# Barebow vs olympic recurve accuracy?



## J.K. (Nov 3, 2016)

Hello,

I've been shooting barebow and I really enjoy the simplicity of it. Looking at the results, in general olympic recurve shooters score much higher, but it's not clear to me what exactly improves accuracy so much?

- anchoring is an issue with both, right? I could use olympic style anchoring (under jaw) with barebow, but I would not expect it to be easier

- string walking does change how the bow behaves though; with string walking, there is extra bowstring between the nock point and the fingers; this causes the bottom limb to "snap" faster first (i think), until the point of resistance is established at the nock point rather than the previous draw point. So this for sure could improve accuracy, as with OR the draw is always at the nock point.

- stabs... do they really matter? Other than much nicer follow-through, how exactly do they help? Hm, actually I could add stabs to barebow just to see if there is any difference at all.

- sight... i mean, it's just a sight, there's no lens in it as with compound. Yes, it helps keeping the draw consistent (no need to string walk), but does it make targeting more accurate as compared to "over tip of the arrow"? If so, how and why?

Thoughts?


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

...and clicker.

As much as anything its also a process of consistency. No offence to many barebow/trad shooters, but most I see are just flinging arrows.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

in the Olympics in track there are a lot of events from old events to some newer events too,but in archery there is only one event basically with one type bow.archery when it was first in the olmypics its was just with a barebow and probably just a long bow too ? then after while it has gotten to the legal Olympic rules of bows and equipment now used.my question is why not have a new old time barebow longbow class and a new compound freestyle class too along with the olympic target recurve class that is now used ?


----------



## aread (Dec 25, 2009)

Most barebow archers I see are self taught. Their form seems to be pretty "loose". OR shooters tend to have coaches from the day they start shooting a bow. Their form is much more consistent on every shot.

I'm not saying that there aren't some great barebow archers out there & I don't intend to insult them. But they tend to be accurate at shorter distances than OR archers. All of the accessories you mentioned will help at longer ranges.

In the woods, it's barebow all the way. Those stabilizers aren't too handy in a tree stand.  On the target line out to 90 meters, barebow doesn't stand a chance against OR archers.

JMHO,
Allen


----------



## J.K. (Nov 3, 2016)

I'm really not asking on the training etc... over here where I am there are good BB shooters around. So maybe a better question would be, how much worse would a OR shooter be if they had to take all the extras away from their bow...?


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

J.K. said:


> I'm really not asking on the training etc... over here where I am there are good BB shooters around. So maybe a better question would be, how much worse would a OR shooter be if they had to take all the extras away from their bow...?


Looking at the 2016 WA Field Championships its about 100 points different on average.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Clicker, stabs, sight. That order of importance.


----------



## J.K. (Nov 3, 2016)

Interesting. I get the idea of clicker for consistent draw, but as a BB shooter I don't really understand how you make sure aiming and "click" are perfectly aligned at the same exact moment.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

J.K. said:


> Interesting. I get the idea of clicker for consistent draw, but as a BB shooter I don't really understand how you make sure aiming and "click" are perfectly aligned at the same exact moment.


Thats all part of the process. 

Ideally, you're range of motion is in the ten ring when the click occurs. Its easier to stay in the small range of motion because you don't know exactly when the click is going to occur.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

J.K. said:


> Interesting. I get the idea of clicker for consistent draw, but as a BB shooter I don't really understand how you make sure aiming and "click" are perfectly aligned at the same exact moment.


Avoiding that is exactly why you have the clicker in the first place.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

Bobmuley said:


> Looking at the 2016 WA Field Championships its about 100 points different on average.



Don't the BB shooters also shoot about 3-5m closer?


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

Not sure...there's just not a lot of good comparison between the two because WA doesn't recognize it except for within the old IFAA events. 

I think you're right though. IFAA and NFAA rules were very similar for distances and equipment.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

WA BB shoots 5m closer than compound or recurve.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

For me who has shot both, the stabilizers was the biggest thing I miss going from OR to BB. The way I anchor and transfer, the clicker helps but not as much as stabilizers.

So for me stabilizers, clicker and then sight.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

The sight is the least important as others have mentioned. Stringwalking is a form of sighting after all.


----------



## Eric_61 (Aug 2, 2015)

Here's two competition finals you can watch, indoors at the same distance. Lancaster Archery Classic Barebow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39ppQpTQcz4 and Lancaster Archery Classic Men's Recurve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3BpN_FQ3bI Barebow can be just as accurate, but is harder to maintain consistency, is how I would summarize things. In field archery barebow is 5 meters shorter distance than recurve or compound with the 3 smaller targets, and 10 meters shorter distance at the largest target size, as a rough guide.


----------

