# Lets talk rangefiders w/ angle cutting



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

VA Vince said:


> I would like to have one for both field and hunting. Cost is not really an issue, but they will get abused. I think TCR had the leupold at the hillbilly shoot last year and those seemed to work. Any other models that any of you have used and like???


I have the Leuopold RXII. Really good on the angle measurements. Runs consistantly long a yard over a taped distance. Fairly compact, lightweight and all in all a good range finder that is also capable of dual use with firearms.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

Just go with the Nikon 440 and a Suunto Clinometer!!!


----------



## PA Dutch (Jan 27, 2003)

Hinkelmonster said:


> Just go with the Nikon 440 and a Suunto Clinometer!!!


Ditto, except I used a Brunton clinometer. I'll take the Nikon (goes to 1/2 yard), a good clinometer, and a good cut chart any day. It isn't just straight trig.


----------



## Stihlpro (Jul 19, 2006)

Got the new Nikon Archers Choice last week. Going to try it out this weekend. It is equipped to handle up to an Incredible 89 degree angular range - virtually straight up or straight down. :tongue: 

*Nikon's advanced Incline/Decline (ID) technology allows you to range targets from a treestand or in steep terrain just like over flat ground, without time- consuming calculating or risky guessing. Just aim, push the button and plan your shot according to the displayed distance. It's waterproof, fogproof, multicoated optics offer 6X magnification and generous 18mm eye relief. With ID on, the unit measures in .2-yard increments in ID Technology mode ( .5-yard/meter increments in standard mode)*


----------



## Bruce K (Jun 1, 2002)

do you really think you should have that stuff on a field range ?Personally I don't , it takes the skill away nest you will be asking for a hooter shooter class .

THe archer should rely on experience and skill to allow for hills , not some electronic device that does it all for him .


I have range finders for hunting but would never consider taking it out on the field range . That in my mind would be against fair play


----------



## Stihlpro (Jul 19, 2006)

Bruce K said:


> do you really think you should have that stuff on a field range ?Personally I don't , it takes the skill away nest you will be asking for a hooter shooter class .
> 
> THe archer should rely on experience and skill to allow for hills , not some electronic device that does it all for him .
> 
> ...


It's aloud in the rules on known yardage courses. Do you sight in your bow using a tape measure like they do when setting up a field course? They aren't allowed to be used to setup a field course because of the variation in yardage between rangefinders. That said I don't use mine on every shot but sometimes double check a few throughout the day. I use my laser to set my sight so that is what I am going to trust. As for taking away the skill.........why don't you take the sight off your bow then. Now THATS Skill! good day to ya.


----------



## Bruce K (Jun 1, 2002)

Stihl pro , I do shoot without sights on Field ranges as well , I just one our State IFAA field Champs last weekend shooting in the bowhunter division 1 anchor point , 12 inch stabiliser class . 
SO I can shoot with out sights 

All I am saying is that using all the aids I believe has taken some skills away from the archer. Hell 10-15 years ago we didn't have rangefinders with built in clinometers and the scores then have still to really been beaten 

Stihlpro , I am at present setting up a new bow for sight shooting , I will sight in at our club using a tape measure , then shoot each target I come to trusting the marker and allowing for the hill


Bruce


----------



## Paul Payne (Apr 1, 2007)

Just bough a Leuopold RXIV here on AT's classifieds and I wish I'd a checked a little further...when its set on the bow scale it wont measure more than 60 yrds...I know Im not going to shoot a deer past 60 yrds but I'd still like to range a deer or animal further...besides on a field course I'd like it to at least measure to 80...it is extreamly accurate up to 60 yrds but when I set it to range further it's off by 1 yrd on the long side at measured distances from 70 to 80...

Paul


----------



## Stihlpro (Jul 19, 2006)

Congrats on the win Bruce. I have yet to shoot without sights........ But I am still going to keep my old friend the laser just in case.....:wink:.


----------



## Stihlpro (Jul 19, 2006)

knowing the yardage and the cut you need doesn't make any difference.......It only comes down to ONE thing. *You still have to MAKE the shot.* :darkbeer:


----------



## pestilli (Feb 18, 2006)

*Rangefinder:*



Hinkelmonster said:


> Just go with the Nikon 440 and a Suunto Clinometer!!!


Hinky is dead on!! The Nikon is good almost to the foot. I had a Bushnell that was 1 yard short out to about 70 then 3 yards long at 80. I got the Nikon...and it is dead nutz. Suunto Clino is idiot proof - as long as you have both eye's open! 

Deston From BCY had Nikon's new angle finding True Distance range finder. I took a reading with my setup...did the math, then took a reading with his range finder...they were almost a perfect match. Nikon might have something with their new Range Finder!! I am interested to see how it compares over an entire Hilly course.


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

Paul Payne said:


> Just bough a Leuopold RXIV here on AT's classifieds and I wish I'd a checked a little further...when its set on the bow scale it wont measure more than 60 yrds...I know Im not going to shoot a deer past 60 yrds but I'd still like to range a deer or animal further...besides on a field course I'd like it to at least measure to 80...it is extreamly accurate up to 60 yrds but when I set it to range further it's off by 1 yrd on the long side at measured distances from 70 to 80...
> 
> Paul


Paul . . look below the big number. It shows the full yardage (not compensated) below it. Obviously that doesn't help on a field course but NONE of the range compensating range finders have been shown to be very accurate beyond 60.


----------



## AKDoug (Aug 27, 2003)

> Just go with the Nikon 440 and a Suunto Clinometer!!!


Amen. Pestilli and I shot together at Darrington for one day. The OptiLogic distances in the book I bought for the course were nothing like we got with a clinometer, a Nikon, and a cut chart. There was a couple yards difference on a few targets/


----------



## VA Vince (Aug 30, 2005)

So there has been know one that has had any luck with just the rangefinder? Except Swerve.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

VA Vince said:


> I would like to have one for both field and hunting. Cost is not really an issue, but they will get abused. I think TCR had the leupold at the hillbilly shoot last year and those seemed to work. Any other models that any of you have used and like???


When are you going out west? You don't need to cut shooting out of a tree here

I have been trying to twist my arm and get a Nikon myself

So hurry up and get one so I can see if I like yours :wink:


----------



## VA Vince (Aug 30, 2005)

Brown Hornet said:


> When are you going out west? You don't need to cut shooting out of a tree here
> 
> I have been trying to twist my arm and get a Nikon myself
> 
> So hurry up and get one so I can see if I like yours :wink:


If you see the ridge I hunt off of, its like being out west. A stand 20 feet up on one side and it feels like 50 on the other .

I will let you know, cause I may buy it this sunday or next. The hill will be the test if it works or not.


----------



## Moparmatty (Jun 23, 2003)

VaVince. Did you get this tested out on the Hill this past weekend?


----------



## 60Xbulldog60X (Mar 12, 2005)

Bruce K said:


> do you really think you should have that stuff on a field range ?Personally I don't , it takes the skill away nest you will be asking for a hooter shooter class .
> 
> THe archer should rely on experience and skill to allow for hills , not some electronic device that does it all for him .
> 
> ...


So I guess the rangefinder doesn't take the skill and experience away from guessing the yardage to the animal?


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Moparmatty said:


> VaVince. Did you get this tested out on the Hill this past weekend?


Yes he did...and I will be getting one shortly

The new rangfinder works VERY well....the best one I have used to date with the clinometer built in. It was VERY accurate and consistant. One of the two of us used it on almost EVERY target on the back 14 on Sat....my score showed it:wink:


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

60Xbulldog60X said:


> So I guess the rangefinder doesn't take the skill and experience away from guessing the yardage to the animal?


Exactly..... 

If he doesn't want to use one good for him....most ranges you don't need one. Although I have only shot using one a few times....I will tell you that MOST courses aren't marked CORRECTLY


----------



## Moparmatty (Jun 23, 2003)

Now if we could just get a test done with the Archer's choice vs. the Rifle version.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Moparmatty said:


> Now if we could just get a test done with the Archer's choice vs. the Rifle version.


I was thinking about that....but in all honesty....for ME. I have ZERO need for anything more then the Archers Choice version. I don't shoot a gun at anything other then birds anymore:wink:


----------



## TCR1 (Dec 22, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> Yes he did...and I will be getting one shortly
> 
> The new rangfinder works VERY well....the best one I have used to date with the clinometer built in. It was VERY accurate and consistant. One of the two of us used it on almost EVERY target on the back 14 on Sat....my score showed it:wink:


I'm a bit miffed that the optilogic I was using and the Nikon didn't shoot the same distances. I also thought it was funny that two rangefinders said a target was long and someone in our group didn't trust the long reading and missed low


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

TCR1 said:


> I'm a bit miffed that the optilogic I was using and the Nikon didn't shoot the same distances. I also thought it was funny that two rangefinders said a target was long and someone in our group didn't trust the long reading and missed low


Yep....I remember that one.

I also remember the one that the same person said the distance was OK...and I shot a 1/4" out the top...then they said well it did say it was about 3/4 of a yard short :doh:


----------



## Hammer X (May 20, 2008)

I have the same one VaVince has and it worked great. It was giving me the same readings as Hinky was getting using his method on almost every target.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

bhamlin said:


> I have the same one VaVince has and it worked great. It was giving me the same readings as Hinky was getting using his method on almost every target.


I would say the same readings, but they were close. 

How'd that thing work out for you on the 80 down hill????


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Hinkelmonster said:


> I would say the same readings, but they were close.
> 
> How'd that thing work out for you on the 80 down hill????


I know it worked fine for us...well me on Sat...I dropped a 20 on Sat and 19 on Sun on that target. My miss on Sun was out at 9:30-10:00 by about 1/2" or so....but it was me.

I gave Blondstar and her group the cut on that target and there were good results for their group as well


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> I know it worked fine for us...well me on Sat...I dropped a 20 on Sat and 19 on Sun on that target. My miss on Sun was out at 9:30-10:00 by about 1/2" or so....but it was me.
> 
> I gave Blondstar and her group the cut on that target and there were good results for their group as well


That is a great tool but not fool proof. 

It does not give you the opportunity to account for speed differences!


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Hinkelmonster said:


> That is a great tool but not fool proof.
> 
> It does not give you the opportunity to account for speed differences!


True...but just like using a clinometer....rangefinder and then the cut chart....you have to learn how to use them.

Let's be honest I am not on your level....so it's good enough for my needs:wink: If I take a reading on a 50 yd target and it says 48.2....I am shooting it for that and so far every time I have used one if I do my part I have been within a click or so of dead on.

and I am not buying a clinometer and a range finder....:wink:


----------



## Ron Meadows (Aug 17, 2005)

Not to sound like a dumb arse, but how does the speed difference come in to play? If you know the distance you set your site to that distance and fire away. Speed doesn't matter so long as you have your site set to your bow. 



Hinkelmonster said:


> That is a great tool but not fool proof.
> 
> It does not give you the opportunity to account for speed differences!


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

*Nikon customer service stinks*

I see that Nikon has come out with an angle compensating range finder. I feel compelled to warn you guys that *while they work great in general, your chance of getting them fixed if they break is really poor*. 

I am sure most remember my earlier tirades on this subject but here is something more recent... I sold someone a Nikon 440 range finder I got from a friend this spring and he got it in good shape - it worked great for me on field targets in my yard - matched the tape perfectly. He sent it back saying it didn't work and Nikon wouldn't fix it for less 160.00 which is most of the cost of a new one. The thing is, the range finder works fine on white backgrounds which is how I tested it before I sold it, but it doesn't range at all on dark backgrounds (trees, hunter targets, etc). An obvious flaw in the range finder and not a case of abuse. This is the 2nd time I have had the same model of range finder with the same huge repair bill for flaws not related to them being dropped or abused in any way, and I know of 2 others with the same issue.

Bottom line, Nikon range finder customer service won't stand behind their products, won't let me talk to a supervisor, won't give me any way to contact a supervisor or escalate my unhappiness in any way except to trash them on this web sight. Buyer beware!


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

SuperX said:


> I see that Nikon has come out with an angle compensating range finder. I feel compelled to warn you guys that *while they work great in general, your chance of getting them fixed if they break is really poor*.
> 
> I am sure most remember my earlier tirades on this subject but here is something more recent... I sold someone a Nikon 440 range finder I got from a friend this spring and he got it in good shape - it worked great for me on field targets in my yard - matched the tape perfectly. He sent it back saying it didn't work and Nikon wouldn't fix it for less 160.00 which is most of the cost of a new one. The thing is, the range finder works fine on white backgrounds which is how I tested it before I sold it, but it doesn't range at all on dark backgrounds (trees, hunter targets, etc). An obvious flaw in the range finder and not a case of abuse. This is the 2nd time I have had the same model of range finder with the same huge repair bill for flaws not related to them being dropped or abused in any way, and I know of 2 others with the same issue.
> 
> Bottom line, Nikon range finder customer service won't stand behind their products, won't let me talk to a supervisor, won't give me any way to contact a supervisor or escalate my unhappiness in any way except to trash them on this web sight. Buyer beware!


By contrast I got an early version of the Leupold RXIII. While it worked fairly well, every so often it struggled with dark colored targets. Finally, it stopped working on them altogether. Not just things like dark trees either, but shiny 3d targets (i.e. like the 13' Alien at the R-100), shiny black, green, or blue cars, etc. So I called Leupold and explained what was going on. "That isn't right", he said. "Here is your RA#. Send it back and we'll take care of it". No need to show a receipt, or anything. Off it went. A couple days later they called and said the hoogywhatzis thingamabobber was bad and they were just going to replace the whole unit. Which they did. Along in the mail came a bran new RXIII. The new one has worked marvelously (including the angle cuts) since.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

Ron Meadows said:


> Not to sound like a dumb arse, but how does the speed difference come in to play? If you know the distance you set your site to that distance and fire away. Speed doesn't matter so long as you have your site set to your bow.


If you say so!!!


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Mr. October said:


> By contrast I got an early version of the Leupold RXIII. While it worked fairly well, every so often it struggled with dark colored targets. Finally, it stopped working on them altogether. Not just things like dark trees either, but shiny 3d targets (i.e. like the 13' Alien at the R-100), shiny black, green, or blue cars, etc. So I called Leupold and explained what was going on. "That isn't right", he said. "Here is your RA#. Send it back and we'll take care of it". No need to show a receipt, or anything. Off it went. A couple days later they called and said the hoogywhatzis thingamabobber was bad and they were just going to replace the whole unit. Which they did. Along in the mail came a bran new RXIII. The new one has worked marvelously (including the angle cuts) since.


yeah I have heard the same good stories about Opti-logic as well. When my Nikons (I have 4 but only 2 work) break as they inevitably will, I will put them in the back of the hunting cabinet and buy one of the american company's offerings


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

SuperX said:


> yeah I have heard the same good stories about Opti-logic as well. When my Nikons (I have 4 but only 2 work) break as they inevitably will, I will put them in the back of the hunting cabinet and buy one of the american company's offerings


Yeah but the opti-logic isn't worth the packaging it comes in.

A S.W.A.G. would yeild better results.


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

If your going to buy a range finder why not buy from the experts not third party hype. Surveying equipment is the real deal.:tongue::tongue::wink:

Retail $699.00

Laser Tec

LaserTec Web Page
TruPulse™ 200 

Specifications: 
Dimensions: 5” x 2” x 3.5” (12 cm x 5 cm x 9 cm) 
Weight: 8 ounces (220 g) 
Data communication: Serial, via wired RS232 (standard) 
or wireless Bluetooth® (optional with 200B model) Class 2 device, compliant with Bluetooth Specification 1.1 and confirgured with the Serial Port Protocol (SPP). 
Power: 3.0 volts DC nominal; (2) AA batteries 
(Alkaline, NiCd/NiMH, Lithium) or (1) CRV3 battery 
Battery duration: AA - approx. 7500 measurements 
(6000 with Bluetooth® enabled); CRV3 – approx. 15,000 measurements (12,000 with Bluetooth® enabled) 
Eye safety: FDA Class 1 (CFR 21) 
Environmental: Impact, water and dust resistant; 
NEMA 3, IP 54 
Temperature: -4°F to +140°F (-20°C to +60°C) 
Optics: 7X magnification (field of view: 330 ft @ 1000yds) 
Display: In-scope LCD 
Units: Feet, Yards, Meters, and Degrees 
Mount: Monopod/tripod (¼” - 20 thread) 
Measurement Range: 
Distance: 0 to 3280 ft (1000 m) typical; 6560 ft 
(2000 m) max to reflective target 
Inclination: +/- 90 degrees 
Accuracy: 
Distance: +/- 1 ft (+/- 30 cm), high quality target 
+/- 1 yd (+/- 1 m), low quality target 
Inclination: +/- 0.25 degrees 
Measurement Modes / Features: 
Horizontal distance, vertical distance, slope distance and inclination measurements 
3-point flexible height routine with auto sequencing 
Advanced target modes: Closest, Farthest, Continuous, Filter (reflector only) 
TruTargeting: Automatically provides the best possible accuracy and acquisition distance to a given target.


----------



## VA Vince (Aug 30, 2005)

To anyone that is looking for a rangefinder with the angle stuff, the Nikon 550 archers choice was pretty much flawless at cumberlands range. You can find them for $200 online. I am very happy with them. Now I just need to get the new version of AA.

Now you can jack the thread anyway you want, problems solved with the nikon


----------



## Macker (Mar 22, 2007)

Well, I have the Nikon 440, but need the others. Could someone give this greenhorn a lesson on what a cut chart and clinometer are? How do you use them and where to get them? Thanks.
Jeff


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

Ever since the first range finders were introduced, the one constant is that no two brands read alike… 
Buy one set your bow up with that one and practice with that one…


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

SuperX said:


> yeah I have heard the same good stories about Opti-logic as well. When my Nikons (I have 4 but only 2 work) break as they inevitably will, I will put them in the back of the hunting cabinet and buy one of the american company's offerings


Just be aware that they are ALL made in China. Leupold, Bushnell . . all of them.


----------



## Hinkelmonster (Oct 25, 2004)

WV Has Been said:


> If your going to buy a range finder why not buy from the experts not third party hype. Surveying equipment is the real deal.:tongue::tongue::wink:
> 
> Retail $699.00
> 
> ...


Must be nice, money bags!!!



Macker said:


> Well, I have the Nikon 440, but need the others. Could someone give this greenhorn a lesson on what a cut chart and clinometer are? How do you use them and where to get them? Thanks.
> Jeff


The clinometer allows you to read the degree of slope. You then reference your cut chart which shows different yardages and slopes both up and down and gives you the yardage to shoot that target for. AA Palm will do it for your bow/speed!



VA Vince said:


> To anyone that is looking for a rangefinder with the angle stuff, the Nikon 550 archers choice was pretty much flawless at cumberlands range. You can find them for $200 online. I am very happy with them. Now I just need to get the new version of AA.
> 
> Now you can jack the thread anyway you want, problems solved with the nikon


We will, not like we needed permission. Hey those pins won't even come close to going in my nano PROs!!!



JAVI said:


> Ever since the first range finders were introduced, the one constant is that no two brands read alike…
> Buy one set your bow up with that one and practice with that one…


YUP!!!


----------



## SuperX (May 21, 2002)

Hinkelmonster said:


> Yeah but the opti-logic isn't worth the packaging it comes in.
> 
> A S.W.A.G. would yeild better results.


that isn't fair - I know people who thought the cut book was off - AK Doug was off by 2y but the biggest cut on the range was 2.5 so either there was a secret 4.5y cut out there or that 20 degree 65y downhill needed only a .5 yard cut.  The cut book was done with a range finder that later had problems - it is possible that a couple of the cuts were affected but I heard fom some that they thought the cuts were dead on so I guess it depends on your viewpoint. I shot the cuts and shot 2 PBs but I ain't no thing like you are Hinky. 

At least when I had a problem with mine I got it replaced in a jiffy. 

Did you use one on the range or just use the cut book to decide it was not worth the packaging it came in?


----------



## Moparmatty (Jun 23, 2003)

Hinkelmonster said:


> That is a great tool but not fool proof.
> 
> It does not give you the opportunity to account for speed differences!


Finally! Someone is speaking my language. I spent over an hours yesterday in Cabela's trying to convince my Dad that the speed/ballistics will differ. The rangefinders are programmed using a generic mathmatical equation. That's why I don't think the Nikon 550 Rifleman version would work very well on the field course compared to the Nikon Archer's version. Nothing is going to be more accurate than using a regular rangefinder, clinometer, and a cut chart from AA or OT2. Now, after thinking about it today, I think the money best spent on the Leupold RXII or RXIII. It has the clinometer built right into and displays the angle. It has 3 differnt bow modes and numerous rifle modes. Going this route would save you buying both a rangefinder and clionmeter. But buying both is going to be close to the same money regardless, so it's really up to the consumer.


----------



## Hammer X (May 20, 2008)

Hinkelmonster said:


> I would say the same readings, but they were close.
> 
> How'd that thing work out for you on the 80 down hill????


About 3 inches high, could have been me, but I don't think so since it wasn't out at 5:00:wink:


----------



## IGluIt4U (Sep 22, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> Yes he did...and I will be getting one shortly
> 
> The new rangfinder works VERY well....the best one I have used to date with the clinometer built in. It was VERY accurate and consistant. One of the two of us used it on almost EVERY target on the back 14 on Sat....my score showed it:wink:


I will say that VaVince's rangefinder worked great on the billy hill.. my RXII was ok, but his will read in tenths of a yard, the RXII only in whole yards.. the angle that the RXII gives is accurate and consistent, but really requires a cut chart to get the accuracy that Vince got with his. I give a thumbs up to the 550.. :thumb:


----------



## X Hunter (Jan 11, 2007)

bhamlin said:


> About 3 inches high, could have been me, but I don't think so since it wasn't out at 5:00:wink:


I cut that target what your range finder said and just missed the x left.... If I recall you range finder and Hinky with his calculations came with in a 1/4yd or closer for the whole round.....


----------



## Hammer X (May 20, 2008)

X Hunter said:


> I cut that target what your range finder said and just missed the x left.... If I recall you range finder and Hinky with his calculations came with in a 1/4yd or closer for the whole round.....


I felt pretty good about what readings it was giving me. If I made the shot it was there.


----------



## 60Xbulldog60X (Mar 12, 2005)

bhamlin said:


> I felt pretty good about what readings it was giving me. If I made the shot it was there.


What kind of rangefinder do you have Bill?


----------



## X Hunter (Jan 11, 2007)

bhamlin said:


> I felt pretty good about what readings it was giving me. If I made the shot it was there.


you were making some awesome shots... like we said if you only needed 3 shots you whooped up on us..... Keep up the good shooting and i guess i'll see ya at the park in Aug



60Xbulldog60X said:


> What kind of rangefinder do you have Bill?


its a nikon archers choice....


----------



## jarlicker (Jul 29, 2002)

While shooting with Va Vince. I shot the cut his range finder said to use several times. It was right on the money for the 30 yard down hill, 35 fan uphill, 80, 70 yard down hill. For many other shots I went with cuts I felt more comfortable with and faired well from past experiances.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

JAVI said:


> Ever since the first range finders were introduced, the one constant is that no two brands read alike…
> Buy one set your bow up with that one and practice with that one…


Very sound advice....Most targets that we ranged last weekend we ranged with 2 rangfinders....

One was more consistant then the other and it was rare that they both gave the same reading.


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

Bruce K said:


> do you really think you should have that stuff on a field range ?Personally I don't , it takes the skill away nest you will be asking for a hooter shooter class .
> 
> THe archer should rely on experience and skill to allow for hills , not some electronic device that does it all for him .
> 
> ...


I have to agree---

And the next question asked will be---"why is attendence so low at the shoots"

Pros should have them, the rest of us should just learn the game.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

C Doyle 88 said:


> I have to agree---
> 
> And the next question asked will be---"why is attendence so low at the shoots"
> 
> Pros should have them, the rest of us should just learn the game.


If that is the case......

Javi...will you be my sponsor....I am going to turn PRO next year:wink:


----------



## VA Vince (Aug 30, 2005)

Hinkelmonster said:


> We will, not like we needed permission. Hey those pins won't even come close to going in my nano PROs!!!



Not sure why they wont work???

I was told they were for the PRO'S...gold for pros and blue/red for XR's. Call your hook up and tell him to get this Nano crap straitend out.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Brown Hornet said:


> If that is the case......
> 
> Javi...will you be my sponsor....I am going to turn PRO next year:wink:


Me too. My Daddy taught me not to go to to a gun fight packing a knife either.:doh:

Technology, it's the snizzle.


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

Brown Hornet said:


> Exactly.....
> 
> If he doesn't want to use one good for him....most ranges you don't need one. Although I have only shot using one a few times....I will tell you that MOST courses aren't marked CORRECTLY


No the clubs are not required to post yds off of a cut chart.

They are however required to post correct yds from the spot to the stake. If this marked ydge is incorrect then the club is accountable to NFAA, not the average joe archer's responsibility to correct that yd posting, or otherwise all archery may as well become totally unmarked, and then all you genius' can buy a full setup for the wife,young adult, youth, and cub, because you know you all can't shoot together at championships. They too should be able to shoot as good as money can buy, right ??
Or just insist the range be marked correctly, or do it your self. And like all others, learn how to shoot the game as the game was created to challenge all shooters equally, on the same day, under the same conditions.

Of course the PROs need all the help they can get to maintain their elite status in the sport, and keep an edge on plane ol freestylers.


----------



## JAVI (Jun 19, 2003)

C Doyle 88 said:


> No the clubs are not required to post yds off of a cut chart.
> 
> They are however required to post correct yds from the spot to the stake. If this marked ydge is incorrect then the club is accountable to NFAA, not the average joe archer's responsibility to correct that yd posting, or otherwise all archery may as well become totally unmarked, and then all you genius' can buy a full setup for the wife,young adult, youth, and cub, because you know you all can't shoot together at championships. They too should be able to shoot as good as money can buy, right ??
> Or just insist the range be marked correctly, or do it your self. And like all others, learn how to shoot the game as the game was created to challenge all shooters equally, on the same day, under the same conditions.
> ...


I doubt if very many would go back to how the game was originally designed to be played… Unmarked, no sights, no release and no rest with recurve or longbow. 
Remember field archery was once practice for hunting and split from target archery in 1939 because of it...:wink:


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

JAVI said:


> I doubt if very many would go back to how the game was originally designed to be played… Unmarked, no sights, no release and no rest with recurve or longbow.
> Remember field archery was once practice for hunting and split from target archery in 1939 because of it...:wink:


Yeah . . and now you can't get the guys who "only hunt" to shoot past 30 yards with their 5 pin sights, releases, and $800.00 bows because "why would I ever want to shoo that far". Go figure.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

C Doyle 88 said:


> No the clubs are not required to post yds off of a cut chart.
> 
> They are however required to post correct yds from the spot to the stake. If this marked ydge is incorrect then the club is accountable to NFAA, not the average joe archer's responsibility to correct that yd posting, or otherwise all archery may as well become totally unmarked, and then all you genius' can buy a full setup for the wife,young adult, youth, and cub, because you know you all can't shoot together at championships. They too should be able to shoot as good as money can buy, right ??
> Or just insist the range be marked correctly, or do it your self. And like all others, learn how to shoot the game as the game was created to challenge all shooters equally, on the same day, under the same conditions.
> ...


I have no problem playing the unmarked game....and I know plenty of BETTER AMFS shooters that would still work everyone over if it were unmarked....just looking at two of the top AM shooters that frequent this forum from my area....X hunter and Hinky....check Hinky's resume and I am sure you will soon realize you don't want to see him on an unmarked field course just like most don't on a marked course.....and incase anyone didn't know X Hunter just recently had his name chaned to X Hunter...it was 12 hunter.:wink:

The guy that kicks your but on a MARKED course with a rangefinder is gonna kick your butt without it.:wink:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

You guys fail to realize that the laser rangefinders are accurate to plus or minus 1/2 yard! WHICH WAY that particular instrument is "off", if at all...has to be determined by the archer using said instrument!

Then, add to this that the NFAA requirement is to have yardages marked 'accurately' with zero tolerance...depends entirely upon the instrument used...and "laser rangefinders are NOT to be used to "measure out an NFAA approved course."!!!!!

So, most NFAA ranges, if there are problems with yardages being "off"...are consistently off in the same direction...again, the _shooter _needs to figure this out on their own.

Couple this with the "cut charts"....nice....but, nobody here mentions that MY cut chart may well differ from your cut chart...because my setup is NOT _the same _as your setup!

Most shooters also only take ONE reading with their rangefinder and float with it...not the 'best way' IMHO to use ANY instrumentation.

MOST shooters probably don't have dead-nuts site marks, the rangefinders are "off", their cut charts are off due to the poor site marks, the inherent error in the site marks, AND...the FACT that MOST shooters cannot hold steady enough anyways....

This 1/4 yard stuff? Yeah right, Mr, or Ms. "average joe archer' holds steady enough, shoots tight enough groups, can "guage" that the rangefinder (best accuracy is 1/2 yard) is off...know which direction, and MORE ACCURATELY determine the actual distance than the rangefinder...and, using that reading they just "corrected", trusting the above completely, can launch their arrow and immediately "correct" some more to get it down even less than 1/4 yard....????

C'mon guys, get real! If you all want to trust the instrumentation to give you everything....and you are positive that your site marks are dead nuts, your cut-chart is perfect, your form is perfect...so that you can do BETTER with your judgement than the techno-toys "give you"....then you belong up in the rarified atmosphere of the best shooters in the world.

I might add that the first-ever 560 hunter round posted in National competition....was shot by Terry Ragsdale, who used SHOT-IN site marks, JUDGEMENT, EXPERIENCE, and just plain great shooting....to accomplish what has been done only 4 more times since....Terry did NOT have the "bonus" of a palm-pilot, a clinometer, a cut-chart, computer generated site tapes, X-10 arrows shooting at 260 fps, and all the other techno-toys....he went out and did what it is all about...he SHOT the 560 score with PROWESS....and depended upon his experience and PROWESS to get the job done.

I might also add that I know of at least TWO of the top pro field shooters that helped with that notorous "cut chart" for last year's Darrignton course...and their "cuts" were NOT from the use of range-finders and clinometers! They were from EXPERIENCE and EXPERTISE. Both of them told me that they only use the "techno-toys" IF and when they are stumped on a target...and...in addition, when they have been 'stumped'...their "gut feeling" was almost dead on with what the "toys" were telling them!

So, go ahead and spend yet another $500 or more on toys...then tell other shooters that they have to buy another $500 worth of junk to carry around or they "won't shoot decently".....then you can sit back and ponder WHY so few people are converting to field archery!

Good grief...you tell 'em they NEED carbon arrows, they NEED at least 250 fps, they NEED a $200 scope, they NEED a $100 arrow rest, they NEED a $1,000 target bow, they NEED a $165 release aid....and now you tell 'em that in addtion to that, they NEED a $300 set of binoculars, They NEED a $250 palm-pilot computer, They NEED a$99 clinmoneter (or more $$ than that), they NEED a $250 laser rangefinder, and they MUST HAVE ciomputer generated site tapes and cut charts...or they won't shoot well on field.

If I was a newbie and told I _needed_ all this crap....I'd tell those folks...."See ya later, I cannot afford this extra junk" and go shoot in my back yard.

You don't NEED all this crap...but what you DO NEED...is to get out and practice and learn how to USE what you have FIRST....but of course, we gotta be "techno-freaks" and spend all this extra cash on JUNK instead of PRACTICE, only to try this stuff, and STILL SHOOT 4's...cuz the standing positions aren't prime perfect and we are clueless as to how it affects our form and shot process!

Many, many, many 555+ field/hunter scores are being shot WITHOUT the use of all this superflous 'techno-toy' stuff....or dependency upon it....but today's shooters, think MORE is better with regard to technology...and fail to realize at all that the ONLY MORE IS BETTER...is MORE PRACTICE to get MORE prowess...they'd be better served getting a good coach and listening. They'd be better served learning the ropes and being proactive and LEARNING HOW TO SHOOT...instead of relying on "techno-toys" to GIVE them everything....

field14


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

True field....BUT you fail to realize that most people that use a rangefinder on a range also use that same rangefinder for their every day shooting. Therefore it doens't matter if the rangefinder is off for the course....it will match YOUR BOW and YOUR MARKS.:wink:

and most shooters don't only take one reading.....I know I usually take 5.:wink:

Who cares if they what scores were shot without them....people have shot a trillion whitetails off the ground....doesn't mean that it's better then going up a tree.:wink: 

Time to stop with the "techno rants"

If you don't want to use them...then don't.....is it ok to use OT2 to get my marks....or do we all have to shoot in every one of those also:embara:

and you are slippin....60 post about Techno Toys before you responded:wink:


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Brown Hornet said:


> True field....BUT you fail to realize that most people that use a rangefinder on a range also use that same rangefinder for their every day shooting. Therefore it doens't matter if the rangefinder is off for the course....it will match YOUR BOW and YOUR MARKS.:wink:
> 
> and most shooters don't only take one reading.....I know I usually take 5.:wink:
> 
> ...


Hornet,
I agree with what you say above..>However, my point is....you do NOT NEED those techo-toys to shoot 550+ on a field course, and you certainly do NOT NEED them to shoot 530 or better!

I feel we are doing a disservice to the newbies and mid-range shooters in telling them that they MUST HAVE or "it would make a HUGE difference in your scores" if they purchased and USED the 'techno-toys'....not the case at all, IMHO...especially the HUGE difference in scores...the use of the techno-toys is NOT going to jump you from a 530 or 540 shooter to a mid-550 shooter...and I think way too many shooters misconstrue the usefulness of the "techno-toys".

There is way more to the field archery game than simply using the cut-charts or slant rangefinders to "compenstate" for the angle of the dangle. There is WAY MORE to getting a good site tape than simply plugging some numbers into the computer program! Doesn't do a squat of good to "nail the cut"....only to shoot out to the left or right because you are clueless how that sidehill and/or uphill and downhill has "other efffects" on how YOU shoot a particular target.

I've recently spoken with some top pros....that never even considered or thought about practicing on an incline board...but purchased a clinometer, thinking they'd gain points there...only to LOSE THOSE POINTS on uphill/downhill/sidehill shots because they were clueless as to how to adjust for that "angle" of the game!

I'm only trying to make the point...that often-times people are relying on technology way too SOON in their shooting....when they would be spending better money and time...LEARNING HOW TO SHOOT...

Personally, I've got enough experience that I KNOW FOR A FACT that I don't NEED the "toys"...sure, I use OT2 to generate a site tape...but from EXPERIENCE in geting GOOD INFORMATION to plug into the computer program...NOT from just throwing things together and expecting that techno-toy to correct everything for me and GIVE ME something that is an automatic path to a huge increase in scores.


field14


----------



## Macmathews (Jul 24, 2007)

*Yup*

"The guy that kicks your but on a MARKED course with a rangefinder is gonna kick your butt without it"

So true.. 

Kyle


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

field14 said:


> Hornet,
> I agree with what you say above..>However, my point is....you do NOT NEED those techo-toys to shoot 550+ on a field course, and you certainly do NOT NEED them to shoot 530 or better!
> 
> I feel we are doing a disservice to the newbies and mid-range shooters in telling them that they MUST HAVE or "it would make a HUGE difference in your scores" if they purchased and USED the 'techno-toys'....not the case at all, IMHO...especially the HUGE difference in scores...the use of the techno-toys is NOT going to jump you from a 530 or 540 shooter to a mid-550 shooter...and I think way too many shooters misconstrue the usefulness of the "techno-toys".
> ...



I know what you are saying...BUT you know me and a few others on here better then most do. You know that we aren't looking for a quick fix or the rangefinder to get a goal. It's a tool...just like a release as far as I am concerned. It is much easier for me and 99% of the shooters out there to use a range finder then it is to use a clinometer...which aren't cheap...and then to use a cut chart. Kind of hard to use a chart without the clinometer also....at least to use it accurately.

Side hills and all that other mumbo jumbo doesn't even need to be discussed in this thread.....majority of the people in this thread are experienced field shooters and aren't going to be getting the cut right and suddenly forget how to use their bubbles.

But I have followed this thread from the second it was posted and I know I haven't noticed or said myself that anyone...newbie or otherwise HAS to have anything. When I am working with a newbie in person, PM or on the phone....they get enough info to get them by and that is about. There is too much to confuse them with.....you need to learn how to play the game first.:wink:

As for marks...garbage in garbage out...PERIOD.


----------



## swerve (Jun 5, 2005)

Brown Hornet said:


> I know what you are saying...BUT you know me and a few others on here better then most do. You know that we aren't looking for a quick fix or the rangefinder to get a goal. It's a tool...just like a release as far as I am concerned. It is much easier for me and 99% of the shooters out there to use a range finder then it is to use a clinometer...which aren't cheap...and then to use a cut chart. Kind of hard to use a chart without the clinometer also....at least to use it accurately.
> 
> Side hills and all that other mumbo jumbo doesn't even need to be discussed in this thread.....majority of the people in this thread are experienced field shooters and aren't going to be getting the cut right and suddenly forget how to use their bubbles.
> 
> ...


:amen::amen: and :amen:


----------



## C Doyle 88 (Sep 1, 2007)

field14 said:


> Hornet,
> I agree with what you say above..>However, my point is....you do NOT NEED those techo-toys to shoot 550+ on a field course, and you certainly do NOT NEED them to shoot 530 or better!
> 
> I feel we are doing a disservice to the newbies and mid-range shooters in telling them that they MUST HAVE or "it would make a HUGE difference in your scores" if they purchased and USED the 'techno-toys'....not the case at all, IMHO...especially the HUGE difference in scores...the use of the techno-toys is NOT going to jump you from a 530 or 540 shooter to a mid-550 shooter...and I think way too many shooters misconstrue the usefulness of the "techno-toys".
> ...


Thanks Field 14:

Maybe a cliocuttyardagetape maker with fog lamps so BH can see/and remember what this forum was created for.

I understood from the start that AT (WE-field archers were going to try to stimulate interest from new shooters, and build the entrys for all field shoots)

Or should we scare them all away so some one can stand on target 1 with no competition, and be the winner of nothing.

Just to reinforce any interest that may have been developing in some shooter until they became convinced it would cost them 2,000-3,000$ to get all this tecnomainiac equipment, and the best compound or three to be competetive, in field archery. YOU CAN shoot well with out all that crap.
I've shot in the low 550's with a $ 200 used bow including sight, by simply shooting it a lot and knowing it, and its limitations thuroughly, x7 shafts, and a $15 used release, total around 300 $ the rest is shooting a lot and learning the sport as completely as possible.

Not by running out and buying every do-it for you gimick, and tecno-ego pasifyer that comes out this month and every month there after.

So to anyone not sure about field archery, after these scare tactics to keep you from maybe out shooting them, come on and try it, even if you don't have a grand EGO, its still the greatest sport in the world, specially on a budget.


----------



## WrongdayJ (May 22, 2008)

If I may interject from the viewpoint of the 'noob' you gentlemen are referring to:

When I first starting shooting Field, I did notice that there was alot of Techno-toys being used. As in all sports/hobbies, there are those that like to use these things and those that don't feel they are necessary. 

I think that if one chooses to use these devices, then it should be a widely accepted _option,_ and not considered a_ requirement_. 

Do I personally think they help. . .? I don't know. I have always thought of Archery as an art, not a science. In order to be a science, you would have to be able to accurately and positively account for any and all things that can/could possibly happen to your arrow once it leaves your bow. . .repeatably every time. Too much can happen to an arrow once it leaves your bow to accurately predict the outcome. Watching a guy like Furgeson shoot baby asprin out of the air with a Long Bow just reinforces the notion that it is an Art. One that is mastered through years of practice and mental compensation based on experience with the equipment he is using. Lots of intangibles.

Yes the Techno-toys should be there for those who choose to use them, but by no means should anyone feel they have to use them. All Archers should arrive at the same point, but there are as many different paths to get there as there are Archers going down them. And that is what I love about this sport.


----------



## WV Has Been (Aug 9, 2002)

I was one of the you don't need the techno toy type until one year ago.

A range I was very familiar with had some targets rebuilt and re-marked. Targets that I learned to shoot over the years now did not shoot the same. Cost me as many as 4 points on a round. 

The difference can be as simple as a new fiber tape not stretching like the old cloth type. The new measurer stretched the tape tighter on the targets that the tape could not touch the ground( across a valley) taking the sag out.

Now if I had been at the Nationals on a range I was not familiar with and my competition was smart enough to use the techno toys to there advantage and I did not could I afford to give up points????


----------



## Mr. October (Feb 15, 2003)

field14 said:


> <snip>
> So, most NFAA ranges, if there are problems with yardages being "off"...are consistently off in the same direction...again, the _shooter _needs to figure this out on their own.
> 
> Couple this with the "cut charts"....nice....but, nobody here mentions that MY cut chart may well differ from your cut chart...because my setup is NOT _the same _as your setup!


Can I buy an official NFAA measuring stick? Is it gauranteed to be accurate to 20 yards on a convention hall floor? :wink:



field14 said:


> <snip>
> So, go ahead and spend yet another $500 or more on toys...then tell other shooters that they have to buy another $500 worth of junk to carry around or they "won't shoot decently".....then you can sit back and ponder WHY so few people are converting to field archery!
> 
> Good grief...you tell 'em they NEED carbon arrows, they NEED at least 250 fps, they NEED a $200 scope, they NEED a $100 arrow rest, they NEED a $1,000 target bow, they NEED a $165 release aid....and now you tell 'em that in addtion to that, they NEED a $300 set of binoculars, They NEED a $250 palm-pilot computer, They NEED a$99 clinmoneter (or more $$ than that), they NEED a $250 laser rangefinder, and they MUST HAVE ciomputer generated site tapes and cut charts...or they won't shoot well on field.
> ...


Field . . the funny part about this is that if you read the General Archery discussions most guys are buying all this junk anyway (excepted possibly the clinometer). Then, the minute someone posts something about shooting over 30 yards they say "Well . . I don't shoot that far anyway 'cuz I just hunt deer". I'd propose that if this is REALLY true that most people could get by just fine with a $200.00 bow from Dick's, a one-pin sight and a handful of Vapor arrows from Wal-Mart. Not sure why these guys spend so much money on stuff to only ever shoot to 30 yards . . . especially considering the roots of bowhunting and archery shoot a lot farther then that with a lot less high-tech stuff.


----------

