, turned the screw 1/2 turn, shot four, marked it.
> 
> Only took an hour and was interrupted several times. It escapes me how so much of the archery world will trust a computer program, (then admit they will double check the marks and often have to tweek them,) more than a set of shot in marks. Bottom line, if I can't shoot a set of marks in more accurate than some computer program I probably should take up golf. :becky:


I also had good results this morning and the entire process took about 15 minutes, not counting validation. The marks were obtained by using my chronograph reading without any compensation. The reading was 272 fps. I could only test out to 30 yards due to weather conditions forcing me indoors. First two arrows at 20 YDS in the X. Shot a couple more ends and decided 20 was good. Shot two or three ends at 30 and all shots were in or around the X. Shot a few more ends just to make sure and all was well. Shot my bunny marks and all was well. I actually shot for about 1 1/2 hours but the validation was complete in about 15 minutes. Of course I still need to shoot at distance but I'm confident that my marks are good.

You didn't mention how you arrived at your starting point for the 40 or 80?


----------



## [email protected]

montigre said:


> Thanks for the tip, but I have a suspicion that most of us who have been shooting distance for any length of time do this as a matter of course regardless of the method used to get their marks. :wink:


LOL, that was mostly for the newbies. 




field14 said:


> . Many people would forget to reset the computer program after making the above change for peep height!
> For experienced shooters and detail oriented shooters, this is "intuitive", but for many, they'd forget to do this and then wonder why things didn't quite work out so well after re-setting the peep height for outdoor shooting.field14 (Tom D.)


Yep..details..details..Peep Height matters.


----------



## [email protected]

Padgett said:


> Holy crap batman, I was just referring to my back yard little bricks where I shoot at my block targets. I wish we had more field events in my area so I could attend and learn to play that game because it sounds really cool and much different than my usual 3d thought process.
> 
> And I totally agree about rangefinders being iffy, my buddies all have different ones and mine never reads the same as anyone elses on the practice ranges and can be a good half yard to yard different for no stinking reason than theirs. So I can see why setting field courses with a range finder is a bad thing.
> 
> Just for curiosity, why don't field ranges just tell you to bring your own rangefinder and you are responsible for the distance instead of spending so much time setting up the course? Then part of your field game would be to learn how to manage your own range finder and have it matched to your sight tape or card.


It's always a good idea to take a rangefinder that you trust and used to set your sight marks with. That way your marks are synched to your rangefinder..as long as your battery is good.

Though the field ranges are supposed to be taped, it seems there is always one target that is +1 to what it is marked..home field advantage..that only the locals know about. ;-) 

Always good to double check the range from where you stand relative to the stake. This should be obvious, but..Straddling the stake = the posted distance. Left foot forward, right foot on stake = -0.5-0.75 yards. Left foot on stake, right foot back = +0.5-0.75 yards. How big the difference depends on your DL/wingspan.


----------



## field14

Padgett said:


> Holy crap batman, I was just referring to my back yard little bricks where I shoot at my block targets. I wish we had more field events in my area so I could attend and learn to play that game because it sounds really cool and much different than my usual 3d thought process.
> 
> And I totally agree about rangefinders being iffy, my buddies all have different ones and mine never reads the same as anyone elses on the practice ranges and can be a good half yard to yard different for no stinking reason than theirs. So I can see why setting field courses with a range finder is a bad thing.
> 
> Just for curiosity, why don't field ranges just tell you to bring your own rangefinder and you are responsible for the distance instead of spending so much time setting up the course? Then part of your field game would be to learn how to manage your own range finder and have it matched to your sight tape or card.


\\

Simple. FIELD courses are "marked distance" courses and are not intended to be roving courses at all. The course layouts have been specified for years and years, the distances are "standard" per each 14-target or 15-target "unit" on a field or hunter course. They MUST be accurately marked for distance, and the tolerance is ZERO. Courses that are certified are supposed to be checked by the NFAA Director (or his designated representative) when the course is set, or any changes to the course are made, or during recertification. There isn't such a thing as "plus or minus" 1/2 yard or "plus or minus" 6 inches...the tolerance is zero with the measuring instrument being used. When I was designated to go around the course with the NFAA Director that was checking the course, I made sure he used OUR instrument, since it was the one that was used to lay out the course. A few times, we used HIS/HER instrument and then re-checked with the club's instrument. It is uncanny, but those tape measures are incredibly consistent, or at least as consistent as the users that are doing the measuring. You don't lay the tape along the ground to measure the distance either!!! It used to be in the "book" how to measure for distance and I'm too lazy to go back into the "book" to look it up as to whether that is still there or not.
I hate to count, over the course of the past 45+ years how many shooting stakes and blocks I've placed and replaced and how many times over and over I've measured and checked courses for accurate shooting stake placement.

Anyways, in the good ole days, we didn't have the fancy electronics such as rangefinders, clinometers, hand held computers, sighting software and other fancy stuff. Yet, the first several perfect 560's ever shot in National Competition were shot with shot in site marks, no range finder, no "cut chart", no computer generated printouts, no clinometer...just by great shooting and knowing how you and your equipment work together, and how your "system" came about through years of practice.
Field shooting is more fun than a barrel of monkeys and is so self-satisfying when you do well, and even more satisfying when you shoot a PB...or even WHEN (everyone I know has done it) you shoot that perfect "20" on the 80 yard walkup or the 70 yard walkup, let alone a "4x-20" on the 80. That thar gives you some big time bragging rights!

field14 (Tom D.)
You CAN bring your range finder with you onto any field course you want; there is no rule against that.


----------



## Lazarus

EPLC said:


> You didn't mention how you arrived at your starting point for the 40 or 80?


I just eyeballed the 40 to be about where it should be. I've been shooting a lot at 40 so even though I shoot with my sight mis-set I had a pretty good idea. To get the 80 I just measured how many revolutions it took to get the needle from 40 to 50, (once I got the 50) then multiplied that by 3 (the number of gaps on the bar between 50 and 80) and cranked it down that many revolutions. It's always real close. 

Sadly, after I did all this I re-set the 3rd axis over lunch and I haven't shot the marks yet. I can't think that will effect it. Prolly gonna be checking it under the lights tonight.


----------



## field14

Used to be you put your front foot on or even with the stake. I think the "new rule" is that you straddle the shooting position. That .5 to .75 yard can be a killer; especially if the yardage is already "off." I've shot many a course where the "locals" would intentionally set a target "off" a yard or 1/2 yard (on a longer one) which was just enough to make the non-locals question themselves on said target. When I lived in Sacremento, CA, there wasn't a "home course" advantage because if your club was hosting a sanctioned shoot, or any shoot, for that matter...the host club members WORKED the tournament; they weren't allowed to shoot in the event.
When I lived in Western NY, NYFAB held the State Field Tournament on Sugar Hill. They wouldn't announce which ranges were going to be used until a few weeks before the State Field Tournament. The courses to be used weren't set until then either. Sure, lots of people "knew" the courses up on Sugar Hill, but it was tough to take the time off to get up there to practice on those courses when they weren't there to practice upon!
Seems like they always liked to use either the West Virginia or Presidential as one...or if they didn't, then they'd use Connecticut and Pennsylvania or New York...never the same courses two years in a row, however.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## EPLC

field14 said:


> I think that by bringing up the "correction factor" thing with regard to any electronic instrument...or for that matter something as simple as the magnifier on your site scale has helped immensely.
> Classroom and training seminar experience tells me that most "students" look past things that the presenter may have taken as "intuitive" and take everything presented simply at face value.
> To tell them to use their chronnie would imply to most to "use the chronnie" and go for it. They'd never realize, if you or I don't tell them that "the chronnie reading you enter may have to be "corrected" to match your sight marks in the 2nd or 3rd analysis." They'd just figure the computer program was "wrong" and not know what to do.Same thing with the magnifier on the sight tape (for those of us whose arms are too short, hahaha)....most do not realize that you must hold the sight at the same angle and have your eyes aligned in the same position with regard to the magnifier. Otherwise you induce HUGE setting errors when you are setting your bow sight! This is akin to reading the "bottom of the meniscus" when measuring out any liquid in a glass or plastic cylinder or container...you hold it at EYE LEVEL, not at any other angle!
> With my particular magnifier, I can "change" what I see as my sight setting by TWO full numbers simply by holding the magnifier in a different angle/position with relation to my eyes!!! Of course, without the magnifier, your induce error is way less...won't ever be "two numbers" worth...but...these old eyes have a tough time seeing the needle, let alone the numbers on the sight scale/tape!! hahahaha. There are always cheater glasses, which IMHO are better that the magnifier with regard to seeing your sight settings and that needle so you line things up correctly. BEWARE the magnifier!!
> Another piece of advice: NEVER trust a single reading through your chronnie, or any other electronic instrument or any measuring instrument for that matter. THREE readings are always recommended as a "good practice", and FIVE readings are even better. You "toss" the ringers and take the best three and average them. Of course if all three or 5 readings match up, then good for you and good for the instrument...but again NEVER EVER use ONE reading as "gospel." NEVER EVER use only ONE shot thru paper for the paper test as "good enough" either.
> More 'ProActive Archery' in practice!
> field14 (Tom D.)


I think everything is relative to your environment. As a Project Management Professional managing complex engineering projects for more than 20 years I've come to trust that there are folks that can figure things out quite nicely without much handholding. On the other hand, if you are addressing a bunch of new archers at one of your seminars you may be justified to take a more cynical view. Since this "is" the Intermediate/Advanced forum I'm taking for granted that many here have enough knowledge to skip past things that should be addressed in the General Discussion Forum and for the most part are just common sense. 

A good process takes into consideration the variables it must encounter and accounts for them such as variations in chronographs, lighting, etc. I believe my process does just that and I'm not pitching a book.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> I think everything is relative to your environment. As a Project Management Professional managing complex engineering projects for more than 20 years I've come to trust that there are folks that can figure things out quite nicely without much handholding. On the other hand, if you are addressing a bunch of new archers at one of your seminars you may be justified to take a more cynical view. Since this "is" the Intermediate/Advanced forum I'm taking for granted that many here have enough knowledge to skip past things that should be addressed in the General Discussion Forum and for the most part are just common sense.
> 
> A good process takes into consideration the variables it must encounter and accounts for them such as variations in chronographs, lighting, etc. I believe my process does just that.


A good process comes about by testing ONE variable at a time, too. Scientific Method is quite "precise" with regard to variables, elimination of variables, and ALWAYS testing only ONE variable at a time against...a known standard. Sorry, but that is the "Science Educator" in me, haha. Of course, you do need an Hypothesis, or an "if/then statement" to go along with the testing, too. ONE variable at a time. That is where so many archers get caught up with chasing their tails...they make SEVERAL changes all at once and end up not knowing which, if any really help or work.
To us, these things might be "common sense", but as a "trainer" or even a project manager (which I also did when I was in private industry for 22 years), it isn't wise to take too much for granted or as intuitive. 
As a flight crew member and instructor navigator I also quickly learned that just because the person I was instructing or evaluating had earned his wings, it didn't necessarily mean that it was "automatic" or "intuitive" or "common sense" that he could/would get the mission accomplished as presribed. I was amazed many times by some fellow navigators' (and MINE, too) tendencies to overlook the obvious! Oh, some funny and not so funny stories to tell on this one, haha.
As a classroom professional educator, early on, I was caught many times "taking it for granted" that the students already should "know this stuff" only to be blind-sided by the FACT that they did NOT know this stuff, or if they did, it hadn't been retained. I ended up, early on, having to re-teach the material before I could proceed. Learned that a "quick review" was almost always the best path to follow...that was my first go in education. Then came 30+ years of service and private industry; again learning that taking much for granted wasn't the best thing to do. When I came back to education, once again, I at least already knew that 'quick reviews' were time savers as opposed to going like a bull in a china closet with this fancy set of lesson plans only to get the blank stares that they knew not what I was talking about. Cannot assume that your entire audience is intuitive, or has "common sense" to figure things totally out by themselves.
I tend to really "cover the bases" just to be sure; found out that it saves "teaching/learning time" in the long term. Goals and objectives have to be met, and unfortunately in the environments I"ve been in, time is money, or the curriculum MUST be taught in the time frame allotted, so don't take it for granted, cover the bases.
So much of this stuff is "old hat" to those with experience...but it is NOT safe to assume that all those on there are "intermediate to advanced" either...it is an "open forum" and I'd well surmise that many on here are not "itermediate to advanced", and that even some of those intermediate to advanced "forgot" or "overlooked" some of this stuff and may well have been doing so for quite some time.
All is well, however, because we are all in a learning process every time we pick up a bow to shoot or to piddle with, haha.
We learn how to shoot, but we also have to shoot in order to learn. Just like a teacher has to learn how to teach before he/she can teach how to learn.


----------



## EPLC

Treat people like idiots and you'll find yourself surrounded by idiots


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> Treat people like idiots and you'll find yourself surrounded by idiots


Nobody said the word "idiot"...poor choice of a word. Spend a few weeks or months in a "training environment" or a classroom environment and you'll quickly understand what "taking things for granted that they already know" can and will do and how harmful it can be.
There is a fine line between teaching below the level or way above the level of your audience. A good teacher evaluates the audience before, during and after, but never takes anything for granted that everyone already knows everything that is preparatory to the current "lesson." It is a growing process for both the teacher and the audience.
There is also a fine line between "treating them as an idiot" and treating them with respect and making them comfortable with the fact you are there FOR them, WITH them, and not lording it over them. You make sure they understand that just because they as one individual already know all this Stuff, there may well be others in the audience that do NOT know all this stuff or may have forgotten some of it. Not everyone in an Advanced course is "advanced" at the same level!
Even Advanced Placement Chem, Human Anatomy & Physiology, and French courses had huge gaps of their knowledge base and what they remembered from eariler courses, too. Didn't wanna lose 'em, but didn't wanna bore them either.


----------



## EPLC

Personally, I prefer an environment where you are provided enough information to inspire the desire to figure it out, think out of the box, etc.. As you know not every teaching method works for everyone. Here in this forum I believe we have a somewhat unique situation in that there are several other forums to choose from, each containing information aimed at different levels of understanding. While I understand there will always be some variance in the level of understanding in any group, to assume every base has to be covered for those with a limited understanding in an advanced class would hold back those that are truly at the level of the class being taught. So while you may hold the interest of the uninformed, you also run the risk of loosing the informed.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> Personally, I prefer an environment where you are provided enough information to inspire the desire to figure it out, think out of the box, etc.. As you know not every teaching method works for everyone. Here in this forum I believe we have a somewhat unique situation in that there are several other forums to choose from, each containing information aimed at different levels of understanding. While I understand there will always be some variance in the level of understanding in any group, to assume every base has to be covered for those with a limited understanding in an advanced class would hold back those that are truly at the level of the class being taught. So while you may hold the interest of the uninformed, you also run the risk of loosing the informed.


I agree that there is a need for investigation after having been provided information to figure something out on one's own or a group's own...We science educators called these "inquiry-based learning" or "inquiry labs". BUT...we had to provide a level of understanding prior to this AND make sure the students followed the scientific method and designed things that tested ONE variable at a time. In the guided learning part of this, we could let them go to a point and of course that point was when they had abandoned the premise of the "scientific method" and started piddling with more than one variable at a time, or disregarded their hypothesis and/or drew conclusions that were inconsistent with their data...or worse yet, "adjusted their data" to try to prove their hypothesis in spite of what the results and data indicate.
And yes, you do run SOME risk of losing the informed...but...you'd be surprised at how many of the "informed" will, during the review get a light turned on when something they had overlooked or forgotten about comes up right before them! You also want to make sure that those "uninformed" get the tools to do the job right, too. Unfortunately with the change in how classes are run now...with what they call 'inclusion classes', the top kids are mixed in with those of a way lower level of understanding...even in some "advanced courses", inclusion is the way it is. I cannot understand to this day why homogenous grouping for classes was abandoned, but inclusion rules these days.
We also see it in the work force where even engineers are of huge differences in their level of understanding and yet trying to perform at the same level as those of more experienced understanding...happens all the time. I saw it with trained navigators that would "forget the little things"...and they were obviously highly qualified ADVANCED LEVEL personnel...yet, they'd take stuff for granted and the little stuff would up and bite them in the arse and put people's lives at risk! At that level, they were few and far between, but they were/are out there!
You have top pros in archery, some of which aren't "bow mechanics", others that know things inside and out...but to expect all of them to just "know it intuitively" or from "common sense" at any level is ludicrous.
I don't say "nurse maid" them...but I certainly don't think you should toss out the elephant and let them try to devour it. Afterall, just like the scientific method tests ONE variable at a time...you eat an elephant ONE bite at a time.
The educator can only let them go so far before they founder...so you let 'em "founder" a short time...and then redirect them with subtle guidance or questions as to why they are doing "it" this way...and if that doesn't get them back on track, then you provide a little more, but less subtle guidance...but you don't let them flounder and sink. Fine line. Inquiry based learning is great but it can only work so far without some guidance and some "hints" along the way.

Then comes the "No Child Left Behind" mess...which means...with inclusion ALL of the "audience" is expected to be successful in said "course" regardless of talent, prior level of understanding, faster learners, slower learners or whatever..."no child left behind" is stupid...but it is the way it is...and it has already filtered up into the colleges, and into the working environment. Worse yet, is "Core Curriculum."
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## EPLC

While there certainly are issues to overcome in the world of academia I'm not so sure the same rules apply here. There are those that will get it and those that don't. There's good information here along with the bad... Those that can sort it out will find value and those that can't will spin their wheels until they do.


----------



## field14

EPLC said:


> While there certainly are issues to overcome in the world of academia I'm not so sure the same rules apply here. There are those that will get it and those that don't. There's good information here along with the bad... Those that can sort it out will find value and those that can't will spin their wheels until they do.


Both you and I apparently had to learn pretty much everything and get our experiences through the "school of hard knocks" because those that knew the stuff were unwilling to share said information. OR, they would share just enough information to whet your pallet and then leave you to either find value or spin your wheels until you do sort it out...or quit/leave the game with a sour taste in your mouth.
Many had the attitude that it is "intuitive" or was "common sense", so figured we could "figure it out by ourselves" and have a challenge in doing so.
Too many people in this game and likely most other individual sports are being left to 'sort it out.' As an educator, I'm not built that way and surely don't want people to "spin their wheels" until they get it. With today's information sharing highway, people shouldn't be left to sort it out if they can or spin their wheels until they do figure it out.
THAT is the type of thing that eventually drives people out of the sport due to the frustrations that there are people that know...but figure that the others will have to "sort it out" or die trying.
I find/found it difficult to let any of my students struggle or spin their wheels trying to "figure it out"; even those students that didn't want to "try" or those that refused to work. Sure, I had to accept the fact that some were going to fail the course, but I gave them every chance to be successful. "I" didn't fail them, but rather they earned their failing grade mostly due to not trying or not completing the required work. It certainly was not because I figured that "Those that can sort it out will find value and those that can't will spin their wheels until they do."

In some work environments there are leaders and managers that figure it that way and that is so sad and a disservice to their subordinates. I once had a manager that said that HIS job was to help us move up the ladder and our job was to help him to do so, and to not pull surprises on him. He went on to say, "Fess up when you mess up", and so will I."
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## cbrunson

I shoot mine in every ten yards and match the marks to a premade tape. Super easy and fast. 

Then I can fine tune with the limb bolts. 

Are we still talking about sight tapes?


----------



## EPLC

field14 said:


> Both you and I apparently had to learn pretty much everything and get our experiences through the "school of hard knocks" because those that knew the stuff were unwilling to share said information. OR, they would share just enough information to whet your pallet and then leave you to either find value or spin your wheels until you do sort it out...or quit/leave the game with a sour taste in your mouth.
> Many had the attitude that it is "intuitive" or was "common sense", so figured we could "figure it out by ourselves" and have a challenge in doing so.
> Too many people in this game and likely most other individual sports are being left to 'sort it out.' As an educator, I'm not built that way and surely don't want people to "spin their wheels" until they get it. With today's information sharing highway, people shouldn't be left to sort it out if they can or spin their wheels until they do figure it out.
> THAT is the type of thing that eventually drives people out of the sport due to the frustrations that there are people that know...but figure that the others will have to "sort it out" or die trying.
> I find/found it difficult to let any of my students struggle or spin their wheels trying to "figure it out"; even those students that didn't want to "try" or those that refused to work. Sure, I had to accept the fact that some were going to fail the course, but I gave them every chance to be successful. "I" didn't fail them, but rather they earned their failing grade mostly due to not trying or not completing the required work. It certainly was not because I figured that "Those that can sort it out will find value and those that can't will spin their wheels until they do."
> 
> In some work environments there are leaders and managers that figure it that way and that is so sad and a disservice to their subordinates. I once had a manager that said that HIS job was to help us move up the ladder and our job was to help him to do so, and to not pull surprises on him. He went on to say, "Fess up when you mess up", and so will I."
> field14 (Tom D.)


Let's not forget about profit motive. A knowledge void is created when only a small percentage of really great shooters can, or will, share their secrets. This void is sometimes filled by profit seekers distributing all kinds of "must have" methods. In a sport that is not an exact science, it's easy for a slick talker to pick up on a popular conception (or misconception) and pitch it to the information starved general population. There have been a few great shooters along the way, and more recently, that have shot holes in some of these profit driven methodologies and my hat goes off to them.


----------

