# Fred Eichler



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

Anybody read his article in Bowhunter magazine? He says traditional gear is better than compounds for hunting. I have been thinking this exact same thing for a few years now and I think I'm going to make the switch this year. I started out traditional like most people and transitioned to compounds.


----------



## Dry Feather (Sep 16, 2010)

Does he say why HE thinks traditional gear is better than compounds? I love my traditional stuff, but compounds are much more accurate and less apt to wound the animal.


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

Dry Feather said:


> Does he say why HE thinks traditional gear is better than compounds? I love my traditional stuff, but compounds are much more accurate and less apt to wound the animal.


He has several reasons. Its a pretty long article. speed is one issue he points out, of 3700 P&Y entries average range was 20.5 yards, size of target doesn't require pinpoint accuracy, and less things to go wrong with a stick and string vs. everything you have on a compound are some of the reasons that stick out in my mind.


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

> _but compounds are much more accurate and less apt to wound the animal._


Guaranteed consistency by all shooters only if shot by a "Hooter Shooter" with a built-in auto range finder and radar lock-on.


----------



## Zigman (Jul 31, 2009)

FOR ME, 20 yards and under, I'll take my Dalaa over my compound anyday! One things that might not have been in the article is the feeling one gets from taking game with a stick and string. It's absolutely awsome. It's just a different feeling, at least to me.


----------



## whitetail_fury2 (Nov 6, 2006)

I could see arguments go either way, but compounds do give people more excuses when they make a bad shot and a greater sense of false confidence at greater distances. In the right hands, either weapon can and will take down the desired game when an ethical shot is made at a distance consistent with the shooters ability.


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

I have been bowhunting for over 25 years and I have only taken 3 shots over 20 yards. I can think of lots of times where a recurve would have been better. I have always been strictly compound but I'm starting to believe what Fred said. It might not be better for everyone but in my situation I think it is. Plus the feeling of using a recurve would have to be great. Shooting any deer would be an accomplishment in my book.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Dry Feather said:


> but compounds are much more accurate and less apt to wound the animal.


Now that's not right. Compounds are just as likely to fail as tradbows, if anything more so. It's more about the arrows and the archer than the spring. Compound arrows are generally lighter, and some even fitted with expandables. Traditional archers trend towards heavier arrows with cut on contact broadheads. Hitting the shoulder or bone, which would be better? Dr. Ashby posted a thread about this over on tradbow.com.

Removing the accuracy issue, which isn't the gear but the fool behind the bow, it's a much more even playing field.

I like all aspects of archery but don't own a compound. Much prefer shooting a longbow barebow. Simple, and the only real hindrance is how far I can accurately shoot. Not really a big deal considering it's still easier than trying to tackle the animal.


----------



## marc weier (May 26, 2009)

Dry Feather said:


> Does he say why HE thinks traditional gear is better than compounds? I love my traditional stuff, but compounds are much more accurate and less apt to wound the animal.


That is the quote of the day, WOW. I have seen plenty of guys that can shoot a 300 at 20 yards with a compound and not being able to hit a deer standing at 20 yards. 

Besides that I can post a better score than about half the compound shooters at my local club during out summer league.


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

"Better" is a dangerous word. I have my reasons for peferring trad to compunds. Or longbows to recurves. Or aluminum to carbon...

OTOH, if I had to go to war w a bow, or was hunting for my life, not for fun, a compound would probably be "better". 

You can certainly argue the historical trip down the road to "better" ended up at the compound crossbow w a red dot sight...


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

99.9% of these magazine articles are just page-filler to fill the white space between the ads. It doesn't have to be all that factual or even near fact, just something to hold your eyes on the page. For many readers, the articles just get in the way of the pretty pictures anyway. I wouldn't look for any gospel in there.


----------



## jcs-bowhunter (Jul 7, 2007)

Hands down a modern compound is a much better weapon than a stickbow. They are much more accurate with significantly more kinetic energy. What tool do you want in your hands if the only food that you our your family could eat had to be killed by an arrow? (besides a crossbow)

In what situation is a longer, slower, less powerful weapon an advantage? 

I hunt and 3D shoot with a stickbow because I enjoy traditional archery and for the challenge it represents.

Sorry if this is blasphemy to some...


----------



## NHBarcher (Feb 2, 2007)

Mr. Eichler also states this in Masters of the Barebow, that it's "the most efficient weapon". It sounds good if you want to puff up trad snobs, but it's utter nonsense. 

I enjoy shooting my Gamemaster more than my Powerhawk, but a simple side-by-side "shoot-out" shows I can shoot the Powerhawk twice as accurately from twice as far away.


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

NHBarcher said:


> Mr. Eichler also states this in Masters of the Barebow, that it's "the most efficient weapon". It sounds good if you want to puff up trad snobs, but it's utter nonsense.
> 
> I enjoy shooting my Gamemaster more than my Powerhawk, but a simple side-by-side "shoot-out" shows I can shoot the Powerhawk twice as accurately from twice as far away.


No argument the compound beats trad when shooting at targets and Eichler agrees but in the woods the trad bow has the advantage in his opinion and I'm starting to lean that way myself. How many shots have you taken over 20 yards and how many have been successful? I find that with proper stand placement my shots are hardly ever over 20 yards. True trad takes more practice to be good but so does a compound take more practice than a crossbow. You should read the article he makes a compelling argument.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

What a load of dump, I could care less about what people use, I'm more interested in the skill of the archer whatever they use. Every bow is accurate enough to do the job, I think we can all agree to that. Fred is just trying to build interest in the new Hoyt Buffalo bow in my opinion.


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

Sanford said:


> 99.9% of these magazine articles are just page-filler to fill the white space between the ads. It doesn't have to be all that factual or even near fact, just something to hold your eyes on the page. For many readers, the articles just get in the way of the pretty pictures anyway. I wouldn't look for any gospel in there.


 Thank You very much for that post!!....I quit subscribing to, and buying "Bowhunting" magazines some years back..They are either full of biased crap, or re-hashed fluff that most folks know anyway, lastly, some of the magazines that I've looked at the last few years, have too many articles about property management, food plots, blah blah blah...This means nothing to the average bow hunter, that hunts with a permission slip, or hunts public ground....Jim


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

jcs-bowhunter said:


> Hands down a modern compound is a much better weapon than a stickbow. They are much more accurate with significantly more kinetic energy. What tool do you want in your hands if the only food that you our your family could eat had to be killed by an arrow? (besides a crossbow)
> 
> In what situation is a longer, slower, less powerful weapon an advantage?
> 
> ...


 Excellent post, Jerry!.....it's not a Survival , or Life or Death situation for us...Hunting is about choosing a Weapon that We want to use, and that's that...Just a hobby/pastime......Jim


----------



## Yojimbo (Dec 6, 2010)

There is no doubt that a compound is a more * efficient* weapon. However IMO most people that shoot one (I am referring to the masses that drag one out for hunting only) use a compound as a crutch to make up for lack of practice & poor form. If I had a dollar for every time I smoked one of those guys with a banjo bow on the 3D course I'd... well I'd have a bunch of dollars that's for sure!


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

jcs-bowhunter said:


> Hands down a modern compound is a much better weapon than a stickbow. They are much more accurate with significantly more kinetic energy. What tool do you want in your hands if the only food that you our your family could eat had to be killed by an arrow? (besides a crossbow)
> 
> In what situation is a longer, slower, less powerful weapon an advantage?
> 
> ...


Honestly it wouldn't even be a choice: I'd go with a longbow. Probably alot lighter than I'm using now, but still. All those little things that _can_ go wrong with a weapon usually will when it comes down to it. You mean you can take the time to take care of every little detail on a compound when it comes down to it? I don't buy that. What about all the money spent in up keep? Sorta backwards thinking there. Likewise, the compound is a result, just like the asiatic composite, of a society that had long since abandoned the need for survival. Oh, and as for KE meaning more power that's garbage. Shooting equal weight arrows at an equal draw length, compounds are only 30-40 fps faster. It's been proven that heavy arrows are what bring game down when things go wrong, not light ones.

Longer, slower, and less powerful? Perhaps, but simpler, more reliable, more quiet, and much more versatile as well. Longer is a matter of practice in the field, proper design will give you plenty of speed, and most have more than enough power if you know how to set it up right.

Of course, no one's hunting to feed their familiy and it's all a matter of choice. Whatever you're more practiced with will always be the one you consider "better."


----------



## benzy (Oct 23, 2006)

> Hands down a modern compound is a much better weapon than a stickbow. They are much more accurate with significantly more kinetic energy. What tool do you want in your hands if the only food that you our your family could eat had to be killed by an arrow? (besides a crossbow)
> 
> In what situation is a longer, slower, less powerful weapon an advantage?
> 
> ...


:set1_signs009:


----------



## AReric (Mar 6, 2010)

I am putting my compound down this year to really give my longbow a honest try. I enjoy stump shooting(roving) much more with my trad bow too.


----------



## jcs-bowhunter (Jul 7, 2007)

Sanford said:


> 99.9% of these magazine articles are just page-filler to fill the white space between the ads. It doesn't have to be all that factual or even near fact, just something to hold your eyes on the page. For many readers, the articles just get in the way of the pretty pictures anyway. I wouldn't look for any gospel in there.


Wow…guess I did not realize until I read this post and Harperman’s comments that I have not purchased or subscribed to any hunting magazines in at least 5-7 years. Apparently I have not missed much…


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

jcs-bowhunter said:


> Wow…guess I did not realize until I read this post and Harperman’s comments that I have not purchased or subscribed to any hunting magazines in at least 5-7 years. Apparently I have not missed much…


Nope!.....I cant even read much of a Traditional Bowhunter magazine anymore....Sad....


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

I didn't read the article so maybe I shouldn't comment, but there are lots of different kinds of "efficiency"... economic, mechanical, thermal, energy, etc.
It seems to me it's hard to beat a stick and string for efficiency in propelling an arrow from most points of view. Simpler is more efficient.

But pulleys have a mechanical efficiency that stick bows don't. Which costs less? That can vary... it's kind of apples and oranges unless you define exactly what kind of efficiency you're talking about, and even then it might need to be weighed bow vs. bow, for any individual archer.
Just my $0.02


----------



## Bowsage (Apr 29, 2008)

I find it amazing people get bothered by an article they have never read. There is no mention of a Hoyt Buffalo bow in the entire magazine!


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Harperman said:


> Nope!.....I cant even read much of a Traditional Bowhunter magazine anymore....Sad....


I just go to Barnes & Noble and scan the mag rack for free. Why pay for the commercials?


----------



## bardman (Oct 18, 2006)

I have a hard enough time hitting anything with a compound much less pulling out the old stick and string. I do enjoy shooting it though


----------



## bambam1 (Jul 22, 2007)

You guys need to read the article. i read it and he makes no bashing of compounds, even says he is a more accurate shot with a wheelie and that he occasionally still hunts with one. He just feels that under a lot of quick reaction shots that he has been faced with, the curve was easier for him to pull off some shots that he didn't think he would of had time to get lined up with a compound. Need to read the article before the stoning begins....lol..


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

LongStick64 said:


> What a load of dump, I could care less about what people use, I'm more interested in the skill of the archer whatever they use. Every bow is accurate enough to do the job, I think we can all agree to that. Fred is just trying to build interest in the new Hoyt Buffalo bow in my opinion.


Actually he never mentions any particular brand of bow.


----------



## Ybuck (Apr 21, 2007)

LongStick64 said:


> What a load of dump, I could care less about what people use, I'm more interested in the skill of the archer whatever they use. Every bow is accurate enough to do the job, I think we can all agree to that. Fred is just trying to build interest in the new Hoyt Buffalo bow in my opinion.



So he's been shooting a recurve for 20 plus years now. But this article is about the new Hoyt bow?
Folks need to READ the article FIRST, then comment.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

I agree with JCS Bowhunter - there is a reason 95%+ of the bows sold and shot are compounds. They are easier to shoot accurately. Combine that with extra energy per pound of draw weight and you have a more efficient tool. Traditional bows are absolutley capable and work excellent in the right hands and right conditions. As for the Pope and Young numbers - well most of the entries are from whitetails. IF that's what you hunt then sure a 20 yard shot from a tree is pretty common. For me, there are no whitetails within 300 miles. But there are Mule Deer, Elk, Antelope and Black Bear all within 100 miles. I'd venture a guess that the average range on these is well over 20 yards. This is not to say a Trad bow can not kill over 20 yards, but the shooting accuracy for many (me included) falls off fast over that. In my 20+ years of bowhunting there have been a handfull of times a Trad bow would have had the advantage, but most of the time, no. So for me, I decide what the probable shot will be depending on the animal and location chosen and choose my weapon accordingly. I like Trad bows and compounds - that's ok, isn't it?


----------



## bdeal (Oct 28, 2005)

I shot a oompound for years before switching to trad. I am definitely more effectve hunting with the tradbow. It really shines when they are in close and moving (20 yards or less), which is all too common during the rut.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

point taken about not reading the article, but I still think it is a far stupid comment on his part on what bow is better. No one can answer that, only the individual archer can. If you ARE a better shooter with a recurve\longbow than a compound, well for the animals sake that's what you should use. 

For me, yes I can shoot quarters with a compound, but I gave it up to enjoy the pleasure of shooting a recurve/longbow. Now when I hunt I cut the distance in half and I'm extra careful to pick the right shot at the right time. But in the future if I decide that I can make a better shot and I want to increase my killing zone I'll pick up a compound. But that is just me, not you, not Fred. Skill with whatever you use outweighs what you use. It's all archery, even if your a bowhunter.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Are we missing something why not get the best of both sides for hunting shoot a longer compound with fingers no sights you get the advantage of a longer killing range and the quickness of the Trad style of shooting. It don't take long to learn how to aim without a sight. It's what we did before the Sight and Realese took over with long distance accuracy.


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

I know a guy who will argue all day and night an atl-atl is "better" yet cuzz it's even simpler, quieter, and more reliable than any bow...


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

BrokenArrows said:


> I know a guy who will argue all day and night an atl-atl is "better" yet cuzz it's even simpler, quieter, and more reliable than any bow...


I disagree, atlatl's are just as involved to make as a bow:lol:!

Anyway. It seems to me people's personal limitations are just visited upon our weapons. We all use what we're best at but it seems we too soon blame any short comings on the weapon, rather than our own skill or interest.


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

Sanford said:


> I just go to Barnes & Noble and scan the mag rack for free. Why pay for the commercials?


L.O.L......Yep!...Actually, I just check out the front cover, flip to the Contents page, and scan that, if there is something in there I want to read, I'll check it out real quick, then just drool over the ad's....L.O.L...Take care........Jim


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

I work part time at an Archery Pro shop...Fella brings his Wife in to get her set up with a bow...She has almost zero experience shooting a bow..And is left eye dominate, but right handed, doesnt want to shoot lefty...Got her set up with a bow, sight, peep, rest, arrows, release aid..Had her close her left eye to look through the peep...With 1/2 hour of basic form instructions, She was wadding arrows at 10 yards, moved the bale to 15, still keeping the arrows in acceptable groups...next time she shot, moved the bale to 20 yards, 5 out of 6 arrows in the 4 ring, on a Single spot target...With a basic hunting bow set up...With a few practice sessions and decent instructions, her shooting got decent groups at 20 yards,, and She was ready to take up Bowhunting, as it's done here in the East, which usually means treestands, and shots at 20 yards, give or take a few yards...Has anyone on here ever done this in a week or two with a Trad bow, starting from scratch??...Compound bows that fit the Archer, and are set up properly, are just plain easier for all but a rare few to shoot well...And a modern Compound bow, at 45#-50# draw weight will shoot hunting weight arrows faster than any Trad bow, on an apples to apples test...Shooting a Trad bow is about shooting the weapon that We enjoy shooting,, and choose to shoot and hunt with, but for all but a rare few Archers, and in the majority of Hunting situations, the Compound bow is simply a better weapon to kill an animal with, or hit the Target with...I have Bowhunted off and on since 1984...I can think of ALOT of times that if I had a Compound bow in hand, vs. a Trad bow, that I would have killed an animal, vs. passing on the shot, or the shot not presenting it's self...But, I CHOSE to shoot and hunt with what I wanted, and that was a Trad bow of one sort or another...I can also think of a few times that a Trad bow was the best weapon for the shot I did take, but they are far outnumbered by the shots that didnt happen....If I HAD to feed myself, or my Family, then I would choose the Compound....I dont HAVE to "Make Meat", so I choose the Trad bows for Hunting.....Take care........................Jim


----------



## jcs-bowhunter (Jul 7, 2007)

Back to the original poster, I would like to encourage you to give stickbow hunting a try. As you can see by this thread we are a passionate group with different ideas of exactly what this hobby means to each of us. Hope you join in and enjoy the experience!


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Harperman said:


> a modern Compound bow, at 45#-50# draw weight will shoot hunting weight arrows faster than any Trad bow, on an apples to apples test....If I HAD to feed myself, or my Family, then I would choose the Compound....


Several folks have done an apples to apples test, the results being that compounds only shoot 10 gpp arrows 30 or so fps faster. 

As for making meat, wouldn't you just use a rifle instead of a bow at all?


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

kegan said:


> Several folks have done an apples to apples test, the results being that compounds only shoot 10 gpp arrows 30 or so fps faster.
> 
> As for making meat, wouldn't you just use a rifle instead of a bow at all?


Keegan, regarding the performance testing of Compounds, VS. Trad bows, this may be true, but it would also depend on how new, or how fast the Compound bow is, example, something like the PSE Omen, VS. a Hill style bow...Ya know??...As for using a Rifle, yeah, that's a no brainer, but Rifles are not legal to use for deer hunting here in Ohio, and the subject of debate/discussion was about Bows, or so I thought...I'll get something to eat, then get back with You on the subject of Bow Performance.....But , in the mean time, I do wonder, why in the world anyone would want to use 10 g.p.p. arrows out of a Compound bow, for anything but "maybe" Dangerous Game??...The Compound that I just sold would shoot 450 grain arrows at 260-265 f.p.s., at 61# draw weight, and a 28.5" draw length...it would be a world record setting Trad bow that could do that, I'm thinking...In the "Walk the Talk" tests, last time I checked, NO Trad bows shot over 200 f.p.s. with 10 g.p.p. arrows, and 28" draw length, shot with a shooting machine...And with a Trad bow, 30 f.p.s. difference in arrow speed roughly equals 12# draw weight...So that equals a 48# draw weight Compound, VS. a 60# Trad bow, using the run of the mill version of both bow types..All this really means little to me, since I know that a 45# wooden selfbow, propelling a 400 grain arrow at 145 f.p.s. will shoot through a Whitetail like it's made of wet cardboard, if the deer is hit in the right spot....it's all good, as long as We hit the Deer/Game where they carry Their Vitals....Take care, Keegan!..........Jim


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

Harperman said:


> I work part time at an Archery Pro shop...Fella brings his Wife in to get her set up with a bow...She has almost zero experience shooting a bow..And is left eye dominate, but right handed, doesnt want to shoot lefty...Got her set up with a bow, sight, peep, rest, arrows, release aid..Had her close her left eye to look through the peep...With 1/2 hour of basic form instructions, She was wadding arrows at 10 yards, moved the bale to 15, still keeping the arrows in acceptable groups...next time she shot, moved the bale to 20 yards, 5 out of 6 arrows in the 4 ring, on a Single spot target...With a basic hunting bow set up...With a few practice sessions and decent instructions, her shooting got decent groups at 20 yards,, and She was ready to take up Bowhunting, as it's done here in the East, which usually means treestands, and shots at 20 yards, give or take a few yards...Has anyone on here ever done this in a week or two with a Trad bow, starting from scratch??...Compound bows that fit the Archer, and are set up properly, are just plain easier for all but a rare few to shoot well...And a modern Compound bow, at 45#-50# draw weight will shoot hunting weight arrows faster than any Trad bow, on an apples to apples test...Shooting a Trad bow is about shooting the weapon that We enjoy shooting,, and choose to shoot and hunt with, but for all but a rare few Archers, and in the majority of Hunting situations, the Compound bow is simply a better weapon to kill an animal with, or hit the Target with...I have Bowhunted off and on since 1984...I can think of ALOT of times that if I had a Compound bow in hand, vs. a Trad bow, that I would have killed an animal, vs. passing on the shot, or the shot not presenting it's self...But, I CHOSE to shoot and hunt with what I wanted, and that was a Trad bow of one sort or another...I can also think of a few times that a Trad bow was the best weapon for the shot I did take, but they are far outnumbered by the shots that didnt happen....If I HAD to feed myself, or my Family, then I would choose the Compound....I dont HAVE to "Make Meat", so I choose the Trad bows for Hunting.....Take care........................Jim


We aren't talking about which one is easier to use crossbows are easier than compounds but that doesn't make them better. Obviously u don't go with trad gear if u don't know how to use it. He is saying if you are good with trad gear it is better for hunting


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

Harperman said:


> Keegan, regarding the performance testing of Compounds, VS. Trad bows, this may be true, but it would also depend on how new, or how fast the Compound bow is, example, something like the PSE Omen, VS. a Hill style bow...Ya know??...As for using a Rifle, yeah, that's a no brainer, but Rifles are not legal to use for deer hunting here in Ohio, and the subject of debate/discussion was about Bows, or so I thought...I'll get something to eat, then get back with You on the subject of Bow Performance.....But , in the mean time, I do wonder, why in the world anyone would want to use 10 g.p.p. arrows out of a Compound bow, for anything but "maybe" Dangerous Game??...The Compound that I just sold would shoot 450 grain arrows at 260-265 f.p.s., at 61# draw weight, and a 28.5" draw length...it would be a world record setting Trad bow that could do that, I'm thinking...In the "Walk the Talk" tests, last time I checked, NO Trad bows shot over 200 f.p.s. with 10 g.p.p. arrows, and 28" draw length, shot with a shooting machine...And with a Trad bow, 30 f.p.s. difference in arrow speed roughly equals 12# draw weight...So that equals a 48# draw weight Compound, VS. a 60# Trad bow, using the run of the mill version of both bow types..All this really means little to me, since I know that a 45# wooden selfbow, propelling a 400 grain arrow at 145 f.p.s. will shoot through a Whitetail like it's made of wet cardboard, if the deer is hit in the right spot....it's all good, as long as We hit the Deer/Game where they carry Their Vitals....Take care, Keegan!..........Jim


we seem to be getting off topic . We aren't talking about which one is more efficient because either one will easily kill a whitetail. It's more about which one is better for hunting.


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

NTYMADATER............Agreed, the topic is not being addressed, sorry to hijack it.....As for which choice of equipment is better for Hunting, neither is better, unless all parties agree what "Better" means...If Fred Eichler thinks that Trad equipment is better for Hunting ,in His hands, than a Compound, then so be it...But in the hands of the average Joe/Jane, I dont agree...That's the reason for my post about the lady at the bow shop..With a proper set up, a little bit of basic instructions, and a few hours worth of shooting, She can shoot better at approx. 20 yards than 99% of all the Trad shooters that I've ever seen, and I have personal Friends that shoot Longbows/Recurves that are competitive at the National level, and a couple that are competitive at the World level in 3-D Archery....All of them are hard core, dedicated archers, that spend alot of time working on form, shooting skills, and are very meticulous about Their gear, and tuning their bows and arrows...being gifted with an inborn skill set helps out some, as well....To me, it's about personal choice in equipment, and what the individual Archer chooses to hunt with...The individual has to decide what is "Best" for them...And then dedicate Themselves to that equipment, and Hunting style ,to make the most of the gear that They choose, so that for them it is "Better", or "Best"....Take care!........Jim


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

I agree with what you're saying. Maybe a better way to say it is skill level being equal trad is better. Obviously trad will take more practice and dedication but if u are good with trad gear it is better for hunting.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

I still don't get the fact that trad is better, how is it better ? Is it better because it feels better, does the arrow perform any different from trad to compound, what is it ? 
Some people feel that in a hunting situation a trad setup is a smoother shot sequence, the simple fact is more deer are killed with compounds that trad gear, the numbers don't lie. Most trad shooters are shooting deer at relatively closer distances than compounds, makes the chance of getting a shot off harder. That has to make it more difficult.


----------



## bowboy09 (Feb 10, 2009)

Both have their ups and downs.i choose traditional because It is a challenge and I enjoy it a lot!


----------



## sidekick (Feb 10, 2006)

I have for years, and continue to, hunt with both a compound and a recurve. I have killed deer with both, missed deer with both, been hunting with the recurve and wished I had my compound, been hunting with the compound and wished I had my recurve. I'll hunt with the one I believe will serve me best under the conditions I'm planning to hunt at a particular time, or sometimes, I'll hunt with which ever one strikes my fancy at the time. In a ground blind such as a double bull, or in a stand on a field edge, I'll usually take my compound. In a woods stand where shot opportunities are typically 20 yards or less and the shot is more likely to come from different directions and which can dictate less than ideal 'target style' shooting form, I'll take the recurve, everytime. There is simply less to deal with in the shot process of so-called 'instinctive' shooting of a recurve versus shooting a compound with sight pin(s), bubble levels, peep sight, etc., i.e.--less to worry about and less to go wrong with the recurve. Unless you have hunted with both I'm not sure you can understand. I'm not looking for a debate, just relating my personal experience. I haven't read Fred's article, but I think I know where he's coming from. In the heat of the moment, simplicity can be your friend.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I personally use trad equipment because it is more challenging...and therefore more rewarding. For me...it is less mechanical and requires a higher skill level to become accurate with. It forces me to be more involved in the shot by relying more on my hand and eye coordination than sights, let-off and/or a release for example.

If my main concern was to put meat in the freezer I would use a weapon that made it easier....so IMO...whatever is easier to use and attains the same goal will be the better choice if filling my tag is my main concern. It will vary from person to person...but if you look at the majority when comparing trad gear and compound bows...the majority of bowhunters are using compound bows for a reason.

Ray :shade:


----------



## nmubowyer (Feb 7, 2008)

Ive always felt that for short range ie cedar swamps etc that trad bows are better, but I don't think that any of us can argue how much incredibly easier a compound is to shoot well. I can think of a few times I had deer close with the wheels and didnt get a shot, where I know id of been eating backstraps with my trad bow. I lost my way for two seasons aznd started shootin wheels, in all honesty hunting with my .45 acp would be a bigger challenge as my 20 yard groups with that are similar to my 40 yard groups with the compound. I don't mean to challenge anyone, just calling it as I see it. btw that compound will definitely not see anymore huntin time from me...if i cant get it done with a homemade bow and need meat I'll do it with a rifle as Keegan said.


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

As I said, "better" is a dangerous word. How you define "better" determines your partner in this fandango. Might as well say blondes are "better" than brunettes...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

jcs-bowhunter said:


> Hands down a modern compound is a much better weapon than a stickbow. They are much more accurate with significantly more kinetic energy. What tool do you want in your hands if the only food that you our your family could eat had to be killed by an arrow? (besides a crossbow)
> 
> In what situation is a longer, slower, less powerful weapon an advantage?
> 
> ...


I disagree with several of your assertions. Kinetic Energy might be higher with a compound, but penetration is not. Momentum delivers penetration and all else being equal, a traditional anything has just the same killing effect with proper shot placement as anything else on the planet, actually.

Another assertion you seem to be making is that a crossbow is more effective than a compound. That is not at all accurate and falls into the myths perpetrated by usually compound shooters, and I'm not alleging that you are to be included in that group of that purpose.

As for accuracy and convenience, no question about the compound being a superior implement for shooting, but like others have said, most game is taken at ranges much closer than 40 yards and as you approach 20 yards where I hunt, the main advantages of the compound become blurred. As for the hunting aspects with just one implement, that really depends on whether or not you are a "hunter". If you are not really into the whole hunting experience, a compound might serve you better, but if you love hunting, are into hunting, and actually hunt, I'm not sure that anything you hunt with is at disadvantage to anything else you might hunt with.

Much Aloha... :beer:


----------



## pilotmill (Dec 10, 2008)

It is not the weapon we use, its the ethics we feel comfortable with and our own definition of fair chase and harvest. I hunt and shoot both compound and traditional gear. Each has its own set of rules for the ethical shot, its up to us the hunter to respect the animal and make a clean shot. Gar.


----------



## str8sh2ter (Sep 11, 2006)

Harperman said:


> I work part time at an Archery Pro shop...Fella brings his Wife in to get her set up with a bow...She has almost zero experience shooting a bow..And is left eye dominate, but right handed, doesnt want to shoot lefty...Got her set up with a bow, sight, peep, rest, arrows, release aid..Had her close her left eye to look through the peep...With 1/2 hour of basic form instructions, She was wadding arrows at 10 yards, moved the bale to 15, still keeping the arrows in acceptable groups...next time she shot, moved the bale to 20 yards, 5 out of 6 arrows in the 4 ring, on a Single spot target...With a basic hunting bow set up...With a few practice sessions and decent instructions, her shooting got decent groups at 20 yards,, and She was ready to take up Bowhunting, as it's done here in the East, which usually means treestands, and shots at 20 yards, give or take a few yards...Has anyone on here ever done this in a week or two with a Trad bow, starting from scratch??...Compound bows that fit the Archer, and are set up properly, are just plain easier for all but a rare few to shoot well...And a modern Compound bow, at 45#-50# draw weight will shoot hunting weight arrows faster than any Trad bow, on an apples to apples test...Shooting a Trad bow is about shooting the weapon that We enjoy shooting,, and choose to shoot and hunt with, but for all but a rare few Archers, and in the majority of Hunting situations, the Compound bow is simply a better weapon to kill an animal with, or hit the Target with...I have Bowhunted off and on since 1984...I can think of ALOT of times that if I had a Compound bow in hand, vs. a Trad bow, that I would have killed an animal, vs. passing on the shot, or the shot not presenting it's self...But, I CHOSE to shoot and hunt with what I wanted, and that was a Trad bow of one sort or another...I can also think of a few times that a Trad bow was the best weapon for the shot I did take, but they are far outnumbered by the shots that didnt happen....If I HAD to feed myself, or my Family, then I would choose the Compound....I dont HAVE to "Make Meat", so I choose the Trad bows for Hunting.....Take care........................Jim


hw can anyone argure this?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

No bow, recurve, longbow, or compound, is any more or any less accurate than another. From a shooting machine, with all variables constant, a recurve will put an arrow in the same place every time, as will a compound or longbow.

Sights and letoff make accuracy "easier," that's all.

KPC


----------



## dragonheart (Jul 18, 2008)

Fred has his reasons for his opinion on the traditional bow. Mike Palmer in an interview years ago made a similiar observation. I guess multiple animals bowhunting, tremendous experience "in the field" under actual hunting conditions, and a lifetime dedicated to bowhunting (guide & outfitter) are some of the resons he formulated that opinion. Many of the successful bowhunters out there shoot traditional equipment. Mike Palmer stated it, and I am parapharassing him, if I need to shoot a tennis ball size group at 50 yrds with 4 arrows than a compound is in order. If he needs to kill something he takes a stickbow. There are some real advantages to shooting without the aid of sights, relaese, etc when you factor in the adrenaline that comes when shooting at animals. You can take someone on a target range and really get them shooting well, quickly with a compound. You cannot teach the way they will react to the situation of taking an animal. It is differnet. There are excellant marksman that are police, and in a combat situation will miss an assaliant at very close distance. That reaction to the stress of shooting game can throw real loops in the "easy" compound set up. Holding forever on the animal can lead to a break down in the subcounsious pattern that has been set up in the shooting technique. The person begins to think too much about it. Instinctive shooting at close ranges is very disciplined and focussed. It has a single focus the spot to hit. The shot seqence (mechanics) is preprogrammed. Sight shooting is more consious in thought with all of the procedure. If heaven for bid I had to shoot someone in self defence, I want a quick pointing weapon. A stick bow just works well for bowhunting.


----------



## bambam1 (Jul 22, 2007)

Might as well say blondes are "better" than brunettes... [/QUOTE]

Now thems fightn words,,,,,,,,,


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

WHen is a stick bow better to hunt with... try shooting birds... ducks, geese etc.... stickbow shooters outperform CP shooters drastically. WHy? Because we can aqcuire a target quicker in our "sights", rather than trying to get a dot on the target that is moving.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Harperman- I believe the test was done some two or three years ago with the best of each category. So no many of the newer high performance compounds wouldn't be included. I'm making no claims that a trad bow will rival the speed of a compound, even on an apples to apples test, but my point was that the speed difference isn't nearly as far apart as most folks believe, and in the end they're all still bows and are limited by the same range of performance. If the matter was actually about feeding your family, the cost of one of those high end bows would be well over a good rifle and set of rounds, so things would be on even more even grounds. Hence- no one would be taking it out to feed the family. If you were in a position where it's kill or starve, I highly doubt laws about whether you can use a rifle or not would really matter, can you not agree?

As for the arrows, a heavier arrow, at or above the heavy bone threshold (650 grs) will be more reliable than a light one, especially when things go wrong. That's why you hear so often about "hitting the shoulder and failing to penetrate". KE obviously isn't the end all to lethality. I'd stand in front of a ping pong ball going 500 fps, but not a rock going 100 fps!

I think the biggest thing about the difference is just because you can more easily shoot accurately doesn't really mean you're better at hunting. Compounds will NEVER match the number of animals killed by bows without wheels simply because of how long they've been around. It's hard to compare the hunter of today, whose skill in the woods couldn't fill a page let alone a book, to a sport that's been along longer than any of us. Maybe it is fitting to say the compound is better, because if average Joe Shmoe can kill without having any real hunting or shooting skill with a compound bow, there's obviously something to it that gives it an advantage over the traditional bow.

Don't get me wrong I have NOTHING against compounds. Frankly I think some of them are really neat and probably alot of fun (wouldn't know, can't afford one). It's just frustrating when people will use both weapons but so readily admit that what they're using is lesser. There's alot that can be done to correct that, it's just obviously not being done.

Oh, and I'm not trying to be rude but my name really is 'Kegan'. Spelled like 'Megan', and sounding almost the same (my nickname is even 'Kegs' if that helps any). Not 'Keegan', 'Keagan', or 'Keagen'. I know just reading it wouldn't have given any inclination of it's pronunciation either way, but I just thought I'd throw that out there


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

More food for thought... why did crossbows eventually outnumber stickbows on the battlefield? It took several hundred years to do it, but they did. Why were they "better"?

Right up to the end, the stickbow was "better" for many of the same reasons Fred (and others) gives in his article. The stickbow was simpler, more reliable, had a higher rate of fire, was quicker and easier to use from horseback and at close quarters despite it's length. None of that mattered as much as it took years to train a stickbowman and hours to train a crossbowman to the same/better level of effectiveness downrange.

The English longbow dominated the battlefield of the Hundred Years war, but French artillery won it. Even so, the stickbow took several hundred years to fade away. The English ordered bows to be turned in and replaced w firearms in 1595, and the last use of English archers in battle was in 1644. The Mughals used horsebows into the 1700s.

For various reasons similar to Fred's stickbow v compound, Benjamin Franklin proposed the Continental Army train a unit of longbowmen (not crossbowmen) for battle in the Revolutionary war, as did Wellington during the Napoleonic wars; neither ever happened. A British officer did claim a longbow kill during WWII...

"Better" is a dangerous word. I have reasons why I prefer my stickbows to my compounds and crossbows. They are kinda like why I still prefer my Ruger revolvers for personal defense and concealed carry to the Beretta, SIG, and Glock autos I was issued (and "expert" with) at the end of my military and law enforcement careers... got to be a better word than better?


----------



## bdeal (Oct 28, 2005)

If you haven't read the article-read it. Fred says compounds are much easier for most folks to shoot well, but personally likes the advantages of the tradbow for quick shooting at moving targets.


----------



## BrokenArrows (Apr 20, 2004)

There is another can of worms... quick shots at moving targets is challenging or sloppy, "unethical" hunting. All depends on who is doing the shooting and defining the "ethics" of hunting...


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

2413gary said:


> Are we missing something why not get the best of both sides for hunting shoot a longer compound with fingers no sights you get the advantage of a longer killing range and the quickness of the Trad style of shooting. It don't take long to learn how to aim without a sight. It's what we did before the Sight and Realese took over with long distance accuracy.


This is an interesting idea. Who makes a compound with a long enough ATA to shoot fingers?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

NTYMADATER said:


> This is an interesting idea. Who makes a compound with a long enough ATA to shoot fingers?


There are several threads about bows that are long enough on the fingers forum. The Hoyt has made several, Mathews had the Conquest, and the new Martin Shadow Cat is one that just recently came out that's a favorite.


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

kegan said:


> There are several threads about bows that are long enough on the fingers forum. The Hoyt has made several, Mathews had the Conquest, and the new Martin Shadow Cat is one that just recently came out that's a favorite.


Thanks for the info just found the finger shooters forum. Do you think shooting a compound with fingers has an advantage over a recurve or long bow?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

NTYMADATER said:


> Thanks for the info just found the finger shooters forum. Do you think shooting a compound with fingers has an advantage over a recurve or long bow?


My experience shooting fingers on a compound is limited, so take it for what it's worth. The rest is just my take, and will probably vary from what others have found and personally prefer.

The advantages depend on the set up and choice of gear. A moderately quick bow with a sight will allow the archer to get drawn and ready to shoot faster than an archer with a release. Because of the better speed and the low holding weight, a finger-shot compound with a sight will be easier to shoot accurately within a given range (provided enough practice to get a clean, smooth release). 

Shooting barebow, or with a heavier and/or slower model, the advantages become almost nil. I tried it with an older Reflex Caribou Hunter, and I just couldn't seem to tune my arrows properly much less achieve the same accuracy. The extra speed and let off meant little because of the difficulty in tuning and acuracy. The bow was very heavy and uncomfortable to me, and it didn't feel like a good hunting weapon.

I later tried my friend's 30" ATA Bear compound with sight and found it a world of difference (I shot it with two split fingers and a special tab I cut out). Even though the Bear wasn't a finger bow being so short, because it was a little faster and had a sight on it, all I had to worry about was making sure I didn't goof up my release. After a few practice shots I was soon shooting it just as well as I had with a release (which I'll admit, was nothing to brag about:lol. I can't recal just how well I was shooting, but it was more than enough for hunting. It also was set at a shorter draw than I have, and used a peep, neither of which I was comfortable with or used to. 

Though I was not as fast or smooth shooting a compound with fingers, I felt that was definately more a matter of practice than equipment. Shooting them with fingers gave me alot more control, which I liked. Personally I think it really is a perfect median, and I'd probably have a compound around to play with using fingers if it weren't for the hefty price tags. I like all branches of archery, I just can't afford them all:wink:


----------



## rddrappo (Apr 1, 2010)

I read the article, and was interested to say the least. I've been eyeballing the Gamemaster, and think I'll pick one up in a couple months. I like the fact that it weighs a lot less than my Powerhawk and has less parts that can fail. I'm sure it will take longer before I'm comfortable enough to take it out in the woods, but it's just another challenge for me. I don't think I'll ever completely decide between the two, rather I'll have both in my truck when I go hunting and each will make a good back-up for the other. 
As far as a survival situation, I'd take a traditional bow over a compound. They are less likely to have a mechanical failure, and if things get that bad that you MUST hunt to eat, chances are you won't be able to find parts or service for a compound bow, so the simpler approach is better. That's just my opinion, take it or leave it.


----------



## jcs-bowhunter (Jul 7, 2007)

kegan said:


> My experience shooting fingers on a compound is limited, so take it for what it's worth. The rest is just my take, and will probably vary from what others have found and personally prefer.
> 
> The advantages depend on the set up and choice of gear. A moderately quick bow with a sight will allow the archer to get drawn and ready to shoot faster than an archer with a release. Because of the better speed and the low holding weight, a finger-shot compound with a sight will be easier to shoot accurately within a given range (provided enough practice to get a clean, smooth release).
> 
> ...


Kegan

Interesting you’ve been referencing the shooting compounds with fingers in this thread. Over half of my shooting career was with this type of setup. My last couple hunting & 3D rigs before switching to a stick bow were fully accessorized Reflex Caribou and a Hoyt ProTecs.

4 factors contributed to me taking this change in direction:

1) Good equipment was very hard to find. I hated the fact that nobody in my area stocked any long ATA, 8”+ BH compounds. This meant I always had to order them without getting a chance to shoot them. With the exception of a handful of models the manufacturers no longer recognized the needs of finger shooters and the product offerings are a joke.

2) Hardly anyone in Michigan competed in the IBO HF 3D Class. I either got 1st or 2nd because it was always me and only one other guy in the state that would show up. It’s kinda fun being a reigning state champion but when your also last in the class it feels like a total waste of time. I enjoy competitive shooting as a means to measure myself against a pool of good shooters and to constantly improve. I'd much rather shoot in the top 1/3 of a large group and learn something then be 1st or 2nd in a very small group and not have an opportunity to improve.

3) No technical help from local proshops. Walk in with a finger setup and they only want to sell you a release and drop away rest. They instantly size you up as not knowing anything about archery based on the fact that you asked about something other then FPS. I got most of my technical help from other AT users on the Finger Shooting forum. Thanks Harperman!

4) After 3 decades I honestly got bored with compound shooting in general and wanted to take my archery/bowhunting hobby in a different direction. So here I am. 

Sorry to get off topic…

P.S. I still think a modern compound is a much better weapon then any stickbow if your are going to hunt whitetails from a treestand and define success by how many tags you fill.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS ALL! 

:darkbeer:


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

Okay,I read this article by Fred and most all of you missed his most important reason;the ability to shoot more quickly under hunting conditions. Animals dont stand still like 3D targets,you often only get a short window of oportunity to shoot. Also Fred said it's whats "Best for Him" not best for everyone.


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

I would also point out that most here are thinking whitetail deer hunting only....there's a heck of alot more to bowhunt and Fred sure knows it. So if you're talking sitting in a treestand hunting over a food plot with distance markers and so on well sure maybe a compound would be better. But thats only one situation. Lets think outside the box/treestand a little more here. Also Fred admits he can shoot more accurate and at longer ranges better with a compound....most of us can. But thats not his point.


----------



## dalebow (Nov 28, 2004)

I know Fred, he is one hell of a guy, done more for archery than most ever will next to Fred Bear.
Now 2 things I have read that are perfect reasons why ingnorance is still prevalent in archery.

1. First was the comment that trad wounds more animals, people who dont practice wound animals, never seen a bow hop up and shoot itself???? Dumbest statement that I have ever read on here which leads me to # 2

2. The comment that I am more accurate with my compound and can shoot it farther, THAT my friends is the problem with compounds, my max range is 20yards, I have killed everything from mtn lion to ***** with trad archery and have to truely hunt, control my wind, pick my stand placement, I have to hunt to be within 20 yards. Where as I see so many weekend warriers who do not attend shoots every month dust off their compounds or crossbow come huntin season and go off zinging arrows all over the place.
When I want to ensure that I Shoot game I hunt with my rifle, when I want to hunt I use my longbow.
I have zero against any hunting weapon, not enough hunters for us to argue, I have a problem with those who dont to practice and think sights makes up the diff.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

JCS- As I mentioned, my finger experience was very limited, but it seemed it had alot of potential to be a blast. I just can't afford it. For half the cost of a compound rig I could get a brand new dozen of broadhead arrows and enough mateirals to make two or three new hybrid bows. Likewise, considering traditional bows are my frame of reference I doubt my accuracy would be that different. Practice with the old or practice with the new, either way. 

I'm glad you added the additional parameters for what you consider to be 'better'. If the goal is as many whitetails as you can out of a treestand... well, I can't argue with you there. Personally I'm still not fond of hunting from trees. That's a very specific task for which a very specific weapon will excel. Hardly the end all to the debate which is better, considering there's alot more out there to hunt in many different ways.

Personally, I still think given the time and dedication the simplicity and cost of a traditional weapon would win out against the long range accuracy and ease of a compound in just as many instances as where the compound would prove superior. It's alot like asking what sort of knife is the best.


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

Dale
How is being able to shoot accurately with a compound at longer distances than a traditional bow a bad thing. I don't understand your point. If you could shoot your tradbow with equal accuracy as a compound at longer distance, you wouldn't try and extend your range ?
Let's forget about the hunters who have no reason to be in the woods, it's very unfair of you to categorize every bowhunter that uses a compound in this way. I have many friends that use compounds and based on their success rates every year, they are extremely deadly hunters, lethal. To paint them as wannabe weekend hunters because they use compounds is totally wrong.
The compound has a worthy place among bowhunters. I would rather have someone in my camp that is a dead accurate compound shooter that has extreme confidence in his or her capabilities and equipment choice. Than someone that looks down on someone elses choice in equipment because it does not match their own.
We should as bowhunters do everything possible to ensure that everyone that heads into the woods with the intent to kill an animal, is as capable not matter what equipment is used. Otherwise kiss hunting goodbye, you just gave every anti hunter all the power they need to kill our sport.


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

dalebow said:


> I know Fred, he is one hell of a guy, done more for archery than most ever will next to Fred Bear.
> Now 2 things I have read that are perfect reasons why ingnorance is still prevalent in archery.
> 
> 1. First was the comment that trad wounds more animals, people who dont practice wound animals, never seen a bow hop up and shoot itself???? Dumbest statement that I have ever read on here which leads me to # 2
> ...


Dalebow, please elaborate on what You said about Fred Eichler....I had never heard of Him up until about 3 years ago, or there a abouts, just was wondering what Mr. Eichler has done for Archery...As for the comment about the guys that knock the dust off a Compound a few weeks before season, and then go hunt with them after a few weeks, or even days of practice...If the "Weekend Warriors" know how to shoot reasonably well, and if the bow is still in tune, and the bow fits the Archer, even these types of fella's can outshoot 95% of the "Trad" Archers that I've seen shoot....Things are getting better over-all, for average shooting accuracy with the Neo-Trads, but I've seen some really ,really sad shooting for the Hardcore "Trads"...Enough so that at one time, I tried to distance myself from that Group...Not because I'm a great shot, or even a good shot, but because of the attitudes that too many Trad shooters display towards other Archers that dont conform to Their idea of what a Bow is, or what Archery/Bowhunting is...This topic has been done to death, and it riles me up a bit, so I'll leave it alone....I'll just say Take care, and Merry Christmas, Dale!...........Jim


----------



## dalebow (Nov 28, 2004)

Longstick you mis read what I wrote.
1. just because you can shoot longer does not make up for missed shots, jumped strings, ect, I never said I cant shoot past 20 yards, actually on a 6" target I am good to about 40-45 yards with my stick bows, THAT does not mean one should shoot that far with a bow, I also didnt group all compound shooters in one group. Fred also shoots a compound and is quite good.
I grouped people who dont practice and go hunt, that can be with any weapon. I have nothing against what you shoot, I shot my 6x6 bull, B & C black bear, wild boar and turkey this year with a gun, only shot a whitetail buck with my bow. Just saying just because your accurate with something doesnt mean you should shoot at game that far. 

I love hunting and am not a "weapon" snob, well I guess I am, all of my bows are custome, most of my hunting rifles are custom down to the ammo loaded for each rifle. I have an upcoming mtn goat, caribou hunt booked and a grizzly/moose hunt booked, both with rifle, I want the best opportunity that I can have, so calling me a snob is pretty in accurate.

Harper
What Fred has done is bring a different side to archery out. He has taken the grand slam with the recurve and that has been longer than the last 3 years. I have been reading his articles for almost 10 years and have hunted with him for the last 5 years.
His wife and he have donated money, gear, and hunts to many people less fortunate and promote archery all over the worlds. 
Again, it is not about accuracey dusing off the compound a week before season is fine, but that does not a hunter make, shooting a stationary target at 40yards is diff from shooting at a live animal. 

I agree that there are some trad snobs, I am not one of them, I love shooting and hunting with anyone of a like mind, well as long as they are not a Democrat (have to have some standards) I think my first post stated I am not an elitest or do not care what you hunt with. Shooting and hunting are 2 diff things. I shot my bull at 366 yards with a 300wsm, 180 grain covered the distance in hundreths of a second on a bull who did not know I was there, head down, feeding, but I would not take the same shot at 100 yards on an alert bull. I say that because a person who is accurate with a compound at 50 yards who is not a hunter, but a shooter may not take into account the alertness of the deer and arrows are much slower as we know.

So I have not put a compound hunter down, I put a certain group of "shooters' down who are not hunters, they dust off thier bow just before season and head out, happens with guns, x-bows, wheel bows, and trad gear.


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

I know a guy at work who dusted off his compound a week before the season. He hit an 8 point at 15 yards in the guts and never found it.....just saying it dont matter if it's a stck bow or a compound you gotta put time/effort in.


----------



## nelliott (Feb 22, 2008)

I thought the article itself was fantastic and he also pointed out that he uses but but prefers the recurve. I personally prefer the compound because I am better with it. The points he has in the article deff make sense about the edge that a recurve gives you. I would love to take an animal with a recurve and Im still working on that. However 3 years ago I missed a nice doe and a very nice buck all within an hour! I ended up taking that buck the following year so for now I will stick with the compound and "play" with the recurve till I develop my skills enough to know that I can take an animal when I go out. Either way who cares its BOWHUNTING!


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

Harperman said:


> Dalebow, please elaborate on what You said about Fred Eichler....I had never heard of Him up until about 3 years ago, or there a abouts, just was wondering what Mr. Eichler has done for Archery...As for the comment about the guys that knock the dust off a Compound a few weeks before season, and then go hunt with them after a few weeks, or even days of practice...If the "Weekend Warriors" know how to shoot reasonably well, and if the bow is still in tune, and the bow fits the Archer, even these types of fella's can outshoot 95% of the "Trad" Archers that I've seen shoot....Things are getting better over-all, for average shooting accuracy with the Neo-Trads, but I've seen some really ,really sad shooting for the Hardcore "Trads"...Enough so that at one time, I tried to distance myself from that Group...Not because I'm a great shot, or even a good shot, but because of the attitudes that too many Trad shooters display towards other Archers that dont conform to Their idea of what a Bow is, or what Archery/Bowhunting is...This topic has been done to death, and it riles me up a bit, so I'll leave it alone....I'll just say Take care, and Merry Christmas, Dale!...........Jim


Well I have shoot both compounds and sticks...anyways I have seen far more "sad shooting" done by compound shooters than I have by stick shooters. Maybe because there are more of them,but still c'mon.


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

And for those who have not read the article,please go read it before commenting.


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

Darton01 said:


> Well I have shoot both compounds and sticks...anyways I have seen far more "sad shooting" done by compound shooters than I have by stick shooters. Maybe because there are more of them,but still c'mon.


Well, Darton01, I live in western Ohio, and around here, there are the "Dust off the Compound" guys, as there are everywhere, but most of the archers around here shoot quite often, shoot 3-D regularly, and keep a pretty good tune on themselves, and their equipment...And at local 3-D shoots, indoor 3-D shoots, and the like, with guys just stopping in the bow shop, most of the Trad guys I've seen shoot couldn't outshoot even a below average Compound shooter...There are exceptions, as there are a few fella's south of where I live than can shoot Trad gear very well, and a couple fella's from north of where I live, as well.....I see these archers at some of the local 3-D shoots, and they are top shelf Archers, and hit what they are aiming at....I'm sure that any of "US" can use the best case, and worst case exceptions to this, but lets be real, using exceptions to the general populace is just grabbing for straws....I'm not hacking on Trad shooters, or Compound shooters, just stating what I see in my neck of the woods...And most "Trad" shooters that I see shoot, would be better served to do one of three things...Either learn HOW to shoot, or get themselves a Compound bow that is properly set-up and tuned....Or stay OUT of the woods...No disrespect to Mr. Eichler, dedicated Trad shooters, or dedicated Compound shooters intended...Y'all take care.....Jim


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Harperman said:


> Well, Darton01, I live in western Ohio, and around here, there are the "Dust off the Compound" guys, as there are everywhere, but most of the archers around here shoot quite often, shoot 3-D regularly, and keep a pretty good tune on themselves, and their equipment...And at local 3-D shoots, indoor 3-D shoots, and the like, with guys just stopping in the bow shop, most of the Trad guys I've seen shoot couldn't outshoot even a below average Compound shooter...There are exceptions, as there are a few fella's south of where I live than can shoot Trad gear very well, and a couple fella's from north of where I live, as well.....I see these archers at some of the local 3-D shoots, and they are top shelf Archers, and hit what they are aiming at....I'm sure that any of "US" can use the best case, and worst case exceptions to this, but lets be real, using exceptions to the general populace is just grabbing for straws....I'm not hacking on Trad shooters, or Compound shooters, just stating what I see in my neck of the woods...And most "Trad" shooters that I see shoot, would be better served to do one of three things...Either learn HOW to shoot, or get themselves a Compound bow that is properly set-up and tuned....Or stay OUT of the woods...No disrespect to Mr. Eichler, dedicated Trad shooters, or dedicated Compound shooters intended...Y'all take care.....Jim


Personally I'm of the opinion that new shooters are best served by compound bows. I'm also of the opinion that those who wish to take up traditional type implements probably do so because of the challenge. As for being in the woods, I think practice till you can establish an effective range should certainly allow one to be able to hunt to the best of their abilities and practice practice practice like anything, is the prescription for good hunting experience, in my opinion.

Much Aloha... :beer:


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

Harperman,I get what you're saying. But if I want to shoot a high 3D score I'll use my compound too.If I want to shoot rabbits I'll use my recurve.
rattu58,maybe they would be even better served with a crossbow ?
I like both compounds and trad,but I bet if we could go back in time our ancestors would drop thier bows for compounds. The Native Americans dropped thiers pretty fast for the gun.


----------



## Bobman (Dec 18, 2004)

I believe a GOOD instinctive shooter will outshoot a peep sight shooter on game and someone using sights and a string peep will outshoot even a GOOD instinctive on targets 

the bow type doesn't matter

I hunt so I shoot instinctive


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Harperman, I agree whole heartedly with your last comment. It does seem to be a fad, albeit a declining one, to assume that traditional shooting allows you to be sloppy. Hogwash. If you can't shoot you better be limiting your range considerably. However that's often overlooked, and occasionally hitting a pie plate at 20 seems "good enough". With the popularity of 3D compound shooters are becoming more and more aware of the pleasure of practice, which is a step in the right direction.

Regardless of weapon choice or slobs in any ctegory I personally think it's debates like this that push the ethics of bowhunting farther, towards the goal of establishing that as bowhunters we're very aware of the harm in wounding or losing an animal. It may be a slow progression but this is ALL going towards the good here, don't you guys agree?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

kegan said:


> Harperman, I agree whole heartedly with your last comment. It does seem to be a fad, albeit a declining one, to assume that traditional shooting allows you to be sloppy. Hogwash. If you can't shoot you better be limiting your range considerably. However that's often overlooked, and occasionally hitting a pie plate at 20 seems "good enough". With the popularity of 3D compound shooters are becoming more and more aware of the pleasure of practice, which is a step in the right direction.
> 
> Regardless of weapon choice or slobs in any ctegory I personally think it's debates like this that push the ethics of bowhunting farther, towards the goal of establishing that as bowhunters we're very aware of the harm in wounding or losing an animal. It may be a slow progression but this is ALL going towards the good here, don't you guys agree?


What is a "slob"? What is ethics? If you wound an animal are you unethical? If you don't find an animal, are you unethical?

Aloha.. :beer:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

rattus58 said:


> What is a "slob"? What is ethics? If you wound an animal are you unethical? If you don't find an animal, are you unethical?
> 
> Aloha.. :beer:


I think we all know a slob hunter when we see one. Someone more interested in a beer and antlers than putting the time into a tracking job. Wounding happens, no one's perfect, and things go wrong. But when you make every effort possible to do the most you can that's quite a bit different than giving up after ten minutes and heading back to camp.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

kegan said:


> I think we all know a slob hunter when we see one. Someone more interested in a beer and antlers than putting the time into a tracking job. Wounding happens, no one's perfect, and things go wrong. But when you make every effort possible to do the most you can that's quite a bit different than giving up after ten minutes and heading back to camp.


Hmmmm beer and antlers = slob.... Ok.... thanks for the clarification. Tell me about tracking. What is a tracking job? How far do you track. What do you do when the blood runs out or it has gone out of sight. Where does your tracking stop?

I know some fine hunters (in my acquaintance) who gave up looking for goats on the lava when the blood ran out.... and though we didn't come back for beer, cold water was just as much a draw. Does jerky count as antlers? I realize that I hang with a bunch a slobs now so I know my place here. Thank you.

Much Aloha... :beer:


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

NOW FELLA'S!!....Please, lets not turn this into a rock fight....Rattus, I'm not thinking that anyone thinks that You, or anyone else on here is Slob hunter....I've lost a few deer over the years, but this is an unfortunate part of what happens when We shoot at animals...Maybe what is referred to a 'Slob Hunter" on the mainland is an uncommon thing in Hawaii??....Slob hunters are folks that dont practice, dont tune equipment, dont hunt with respect to Nature, and other Hunters, take pot-shots at wildlife, litter, etc..etc..As far as Tracking, when the blood runs out, it runs out...Next step is to make ever widening circles, look for low area's, thickets, water, and if possible climb onto something high and glass, look for carrion eating birds, such as crows, ravens, or magpies, or even buzzards...But I fully believe that You know all this...I also believe that ALL of "US" choose to shoot what We enjoy shooting, we hunt for pleasure, and as long as "WE" make effort to shoot well, and hunt responsibly, this is all that really matters...I've passed on sub 15 yard shots, because I just didnt feel that the shot was there...I've taken much longer shots, because I felt that the shot WAS there...This Game is mostly about knowing Personal Limits, and sticking to them...Ethics come into play when nobody is there to see what You will do....Some folks simply dont know any better, and some folks just refuse to learn...This is what separates the Hunters, from the Slobs, in my mind...Y'all take Care......Jim


----------



## La Wildman (Mar 9, 2010)

*ttt*

ttt


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

Kegan dont let rattus58 get to you. We all know what you are trying to say and you dont have to clarify everything just for him,he's just looking to argue.


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

Harperman said:


> NOW FELLA'S!!....Please, lets not turn this into a rock fight....Rattus, I'm not thinking that anyone thinks that You, or anyone else on here is Slob hunter....I've lost a few deer over the years, but this is an unfortunate part of what happens when We shoot at animals...Maybe what is referred to a 'Slob Hunter" on the mainland is an uncommon thing in Hawaii??....Slob hunters are folks that dont practice, dont tune equipment, dont hunt with respect to Nature, and other Hunters, take pot-shots at wildlife, litter, etc..etc..As far as Tracking, when the blood runs out, it runs out...Next step is to make ever widening circles, look for low area's, thickets, water, and if possible climb onto something high and glass, look for carrion eating birds, such as crows, ravens, or magpies, or even buzzards...But I fully believe that You know all this...I also believe that ALL of "US" choose to shoot what We enjoy shooting, we hunt for pleasure, and as long as "WE" make effort to shoot well, and hunt responsibly, this is all that really matters...I've passed on sub 15 yard shots, because I just didnt feel that the shot was there...I've taken much longer shots, because I felt that the shot WAS there...This Game is mostly about knowing Personal Limits, and sticking to them...Ethics come into play when nobody is there to see what You will do....Some folks simply dont know any better, and some folks just refuse to learn...This is what separates the Hunters, from the Slobs, in my mind...Y'all take Care......Jim


Very well said.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Darton01 said:


> Kegan dont let rattus58 get to you. We all know what you are trying to say and you dont have to clarify everything just for him,he's just looking to argue.


Really? What am I here to argue about. If you wish to continue this discussion with me regarding sportsmanship, being a sportsman have at it. 

I've heard the tags about various classes of hunters by others that make me raise the question.

Im in the business of promoting hunting. I'm in the business of promoting young shooters and hunters. Is there anything we say that might intimidate a young hunter or shooter?

I'm not sure you should even use the term hunter for those that have a disregard for wildlife, conservation, or the environment, slob or otherwise.

I'm quite happy to extend this conversation if you so choose to, just don't be projecting what you think my intentions are. 

Much Aloha... :beer:


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

I can agree with Fred to a point, but each has it's good and bad points, and as hunters each of us have to choose what is acceptable to us,...Thank God, and the american soldier that we live where we can still make that choice.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

voodoofire1 said:


> I can agree with Fred to a point, but each has it's good and bad points, and as hunters each of us have to choose what is acceptable to us,...Thank God, and the american soldier that we live where we can still make that choice.


Agreed. And more to the point we need to be promoting hunting especially amongst our youth to try to combat the pressures we're facing from all sorts of pressures, environmentalists and animal rightist amongst them all. God Bless our soldiers for sure.

Much Aloha... :beer:


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

rattus58 said:


> Really? What am I here to argue about. If you wish to continue this discussion with me regarding sportsmanship, being a sportsman have at it.
> 
> I've heard the tags about various classes of hunters by others that make me raise the question.
> 
> ...


Did you even read the topic of this thread? You might want to go back and read the article we are discussing then make comments based on that.


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

NTYMADATER said:


> Did you even read the topic of this thread? You might want to go back and read the article we are discussing then make comments based on that.


Agreed...let's get down off the soapbox.:wink:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

NTYMADATER said:


> Did you even read the topic of this thread? You might want to go back and read the article we are discussing then make comments based on that.


I read and commented on the *topic* of this thread... or didn't you bother to check? I questioned a pronouncement by a poster here... or didn't you bother to check? If you feel like commenting on a soap box, what is the point of your comment? No one was pursuing anything here unless you'd care to *contribute to the idea of what a sportsman is or isn't*... Do you... since you are now on a soapbox of your own?


----------



## kodiakmagnum (Dec 25, 2009)

I think the weapon of choice will be the one each individual has the most confidence in using. I have owned both, my confidence is with a recurve. To me it does not matter compound or traditional we are all doing something we like, flingin arrows & havin fun.


----------



## hairytreerat (Dec 20, 2008)

I like fred e!


----------



## dalebow (Nov 28, 2004)

I will hunt with any of ya


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Darton01 said:


> Harperman,I get what you're saying. But if I want to shoot a high 3D score I'll use my compound too.If I want to shoot rabbits I'll use my recurve.
> rattu58,maybe they would be even better served with a crossbow ?
> I like both compounds and trad,but I bet if we could go back in time our ancestors would drop thier bows for compounds. The Native Americans dropped thiers pretty fast for the gun.


Didn't see this earlier.... but I think that crossbows are neat. I don't use one, shoot one or own one, but I'm trying to get them legal here in Hawaii for two reasons. One is they are effective for hunting. Two, they are the ticket for many types of shooters that would like to hunt with archery equipment but for whatever reason can't use a longbow, recurve or compound effectively or would just like to shoot a crossbow. Really young, really old, or would like to try something new but who maybe isn't into making a selfbow just yet... :grin:

Much Aloha... :beer:


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

Anyways back to the original topic. I think Fred was pointing out the advantages of a stickbow under certain hunting situations and he did a good job,he also made many fine points in the article. Ofcourse the compound has advantages of it's own under certain conditions. Your hunting style,location and the type of prey you are after will dictate wich bow type will offer you an advantage.


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

rattus58 said:


> Didn't see this earlier.... but I think that crossbows are neat. I don't use one, shoot one or own one, but I'm trying to get them legal here in Hawaii for two reasons. One is they are effective for hunting. Two, they are the ticket for many types of shooters that would like to hunt with archery equipment but for whatever reason can't use a longbow, recurve or compound effectively or would just like to shoot a crossbow. Really young, really old, or would like to try something new but who maybe isn't into making a selfbow just yet... :grin:
> 
> Much Aloha... :beer:



I agree.


----------



## Wanderlust (Jul 1, 2009)

"I agree with what you're saying. Maybe a better way to say it is skill level being equal trad is better. Obviously trad will take more practice and dedication but if u are good with trad gear it is better for hunting."

Well said....
It is a better hunting weapon in HIS hands because he has mastered it. That's the key.
Wouldn't apply for most bowhunters.

Doug


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

I don't think there has been any proof that the trad bow is a better hunting conditions weapon than a compound, it's been all a bunch of speculation. Just because you feel or Fred feels the stick bow has performed better does not prove anything. I've been impressed with the animals taken with bows period. They all have their fan clubs, but as for conclusive proof as to why the stick bow is a better tool than the compound, it's never been done, so we all just pi&$ing in the wind here.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LongStick64 said:


> I don't think there has been any proof that the trad bow is a better hunting conditions weapon than a compound, it's been all a bunch of speculation. Just because you feel or Fred feels the stick bow has performed better does not prove anything. I've been impressed with the animals taken with bows period. They all have their fan clubs, but as for conclusive proof as to why the stick bow is a better tool than the compound, it's never been done, so we all just pi&$ing in the wind here.


In my opinion, it is the hunter, not the tool, that makes the hunt.

Much Aloha... :beer:


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

rattus58 said:


> In my opinion, it is the hunter, not the tool, that makes the hunt.
> 
> Much Aloha... :beer:


 And How!.....Great post right there!..........Jim


----------



## arcobsessed (Jan 12, 2007)

Well Boys, this is a wild and fun thread. I don't know much about this...yet. I've always shot compounds but have just ordered a Checkmate Falcon. I shot a reurve twice lately indoors. It was a lot of fun. I believe though, that I'm going to lose a few arrows as my accuracy isn't "quite" what I'd like it to be. I'm very accurate with my compound out to 60 yards but have to agree that my game is usually taken within 25 yards. I may hunt with the recurve this year. I believe we are getting far too techy with our compounds and everyone seems to be saying "mine is better than yours" which is far from what archery should be. Can't wait to get started.


----------



## Darton01 (Aug 25, 2006)

LongStick64 said:


> I don't think there has been any proof that the trad bow is a better hunting conditions weapon than a compound, it's been all a bunch of speculation. Just because you feel or Fred feels the stick bow has performed better does not prove anything. I've been impressed with the animals taken with bows period. They all have their fan clubs, but as for conclusive proof as to why the stick bow is a better tool than the compound, it's never been done, so we all just pi&$ing in the wind here.


Very true. I dont think there is any conclusive documented proof that a scoped bolt action cartridge rifle with a scope is a better hunting tool than a smoothbore flintlock with iron sights either. But common sense says it probably is.


----------



## ChadMR82 (Sep 22, 2009)

I read the article and got enjoyment out of it. I think Fred was just stating his opinion about traditional just like we do all the time on this site. Fred is not trying to write new law about stickbows being betters than compounds. Fred shoots both kind of bows. The article was strictly opinion and people should not take such offense to it. Some bows work better in certain situations. I would never try to take any aerial shoot with my compound but it is possible with a stickbow if one practices enough. I see the point that Fred is making. We do not have to agree that one kind of bow is better than the other. I can think of many times that a stickbow would have been a better option and vice versa. We should instead help to promote our sport whether you shoot a homemade selfbow with stone points or the latest and greatest carbon riser compound. Fred is a great ambassador for our sport and we should not flame him for his opinion.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

I read and enjoyed the article also. I also read about the preview of this article in the prior months issue. He stated that this article should stir up some emotions, correct he was. There are situations were trad bows are advantageous, and that is where he hangs his hat. But, you don't have to look too hard to find pictures of Fred with a compound bow. Even Fred knows there are limitations and specific situations that favor one or the other. So, WWFD - well that probably depends on who is paying him to shoot what.


----------



## Runningbuck (Mar 11, 2009)

This is a subject that will be beat to death for years to come. I have been a bowhunter for 40 years, I have taken animals with longbow,recurve and compound and still do. Like so many things in life, people are willing to give a opinion based on hearsay from others. "One exact measurement is worth more then a thousand expert opinions" with that being said, I have always tested my own equipment changes to find what works best for me, at the ranges I normally shoot. Whatever I shoot, the same rules apply; 1) There is only one grade of "Dead" 2) Accuracy is what puts animals on the ground 3) Whatever type of archery tackle you shoot, your effective range is where you can hit a golfball each and EVERY time you shoot. 4) Shooting paper and foam targets is fun, but have nothing to do with shooting at live animals. Only time spent in the field will condition your ability as a bowhunter.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

Golf ball accurate every shot..........that would put the entire traditional archer population down to a handfull at 10 yards. What is you max golf ball accurate range? What do you shoot on the NFAA 300 round?


----------



## Harperman (Sep 3, 2006)

Runningbuck said:


> This is a subject that will be beat to death for years to come. I have been a bowhunter for 40 years, I have taken animals with longbow,recurve and compound and still do. Like so many things in life, people are willing to give a opinion based on hearsay from others. "One exact measurement is worth more then a thousand expert opinions" with that being said, I have always tested my own equipment changes to find what works best for me, at the ranges I normally shoot. Whatever I shoot, the same rules apply; 1) There is only one grade of "Dead" 2) Accuracy is what puts animals on the ground 3) Whatever type of archery tackle you shoot, your effective range is where you can hit a golfball each and EVERY time you shoot. 4) Shooting paper and foam targets is fun, but have nothing to do with shooting at live animals. Only time spent in the field will condition your ability as a bowhunter.


A golfball every time??....O.K. then!....L.O.L....So the Compound shooters that shoot NFAA 5 Spot scores of 300, with high 50's X counts should keep Their max. hunting range to 15 yards??....L.O.L......Jim


----------



## Abdiel777 (Nov 18, 2010)

I've switched back and forth for a few seasons now. Its all about preference. I think that still hunting with a recurve is the only way to go. Trad tackle certainly has a more authentic feel to it as well. When shooting with the tradbow, you come up on an animal, there is far less movement, and the movements made are very controlled. That said I did find myself awfully frustrated hunting in November with my longbow... I was hunting out of tree and the ONLY deer I saw this season popped up, 30 yds away... just outside my comfort zone... didn't take the shot. Would have taken the shot ALL DAY with my compound. Took the wheels out the rest of the season... dry season I might add...

The other thing is that trad equipment really does take time to master and shoot. I DID get to the point where I could shoot out 40 yds into the kill zone with my longbow, but it takes a solid 30-60 mins A DAY of practice to maintain that proficiency. By the time hunting season came around, family needs, work, etc... had chewed up all my practice time and I found myself struggling to get in a few hours a week at 20 yds let alone long range practice. SO for my situation, the compound makes sense. I can throw a few arrows week to keep myself up to speed and have longer range confidence while not cutting into family and work time. Once my boy gets a bit older and into archery himself, I FULLY intend to go back to trad gear as I DO prefer it though. Who knows, maybe I will hunt the recurve next season, but ONLY after the freezer is filled up.


----------



## sooperrooster (Apr 9, 2007)

jcs-bowhunter said:


> Hands down a modern compound is a much better weapon than a stickbow. They are much more accurate with significantly more kinetic energy. What tool do you want in your hands if the only food that you our your family could eat had to be killed by an arrow? (besides a crossbow)
> 
> In what situation is a longer, slower, less powerful weapon an advantage?
> 
> ...


If i had to feed my family with a bow it would be a longbow that way i can drop it and not have to worry about limb twist on a recurve or a myrid of issues on a compound. with a simple longbow (not r/d) i can be confident that the bow will still work. durability counts for alot in my mind. plus with survival in mind hunting ethics go right out the window. longshots, running shots, night hunting etc... the last two would be easier with a trad bow.


----------



## longbowhunter (Mar 5, 2004)

Dry Feather said:


> Does he say why HE thinks traditional gear is better than compounds? I love my traditional stuff, but compounds are much more accurate and less apt to wound the animal.


Dry Feather... you are totally wrong. What a heck of thing to state on an Archery forum especially a traditional archery forum. There have been studies in several states and in particular the McAlestar Military reservation where there is documented studies that showing out of Gun, Compounds and Traditional Archery... Traditional Bowhunters had the least crippling losses of any group.


----------

