# Any compound shooters shoot barebow better?



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Barebow shooting is a different type of shooting than what most people are used to. It's more eye-hand coordination than aiming, actually. Personally, I've never had very good eye-hand coordination, but mine had improved as I improved my shooting. With good form and a comfortable shot, a barebow archer has an advantage over a sight shooter:
1. speed
2. yardage
3. simplicity

A compound bow is built to remove shooter error, and it does that well. I mentioned before that even with my longbows and alum arrows I was capable of outshooting myself with a rifle. Given a compound's characteristics, a believe an archer with a kisser button and very simple rest (like an old Bear all weather rest or whatever it's called) could outshoot 90% of the sight hunters out there, as well as, obviously, most of the trad archers. Frankly, they might even be the most deadly hunter in the woods at that point.


----------



## deerburner (Jun 3, 2008)

kegan said:


> Barebow shooting is a different type of shooting than what most people are used to. It's more eye-hand coordination than aiming, actually. Personally, I've never had very good eye-hand coordination, but mine had improved as I improved my shooting. With good form and a comfortable shot, a barebow archer has an advantage over a sight shooter:
> 1. speed
> 2. yardage
> 3. simplicity
> ...


okay, one thing, the compound bow was built not to remove shooter error, but to remove equipment error, elliminating equipment error adds accuracy and any occuring error can be blamed on nothing but the shooter. so in theory, if you are a good shot, a compound would be better, but thats only in theory, and theory isnt always right.:teeth:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

deerburner said:


> okay, one thing, the compound bow was built not to remove shooter error, but to remove equipment error, elliminating equipment error adds accuracy and any occuring error can be blamed on nothing but the shooter. so in theory, if you are a good shot, a compound would be better, but thats only in theory, and theory isnt always right.:teeth:


No. That may be a nice thing to think, but it all removes shooter error. TO be frank, it _increases_ equipment error because there are now more things that can go wrong.

A Stabilizer makes it easier to hold the bow steady and harder to torque.

A sight makes it easier to aim without having to practice or rely on subconscious estimation of yardage.

A release removes imporper finger grip and release, allowing for a cleaner shot.

With a traditional bow, the only things that can go wrong are usually faults of the arrow (this is proven by hooking it up to a shooting machine; even Saxton Pope with improperly matched arrows and a simple wooden bow shot a 6" group at 60 yards through a machine).


----------



## deerburner (Jun 3, 2008)

kegan said:


> No. That may be a nice thing to think, but it all removes shooter error. TO be frank, it _increases_ equipment error because there are now more things that can go wrong.
> 
> A Stabilizer makes it easier to hold the bow steady and harder to torque.
> 
> ...


well, you are able to tune a compound, and when properly tuned using the process of supertuning will shoot a dozen arrows in the same hole at 20 yards using a machine, and no matter what you use, i still think that it is almost impossible to remove all human error. i still think that recurves are a great design, but i think that they can be improved upon and thats were compounds come in.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

You're starting to get what I'm saying. Not just super tuning though: by nature, bows will all shoot the same. I can go, cut a green stick and turn it into a crappy bow, but if I have a set of perfect arrows for that thing it will be able to punch dimes at 50 yards from a machine- because if the arrows are exactly the same (and here I will say that in this respect modern carbon and aluminum are _VASTLY_ less difficult and easier than wood) the bow-arrow system will act the same way.

When I say that it all removes shooter error, I don't mean entirely. That would be akin to putting it on the machine. Yes, the compound is a good design, and mechanically it is superior to the recurve, just as on the drawing board the recurve is superior to the longbow. In the end, however, we can determine just how much we need. If longbows and recurves were truly so inferior, they would be obsolete. They're not. Likewise, if compounds didn't remove human error, than a novice couldn't pick one up and with a minimal bit of help be able to shoot hunting-appropriate groups within an hour or two. Even with careful instruction that would never be possible with a traditional bow. You're right- they've yet to invent a bow that can remove all shooter error, but it's pretty obvious that a compound does a better job than a recurve, and a recurve does a better job than a modern longbow, which in turn does a better job than a selfbow- which coincidentally is all I can afford:zip:

Now, back to the topic of this thread. Given the proper amount of practice to become familiar and comfortable with your weapon, your mind's subconscious will be able to pick up on the sight picture and begin mentally mapping the arrows flight (which happens more depends on your eyes it seems- I'm more of a picture shooter with slight path recognition, I know others who are more flight path oriented). With enough practice and ingraining, this results in a faster shot with less thought.


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

Kegan, I see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree. 

A compound bow does not remove shooter error, it removes equipment error. If it is set up right, and assuming the bow works properly (which it usually does), the arrows will do the exact same thing every single time. That is just how it is. But, when you put it in the hands of an imperfect human, the shots just don't seam to be as consistent. That is because when you add a person to the mix, errors come as a by product.

Compounds can reduce the amount of error that occurs. Stabilizers make it harder to torque and easier to keep steady, but it doesn't remove the fact that the person holding the bow can still mess up. Same with sights. They can tell you exactly where to hold your bow, but the person will still screw up and float around, and even float off target. 

Humans will always make mistakes with a bow in their hands. The equipment can make it harder to make a mistake, and even reduce the effect of a mistake on the shot arrow, but it does not remove the error in humans, just dampens in. Am I getting my point across okay?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Actually Sighting In, you're getting _MY_ point across.

What you're saying has NOTHING to do with the equipement if it is properly tuned. Again, let's go back to my stick example- you get a miserable little stick, some perfect arrows, and strap that baby in a shooting machine, it will be able to outshoot you and your compound. Not because the equipment makes up for it's own mistakes, but because human error is removed from the equation. 

I don't know where you all keep thinking that the bow needs to be made more accurate, and that compounds are "more accurate" than recurves or longbows. Seriously, you're talking about human error and then saying that it's actually equipement error? Really?


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

kegan said:


> I don't know where you all keep thinking that the bow needs to be made more accurate, and that compounds are "more accurate" than recurves or longbows. Seriously, you're talking about human error and then saying that it's actually equipement error? Really?


Here we go. A compound is not more accurate or consistent than a recurve. But, it is easier to shoot, because shooter error is minimized. It is NOT removed, just dampened and is made harder to effect the arrow.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Sighting In said:


> Here we go. A compound is not more accurate or consistent than a recurve. But, it is easier to shoot, because shooter error is minimized. It is NOT removed, just dampened and is made harder to effect the arrow.


Precisely! And so how could that possibly be _equipement error_?


----------

