# One nock or two..your thoughts please



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

crw4 -

After shooting both ways, and testing with a number of people, there was no difference is scores; I just use one. 
But I shoot split. (and yes, I've seen the videos...) If the bow was set up correctly, there really should be no difference in flight or tune.

The only time a double nocking point would be required would be for string walking (obvious reasons). 

Double nocking points shouldn't "hurt", unless you inadvertently nock under the wrong one.

IMHO, if it doesn't help, why bother? 

Basically do whatever makes you more comfortable.

(And now the debate will begin - again.)

Viper1 out.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I use two tied on nocks, one above and one below. Personally I have not experienced the nock sliding on the string (that I know of), but I shoot split finger and theoretically it's not as big an issue as when shooting three under. I've seen the videos Viper referred to and come down on the other side.

I use two because it's easy to do and eliminates one potential variable or problem. I have enough variables and problems that I _can't_ eliminate to worry about...lol.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Here's the video:
https://plus.google.com/photos/1164...ms/5440061363494899889?banner=pwa&gpsrc=pwrd1

You can see it for yourself.

Many accomplished hunters I know, and the nation's top scoring Longbow, Recurve, and Barebow shooters I know use 2 nock sets. People who have actually taken game and won National and International level competitions. If it didn't matter, I doubt that these folks would mess with it.

As Easykeeper sed, one less variable. So try it and decide for yourself.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I use two because it's easy to do and eliminates one potential variable or problem.


Same here. Besides, the video tells the tale.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bender said:


> Here's the video:
> https://plus.google.com/photos/1164...ms/5440061363494899889?banner=pwa&gpsrc=pwrd1
> 
> You can see it for yourself.
> ...


Correlation doesn't necessarily establish causation. The top scoring shooters may carry a rabbit's foot in their pocket or tug on their left earlobe before each shot but that doesn't mean it's the cause of the high scores.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Easykeeper said:


> I use two tied on nocks, one above and one below. Personally I have not experienced the nock sliding on the string (that I know of), but I shoot split finger and theoretically it's not as big an issue as when shooting three under. I've seen the videos Viper referred to and come down on the other side.
> 
> I use two because it's easy to do and eliminates one potential variable or problem. I have enough variables and problems that I _can't_ eliminate to worry about...lol.





Bender said:


> Here's the video:
> https://plus.google.com/photos/1164...ms/5440061363494899889?banner=pwa&gpsrc=pwrd1
> 
> You can see it for yourself.
> ...


Well?...i didn't hafta replay those 2 vids more than 18 times to know how many i wanna use! :laugh:

which isn't (1)

which also sorta explains why..

I'm lazy by nature...always looking for the easy way out....as a result?....when i'm tuning a new set-up?..i only use one brass crimp nock cause i know it's gonna get moved quite a few times...and who wants to move two when ya can move just one?..right?...and then when i get that one brass nock set just so?..with bareshafts flying like bullets?.."THEN"..i apply a tie-on nock below and viola..

screw-up!...with the nock kicking slighty high and bareshafts striking slightly low...cause now the lower tie-on isn't permiting the arrows nock to slip downward upon release...but they sure do group a tad tighter (sans any high/low fliers) despite the apparent slight mis-tune that just seemed to crop up outta nowhere right after installing the lower tie-on! :laugh:

So Thanks EK & Bender...now i know why.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> Correlation doesn't necessarily establish causation. The top scoring shooters may carry a rabbit's foot in their pocket or tug on their left earlobe before each shot but that doesn't mean it's the cause of the high scores.


Well ya have a point but..to me?...it sorta misses the mark cause..

If i'm betting money on two archers?...and one has their bow set-up in such a mannor that the arrow has the option of moving in two directions when te string is loosed as opposed to one direction?..i'm not certaqin about the archers skills but i know which "set-up" my moneys on! :laugh:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Correlation doesn't necessarily establish causation. The top scoring shooters may carry a rabbit's foot in their pocket or tug on their left earlobe before each shot but that doesn't mean it's the cause of the high scores.


This is true, but the "causation" is established in the video. There's irrefutable evidence of a problem that the double nock set fixes. 

The individual in the 2nd video is, if I'm not sorely mistaken, Blacky Schwartz. I'd put my money on his knowing how to properly set up a bow.


----------



## spcenigma (Apr 3, 2007)

I shoot 3 under, using a crimp on nocking point indicator on top of the arrow nock, and tie on version on the bottom of the arrow nock. 
If I do not tie on the lower set, the nock slides down the string after I release, causing the arrow to porpoise.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Insurance covers your house if you have a fire, it doesn't prevent a fire. Same for a double nock set. Can be good insurance and peace of mind for something that may cause a nock slide, but by no means a cure for nock slide. In that regard, I use two but probably get little to no real benefit, just insurance. 

In that regard, if I had a bow that "required" it, I would fix that (or me) or find another bow to shoot. I would have less peace of mind shooting a bow that required it. 

In that regard, there's no "fix" with a double set that corrects an issue, just masking a problem, a severe problem with shooter or equipment if it is at the level of being "required".


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

_That_ video tells that _tale_ - but there are a whole bunch of other variables that come into play to say that one video is the end of all debates. Things like nock fit and proper tune come to mind. I have shot both ways and like was stated above, have seen no difference in scores. If it makes you feel better and or score better then by all means use two. Like most things in Trad, try them out and use what works for you.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

centershot said:


> _That_ video tells that _tale_ - but there are a whole bunch of other variables that come into play to say that one video is the end of all debates. Things like nock fit and proper tune come to mind. I have shot both ways and like was stated above, have seen no difference in scores. If it makes you feel better and or score better then by all means use two. Like most things in Trad, try them out and use what works for you.


It doesn't even tell that tale because it answeres the wrong question. To me anyway, the question isn't "Does the arow move on the string?" The question is "What's the difference in impact point on the target?". I guess you could get real picky and ask "What's the difference in energy delivered?" The video doesn't show but it looks like the arrow moves away from the knock point but then starts to move back toward it. I can't see where it is at the moment the arrow leaves the string.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LBR said:


> This is true, but the "causation" is established in the video. There's irrefutable evidence of a problem that the double nock set fixes.
> 
> The individual in the 2nd video is, if I'm not sorely mistaken, Blacky Schwartz. I'd put my money on his knowing how to properly set up a bow.


Unless I missed something, there's no evidence in the video that there's even a problem that needs fixing. What's the problem? Did the arrow miss it's mark?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> That video tells that tale


Not sure what you are getting at. Blacky is renowned the world over for his bow tests. To imply he doesn't know what he's doing, as some seem to be, is just a foolish attempt to give foundation to an opinion that is contrary to the evidence presented.



> ...but there are a whole bunch of other variables that come into play...


What variables? Either the nock slides, or it doesn't. The video is proof positive than it does happen.

What is it that causes nock slide that can be fixed? A very tight nock fit might, but that has it's own problems.

How can a double nock set _not_ fix it? The double nock set stops it from happening--I see that as a fix.

As noted, there are no quantifiable reasons to not install a second nock set, at least as far as it hindering performance or accuracy...so why the argument???


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> The video doesn't show but it looks like the arrow moves away from the knock point but then starts to move back toward it. I can't see where it is at the moment the arrow leaves the string.


What you actually see, if you watch the nock set, is the bow rotation and dynamic tiller movements. The arrow line doesn't move at all. The string is pulling upward, though the arrow nock - watch the nock set in relation to his face - it moves up, meaning the sting is being pulled up and through the nock. 

See, the old theory on the web, not the folks making the video, was that shooting three under made a "pull" point past the nock and the arrow fell into it. So, lo and behold, if you shoot three under you have to have an extra. Hogwash. Well, after folks started thinking about the physics of a string that is moving many, many, times faster than the arrow starts to move, so all slack would be gone and the only tension would be at the apex of the string and nock before the arrow could even move, that's all been abandoned now.

It's an interesting video for sure, but again, "does using one change your score?". That's what the video can't show.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Unless I missed something, there's no evidence in the video that there's even a problem that needs fixing.


If moving your nock point up and/or down 1/4" to 1/2" doesn't affect your accuracy, then I suppose you don't have a problem.

The points are simple. The nock can slide. Adding a second nock point doesn't involve negatives, and can be a positive. If you don't want to, or can't tell a difference, then don't add it. 

The OP asked a simple question. Why in the world there's an argument over factual answers, that include what the world's best do and video evidence, is beyond me. Dunning-Kruger is all I can think of.


----------



## Bowmania (Jan 3, 2003)

I would contend that the reason that the nock slides down is that the archer has imparted torque to the string. This would account for Viper not seeing any difference in scores - he doesn't torque. If you torque the string, at the split second of release the string is not only moving forward, but also down. That downward movement of the nock is from the nocking point pushing it down.

I've somewhat give up on trying to untorque the string. Just use two points.

Bowmania


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

I had the good fortune to shoot last weekend with some of the top guys in the country and all used 2 noks. Tom D was telling me without the lower nok [3 under] you can impart something to the arrow that can throw your arrow- if Tom says it, I do it.

That said, now I'm now having some tuning issues with 2 noks which werent there before. I cannot get my arrows to tune past 10 yards [10 is good, 20 is low] I ran my nok all the way down [start at 3/4- 0] to even- all bareshafts low and my bow is throwing them a little. My second nok is a 5/16" gap below the top nok.

I swear I could see the arrow fly well at 20 with only the one nok and now- no. I've gone up and down with my nok, played with tiller and still cannot get the same "perfect" flight as with only one nok. 

*Is it possible the arrow is sliding between the noks on the shot with 2 vs 1?*


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Center, Sandford - 

Here's the reality, I don't really care where the arrow nock goes or what it does.
All I worry about is how the arrow flies, and more importantly, where it ends up. 
Last time I checked, my were flying pretty well and going where they were supposed to. 

The other bit of "evidence" that shows up: Ken Beck from Black Widow did some testing and showed that 1 in 6 people actually "needed" the second nocking point. No one ever questions why the other 5 didn't. 

In the "trad" world, people love to debate things that just don't matter, or worse, made blanket statements based on limited understanding.
So who's right? Who cares? If you "feel" better with two nocking points, use them, if you don't need them, don't. But at least try it for yourself, it's pretty easy to test, honest. 

_edit:_
Beendare -

It really shouldn't make any difference.
Here's the technical side: 
When setting up two nocking points, there's typically about 1/8" gap + nock width, to prevent string pinch. 
It's possible that your bow was tuned to allow FOR nock travel and the second NP, limited that, causing the bad tune.
Possibly retuning the rig for two nocking points might solve the problem, again, an easy test. 

I don't don't worry any more about nock travel than I do about an arrow paradoxing. 
I know they happen (or in the case of nick travel - "might" happen), and their effects are built into the tune. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

Thx Viper, I suppose I should have watched that vid before asking the question.

So at 9/16" high one nok my arrows flying great. The only other variable I can think of was a worn serving with a little notch essentially keeping the arrow from sliding down on the shot. 

I think I'm going to try a bit of floss in the space below the arrow on the string to keep it from sliding on the shot


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Viper1 said:


> I don't don't worry any more about nock travel than I do about an arrow paradoxing.
> I know they happen (or in the case of nick travel - "might" happen), and their effects are built into the tune.
> 
> Viper1 out.


Similar principle - I can tune for perfect arrow dynamics on my longbow, but if I put a stabilizer on it, I have created new dynamics on the arrow and my tune is now different.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Beendare - 

As long as the slide (if it's even there in your case) is consistent, it's not really a problem, is it? 

If there is a problem with your serving, I would correct that, sooner rather than later.

Sanford -

Yup, exactly. Technically ANYTHING we change on a bow (or arrow) will affect the tune. The question is, by how much and when do we need to worry about it? 

Viper1 out.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

This is one of those topics that always leaves me scratching my head. Whether or not nocks can slide isn’t even debatable. Whether or not a second nock set prevents this from happening isn’t debatable either. As far as accidentally nocking under the wrong locator, there’s a very simple way to 100% prevent that from happening. If there wasn’t, I wouldn’t have a double nock set on my hunting bow. A double nock set is a win-win all the way around.

Here’s where things get muddy…

If all you’re doing is 20-yard paper punching at the local club, whether or not your arrow flight is straight and consistent is likely irrelevant. Heck, 20-some years ago when I shot NFAA Barebow and Bowhunter I won back-to-back sectional titles and a whole bunch of state championships with a setup that was horribly overspined. Where this discussion becomes important is if you plan to glue a broadhead on the front of your arrow and send it after a living animal. Most of us who actually hunt know what a broadhead does to accuracy and penetration with erratic arrow flight. You can get away with relatively sloppy tuning when shooting field points. Not so with broadheads (which is probably why mechanical heads are so popular these days).

So I guess it boils down to this: If you want to eliminate as many tuning variables as possible, use a second nock locator. There’s probably a reason why nearly all of the top shooters use one (and I only say “nearly” because there may be one or two exceptions out there). If all you’re going to do is punch 20-yard paper for fun at your local club (and there’s nothing wrong with that) none of this probably matters one way or the other.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Thanks for chiming in Jason. Hard to argue with your credentials--although I'll be surprised if someone doesn't try. Champion archer, accomplished hunter, AND published author (not self-published)--quite a resume'!

You bring up an excellent point. Those of us that hunt and shoot in tournaments that may not let us have pefect footing/upright stance/etc. every time need to eliminate as many variables as we can. I often forget that a great many of the opinons offered are from "home" shooters only.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

MGF said:


> It doesn't even tell that tale because it answeres the wrong question. To me anyway, the question isn't "Does the arow move on the string?" The question is "What's the difference in impact point on the target?". I guess you could get real picky and ask "What's the difference in energy delivered?" The video doesn't show but it looks like the arrow moves away from the knock point but then starts to move back toward it. *I can't see where it is at the moment the arrow leaves the string.*


This is an excellent point and one I have made in the past concerning the posted videos. The videos are fine for what they show but do not tell the whole story. To me it looks like the inertia of the arrow nock is enough to keep it in place momentarily and it is actually the string that is moving up, not the nock moving down. The effect would be the same regardless of which one moved if it were possible to establish that the relationship between the nock and nock set visible in the video remained the same when the arrow _leaves the string_. Unfortunately the video doesn't show that.

If the nock and nock set _do_ come together by brace height (not shown in the video) it might be possible to make the case that ultimately the _nock travel_ was straighter by allowing the string to move in the nock than it would be by trapping the nock with two nock sets and forcing it to follow the vertical displacement of the string. 

The video _hints_ at a potential problem, but if the nock set and arrow nock were to come together by the time the nock leaves the string, is it an issue? You can't really prove one way or another with the present video.

Like I said earlier I use two nock sets and I don't even know if I _need_ the bottom one. It's just one less thing for me to worry about and with two nock sets (needed or not) I can easily establish good bare shaft flight out as far as I want to go. Maybe I could with only one nock set too. I don't have the time or energy to explore the issue, it's just easier to go with the two nock set system. Like many things in archery, there's more than one way to do things.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

MGF said:


> Correlation doesn't necessarily establish causation. The top scoring shooters may carry a rabbit's foot in their pocket or tug on their left earlobe before each shot but that doesn't mean it's the cause of the high scores.


And it's answers like this that continue to muddy the water among those that need to know. All, and I mean all, records in the barebow classes(trad, bowhunter, barebow) were set by archers using 2 nocksets but you can go on trying to be naysayer, you will always be just one less competitor the people in the know have to worry about.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

If you're tuning and can't get the bareshafts to stop hitting the dirt in front of the target on every other shot, try a second nocking point. Helped me out a bunch. If you're not having bareshafting issues... it's up to you.

Up to you whether the extra minute of tying another nocking point on is worth it. I have trouble bareshafting three under past ten yards without two. With two I can drill 'em at 30.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

It's really simple. The nock doesn't (always) remain in the same place on the string, regardless of what may or may not cause it. A double nock set fixes the problem. 

The proof is in the pudding. Those who have proven themselves in competition use it. 

Everyone else can argue semantics and try to discredit those stating the obvious--I think itbeso nailed where they _won't_ be.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

There is an easy test to conduct on this matter. Use one nockset and determine your point on. Add a lower nockset and you will find that your point on is 3-5 yards shorter. Proof to me that the arrow is launching from the string lower with only one nockset.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

itbeso said:


> And it's answers like this that continue to muddy the water among those that need to know. All, and I mean all, records in the barebow classes(trad, bowhunter, barebow) were set by archers using 2 nocksets but you can go on trying to be naysayer, you will always be just one less competitor the people in the know have to worry about.


Ibeso, by the same token, were there any losers using two nock sets? If so, it then has it's disadvantages as well. That's the causation/correlation issue MGF mentions that plagues using anecdotal evidence based on what others do. It's not a useable factor because it cuts both ways - you can't say it allowed one to win without also saying it caused many more not to win. The real test is to compare a same archer's scoring on both methods. 

Also, in a class where bow dynamics are changing with finger position on the string, there may be cause for mandatory use to set a baseline tuning parameter - here, yes, you would be disadvantaged without one.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Chad,

Just to clarify something: I hesitated to even mention my past tournament results. Usually when I do something like that I just say, "I know a guy...", because this isn't about me. And truth be told, considering some of the other archers on this forum, the stuff I've collected at shoots is pretty minor. Alan, Gary, Sandy, and Ben could set up the most insane game of Bozo Buckets ever with their NFAA silver bowls.

The only reason I brought that up was to make a point about how one can be quite out of tune and still shoot good scores on indoor paper. People do it all the time. But put a broadhead on the front of those arrows and things can change in a hurry.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Just to clarify something: I hesitated to even mention my past tournament results. Usually when I do something like that I just say, "I know a guy...", because this isn't about me. And truth be told, considering some of the other archers on this forum, the stuff I've collected at shoots is pretty minor. Alan, Gary, Sandy, and Ben could set up the most insane game of Bozo Buckets ever with their NFAA silver bowls.


JW, I listen and learn from lot's of names here as well - all good ones you mention. They come in and offer it up, good stuff, like anybody. 

The names that get thrown around as authority but don't participate here, well, they are not here to speak for themselves, so matters not much unless "names" are your bag. I also know that there are far more champion cup shooters out there than winners and who never take that path for a cup other than what they do locally and for fun. Then, there's those that never mention what they do outside, just offer up their opinion. Then you have the folks who just want to hunt game and the target scene is meaningless.

If something cannot be discussed and learned here without "names" attached as defining authority, we either need to redefine archery or need to rename this forum after them. Then, the only fight is which "name" to use


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Understood Jason. My point being you have actually proven your skill in the public arena--something many of the more vocal posters never have and never will do. I suppose there's a reason for that.


----------



## sawtoothscream (Apr 19, 2008)

I double nock. takes like 10 seconds to tie one on and eliminates one more potential problem.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Sanford said:


> Insurance covers your house if you have a fire, it doesn't prevent a fire. Same for a double nock set. Can be good insurance and peace of mind for something that may cause a nock slide, but by no means a cure for nock slide. In that regard, I use two but probably get little to no real benefit, just insurance.
> 
> In that regard, if I had a bow that "required" it, I would fix that (or me) or find another bow to shoot. I would have less peace of mind shooting a bow that required it.
> 
> In that regard, there's no "fix" with a double set that corrects an issue, just masking a problem, a severe problem with shooter or equipment if it is at the level of being "required".


Really good point. The nock is only going to slide if the bow or shooter is causing some kind of vertical acceleration upwards. Hypothetically, it could be somebody gripping the bow and torquing it face down, the top limb wants to go faster, or the shooter just manages to do something with the release that allows the limbs to be pulling asymmetrically. If things are ideal, this really shouldn't happen. _However_, apparently, with some bows or shooters, it _does_. A second nock insures that it _can't_.

In the second video, it is interesting to note that it looks like it is the string that is moving upward, and then, it _appears_ that the string moves back down to put the nock against the arrow again, but it's a bit blurry.

Would also be interesting if somebody actually nailed down the factors that cause this to happen. Does it happen more with shorter bows? Is it related to tiller? Release hand finger pressure?

as far as top shooters, I would believe that it makes sense that they would, simply because when they're really getting into competition, they want to have every equipment advantage or safeguard they have, even if it _probably_ will make no difference.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

For some strange reason?...i feel compelled to add at this point that...

After many years of competitively finger shooting against some of the top NFAA/FAA archers in my state?..it came to my attention that many, many, many...okay..alot...more than i care to mention.."times"...i'd witness archers weilding some of the most ill tuned equipment known to man...some bows?..so ill tuned?...many with malodies that by todays standards would be deemed un-safe to shoot?...and?..

watch those very same archers shoot lights out...with "those" very (and often times "extremely") ill-tuned bows.

and why?..how?...easy...SOLID AS A ROCK FORM! 

some almost seemed like every arrow they shot was a picture perfect re-run of the last.

One of these such archers?..was named "Steve White"...10 years my junior..he and his newlywed wife just move down here from indiana...and the list of what was wrong with his bow?..was about 10 times longer than what was right with his bow..if there was anything "right" at all...and for the first year or so?..i could best him..but i hadta bring my super-tuned equipment AND my "A" game to do so..cause his form was that solid and consistant...scary solid and consistant.

There were two other archers in this state, in my class, that simply put?..were better than me..even at my best and their worst...one was Gary Giddens and the other was a fine gentlemen named Frank Gandy..i couldn't best either one..ever...and in my efforts to do so?..i discovered my first taste of TP...a malody i thought only existed in the feeble minded..until i got it....and couldn't shake it..

Plan B?...i took one Mr. Steve White under my wing...i recommended it?...he bought it...he bought it?...i tuned it and showed him how along the way..and if not at the club range?..he'd be in my backyard 2-3 times a week for coaching and training..the end result?..Steve White went on to become "State Champ" several years running.

But...i didn't give him what he already had the first day i met him..which was rock solid, highly disciplined, super consistant and repeatable form..if ya painted him battleship gray?...he'd look like a roman statue at full draw..which made my job reeeeal easy. :laugh:

Point being?..there's folks out there that rock solid form just seems to come natural to them...i'm not one of those...i hafta work for it...by NOT working for it...and those folks?..could shoot a widdled down strung broomstick lights out (by normy standards LOL!)...so?..

is all this discussion about "1 lump or two?" really worth it? :laugh:

Justa thought and?..L8R, Bill.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

itbeso said:


> And it's answers like this that continue to muddy the water among those that need to know. All, and I mean all, records in the barebow classes(trad, bowhunter, barebow) were set by archers using 2 nocksets but you can go on trying to be naysayer, you will always be just one less competitor the people in the know have to worry about.


Is that supposed to pass for logic? it's so common for those in competition to jump on anything the next guy is doing just because he scores well or goes fast. Hell, I make a living nailing the latest fad onto horses feet because the top guy has it on his horses feet. LOL If the top guy scratched his butt before every shot, you'd soon see everybody else scratching their butt before every shot...and it proves nothing that anybody would care to brag about.

I, on the other hand, spent more than half of my working life as an engineer where I had to figure out how things work or why they don't so I know that you have to ask the correct question in order to get the correct answer.

However, I'm not really a "naysayer". I currently have two knocks on the bow that I shoot the most. It just so happens that I haven't noticed any difference. LOL I, of all people, put it on because I read that you need one.

Don't believe everything you read.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Chad,
> 
> Just to clarify something: I hesitated to even mention my past tournament results. Usually when I do something like that I just say, "I know a guy...", because this isn't about me. And truth be told, considering some of the other archers on this forum, the stuff I've collected at shoots is pretty minor. Alan, Gary, Sandy, and Ben could set up the most insane game of Bozo Buckets ever with their NFAA silver bowls.
> 
> The only reason I brought that up was to make a point about how one can be quite out of tune and still shoot good scores on indoor paper. People do it all the time. But put a broadhead on the front of those arrows and things can change in a hurry.


Have you noticed a difference in broadhead flight? I haven't shot any broadheads off my bow that has two knock points yet.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

All you have to do is look at the difference a 1/8 inch crawl makes at 20 yards and you would never not have 2 nock points.

Matt


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LBR said:


> Understood Jason. My point being you have actually proven your skill in the public arena--something many of the more vocal posters never have and never will do. I suppose there's a reason for that.


Those who go home with the money have indeed proved their skill...which isn't necessarily the same as proving their technical knowledge. No disrespect intended but those that drive them fast don't necessarily know how to build them to go fast.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> Those who go home with the money have indeed proved their skill...which isn't necessarily the same as proving their technical knowledge. No disrespect intended but those that drive them fast don't necessarily know how to build them to go fast.


well stated...cause i've lived that statement in many areas of life. true.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> All you have to do is look at the difference a 1/8 inch crawl makes at 20 yards and you would never not have 2 nock points.
> 
> Matt


and that makes (2) true statements in a row! :laugh:


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Gents - 

40 posts in about 5 hours, over something that just plain doesn't matter. 

Matt - 

I shoot with a sight, so do most of the people I train these days.
If there were an issue, don't you think we'd have notice it? 
So far, no one has - and yes, we've tested it - repeatedly. (With fletched arrows and bare shafts.)

This really is a do whatever makes you feel better kinda thing.

Viper1 out.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

MGF,

Yes, I can see a big difference in broadhead flight when using a second nock set, especially if I'm shooting off the shelf. The first time I tried, it was quite an eye opener.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Then you have Doreen Wilbur winning a Gold Medal using nothing on the string - no nock set whatsoever.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> The names that get thrown around as authority but don't participate here, well, they are not here to speak for themselves, so matters not much unless "names" are your bag.


So, it's not proper to referance those who have made a name for themselves in the sport with their accomplishments...but obviously you felt it was o.k. to try and "educate" me using information you plagerized from my website (obviously at the time you didn't know it was mine)??? Allrightythen....



> 40 posts in about 5 hours, over something that just plain doesn't matter.


Something that, _in your opinion_, doesn't matter...and your opinion is superior because??? People who actually have proven their prowess in the public arena beg to differ. 

Obviously some people--some very prominent archers--feel it can make a difference.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

No lbr, showing the irony in hypocrisy is not even closely related to plagiarism. Don't let ego get the best of you.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> No disrespect intended but those that drive them fast don't necessarily know how to build them to go fast.


Bet they know how to fine tune them though. Besides, who has a "pit crew" to set their bow up for them? 

Why the attempt to discredit a common practice amongst the top shooters in the sport? If it doesn't matter to you, fine--don't do it. To imply the best in the sport really just don't know how to set up a bow, don't understand tuning...it's self explanitory. That's why they are out shooting and winning, and the "real" experts are permenant fixtures on message boards.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

J. Wesbrock said:


> MGF,
> 
> Yes, I can see a big difference in broadhead flight when using a second nock set, especially if I'm shooting off the shelf. The first time I tried, it was quite an eye opener.


Thanks. There's food for thought. I'm going to have to give that a try because, where I'm concerned, broadheads are what count.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Okay...all this talk about 1 lump or two?..now you folks asked for it..cause now i'm gonna play...epecially since sandford brought up Doreen Wilburs "Zero" choice of nocking points so?...ready to have your mind twisted?...good...cause here goes..

when we witness the high-speed slo-mo of the arrow nock drifting downward in Blackys vids?..."IN BOTH OF THEM"...just as the string left his fingers?...and well before the string was so much as 1/2" from his gloved hand?.."both"...of these different arrows assumed and got to their positions( about 5-6 wraps below the nock point) well within the first inch of string travel..and when they got there?..(in that extremely short travel of the released string)...it was like they slammed on the parking brake!...and?..

"Stayed in that exact *parked position* throughout the rest of the travel"

almost as though it was.. 

*"Where the arrow truely wanted to be"*

like it almost immediately upon release of the string?..immediately moved itself to it's self-corrected "Home Position"

gee..go figure...then we have folks here under the most serious of impressions suggesting that when shooting 3 under?..(like Blacky was with a glove i might add)...that most bows require that the nock point be set at upwards of 3/4"s?

as now I wonder if they're the same folks using one nocking point..and within the first 1/2" of released string travel?..the arrows correcting itself..despite the grossly high single nocking point.

But we all know that when ya shoot 3under?..ya just gotta nock'em up that high..right?.....right? :laugh:

Yet decades ago one Doreen Wilbur was bringing home the gold with no nocking points on her string?..surely that must of been a fluke cause there's no way she was as sharp as us...right?....right?.. :laugh:

and then we have the crowd that nocks high with two nocking points...are they the same ones that are constantly encountering finicky bows and tuning issues? IDK.

Things that make one go...Hmmmm. :laugh:

enjoy...and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LBR said:


> Bet they know how to fine tune them though. Besides, who has a "pit crew" to set their bow up for them?
> 
> Why the attempt to discredit a common practice amongst the top shooters in the sport? If it doesn't matter to you, fine--don't do it. To imply the best in the sport really just don't know how to set up a bow, don't understand tuning...it's self explanitory. That's why they are out shooting and winning, and the "real" experts are permenant fixtures on message boards.


I didn't try to discreadit anything. I just questioned the logic that was presented here in this thread. The best in the world may know but nothing that should pass as evidence has been presented here. A second knock point could be the best thing since sliced bread but reading the logic presented here makes it easy to understand why the whole world is in shambles. Come on, I know how more than half of you voted and you want me to believe something just because you said it?

I may have been born in the dark but it wasn't last night...as some bad song once said.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I had no issues with one nocking point shooting split bare shafting. Never had an issue. Switched to three under and had issues bareshafting. Two nocks solved the problem. Same with broadheads.

Lots of extra arguing here and demanding proof. Doesn't matter. All it comes down to how well your bow is tuned for you. If you're happy, who cares, if you're not, give some other stuff a try.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

kegan said:


> I had no issues with one nocking point shooting split bare shafting. Never had an issue. Switched to three under and had issues bareshafting. Two nocks solved the problem. Same with broadheads.
> 
> Lots of extra arguing here and demanding proof. Doesn't matter. All it comes down to how well your bow is tuned for you. If you're happy, who cares, if you're not, give some other stuff a try.


Amen Kegan! LOL! 

and i'm even man enough to openly admit...some of my finest shooting, most pristine tune jobs?..

were NOT..the result....of me knowing wth i was doing! :laugh:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

kegan said:


> I had no issues with one nocking point shooting split bare shafting. Never had an issue. Switched to three under and had issues bareshafting. Two nocks solved the problem. Same with broadheads.
> 
> Lots of extra arguing here and demanding proof. Doesn't matter. All it comes down to how well your bow is tuned for you. If you're happy, who cares, if you're not, give some other stuff a try.


It's not a question of "demanding" proof. It's just that it's customary to offer something in the way of evidence when you state something as fact. "Because so and so does it" doesn't really work.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

MGF - 

That's pretty much what I've been saying. Logic, Physics and second hand endorsements are great, but the proof is in the testing. Give it a try with a properly tuned bow in YOUR hands and go with the results.

"Because so and so said so" or "so and so does it this way" doesn't work for me either.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Viper1 said:


> I shoot with a sight, so do most of the people I train these days.
> If there were an issue, don't you think we'd have notice it?
> So far, no one has - and yes, we've tested it - repeatedly. (With fletched arrows and bare shafts.)
> 
> ...


Gotta love Google


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Easykeeper said:


> I use two tied on nocks, one above and one below. Personally I have not experienced the nock sliding on the string (that I know of), but I shoot split finger and theoretically it's not as big an issue as when shooting three under. I've seen the videos Viper referred to and come down on the other side.
> 
> I use two because it's easy to do and eliminates one potential variable or problem. I have enough variables and problems that I _can't_ eliminate to worry about...lol.


I'm with Easy on this one also 

My whole life I used one brass nock now I'm 2 tied on


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

MGF said:


> If the top guy scratched his butt before every shot, you'd soon see everybody else scratching their butt before every shot...


Great motivation to be the top guy, I guess.

If it wasn't already apparent that i idolize George Chapman, another gem he gave me. He would sometimes put his vanes on backwards, or write numbers down on paper and pretend to do math, and people would ask him why. He would tell them that it was of some great benefit one way or another, and that was the reason he shot as well as he did. He got other people to do it to.

Not saying a second nock is useless, but on the point of I'll do that too (like automatically putting V-bars on as opposed to simply a counterweight), I can't say I haven't followed 'just because.'

Heck, look at what people get for expensive audio/video cabling that, at times, is actually technically _worse_.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

JParanee said:


> I'm with Easy on this one also
> 
> My whole life I used one brass nock now I'm 2 tied on


But Joe?..then where'd the old saying...

*"Tie (1) On"*

come from? :laugh:

Cause i know..and it came from morticians in the old days..when bars were called "Grogeries" and beer was called "Grog" and it made you "Groggy" as well as drunk because mugs weren't supplied..you hadta bring your own "Stien"..which was typically cast out of lead antimony so not only did the drinker get drunk?...they also got "Heavy Metal Poisioning" which made them both drunk and groggy..to the point they would seem "dead"..and the mortified morticians weren't aware of this until some grave robbers confided in them that they were finding claw marks in the coffins..then it became envogue for the morticians to run a string from a little above ground bell to the persumably deceased persons big toe...where they would in fact..."Tie one on"...also?..most folks think the phrase "Saved By The Bell" is boxing lingo...not so. :laugh:


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Matt - 

We keep going over this same thing every few months. Typically because of the same people, ever wonder why? 

If using two nocking points make you feels better, that's great. The difference is, I'm not trying to convince any body of anything.

Viper1 out.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> But Joe?..then where'd the old saying...
> 
> *"Tie (1) On"*
> 
> ...


Good one Bill


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Viper1 said:


> Matt -
> 
> We keep going over this same thing every few months. Typically because of the same people, ever wonder why?
> 
> ...


Tony

The guy asked for opinions and people gave them. You said that you tested them and didn't find that you needed them. That's great I tested and found out that I need 2 and when asked I gave my opinion. You made a big deal out of shooting a sight so I gave you an example of another guy who uses a sight fairly well and seems to think he needs 2 as well. 

Literally any subject that comes up has been covered hundreds of times on the internet but, that doesn't make the OP's question any less valid than the first guy that asked the question. I will help anyone I can no matter how hashed over the question because, at one point I was that guy and got some great help from some great people.

Matt


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Matt - 

"Helping someone out." is what a lot of us try to do.
Stating an opinion is fine, state it and let it go. Beyond that, there's something else going on - and you know it.

Rehashing the same thing in 63 posts, isn't helping. 
So, I'll let this one go. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

is everyone so intent on agressive heated debate that no one picked up on what i pointed out in Blackys vids?....regarding the arrow sliding down the string and coming to a very defined and extremely abrupt stopping point before the string was 1/2" beyond Blackys fingers?..and staying there throughout the reminder of the shot?..not budging so much as a single serving wrap?

like it wasn't supposed to be up that high to begin with?..didja ya'll miss that?...or am i trodding all over sacred ground here?..amidst the chest pounding. :laugh:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> Matt -
> 
> We keep going over this same thing every few months. Typically because of the same people, ever wonder why?
> 
> ...


Tony, you definitely are trying to convince some body of something. The problem is that as a supposed teacher of archers, It amazes me that you would take such a contrarian attitude when it has been proven time and again on the field of competition that over-under nocksets make a huge difference between winning or losing. That will continue to be the case forever.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

I just went back and looked at that video for the first time. The archers release in that video is much different than any that I encounter on a daily basis as he drags his index finger to create the apex of the string angle at the nocking point. Even doing that, the arrow moves down the string. If a video was created that shows a typical release using all three fingers then the apex of the string angle would be much lower and create a lot more arrow movement down the string. I was glad to see Matt show a picture of Brady using two nocks. Back in 2005 I was the last person to beat Brady when he was still shooting freestyle. Just an aside, as the story is that he couldn't handle getting beat by an old fart, so he switched over to Oly shooting. Over the years, I have personally shown, in person, and hands on how the accuracy of an arrow was impacted by the use of 2 nocks. If MGF and Viper and ,any others who would argue the case, want to believe or teach something else, then I, for one, could care less what they teach. I am not a certified coach, but I would put my record of having Olympic champions, Nfaa champions, Asa champions, Ibo champions, Ifaa champions, and many state champions, who have come to me for advice on finger shooting and setup questions, up against some of the so called expert coaches on here who continue to teach things that don't measure up in the real world.


----------



## Nitroboy (Jan 15, 2006)

I use two nocks.... WHY? Cause when I began using one on my Whips like i was my other longbows the feathers of my arrow slide across top of my bowhand, felt like a super hot something-er-other going across my hand and hurt like a *****!! Main reason is the Whips shelf is low and the way I hold the bow makes my hand really really close to the arrow and the amount the arrow slide down the string on release caused this, I put two nocks on and no hand burn lol 

Just my experience and the way ME does it


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

I don't know if my credentials qualify me to answer, but I'll give it a go anyway. 8^) 

Is a double nock set necessary to get a good tune? *Absolutely not*.

Is/can a double nock set be beneficial to *some*? *Absolutely yes*.

*Six of one, and a half dozen of the other*. You just have to try it, and see if you like it.

I use a double nock set, but I don't have to. 8^)

Rick


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks for this thread all, always love reading the most experiened's thoughts.

Has anyone noticed a difference between 2 brass and 1 brass and tie on, or just tie on? 2 brass seems like it would weight the string down.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

If two nocking points were any requirement over preference, and added anything real to a score, this little forum right here would be the last place to hear discussion at this level over it. It really just seems to be one of the mountain to molehill things this forum is good at. I use two, but I know from all my scores, sighted and unsighted, my best scores have been shot both ways, one and with two - and yes, that's not just the 20 yard paper stuff. Why or what anyone else thinks about it matters about as much to my scoring. If it changed your score, you are then on side of the data that suggest different than what I have seen. Do I need you to believe me, no. Do I have to believe you, no.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

itbeso said:


> I just went back and looked at that video for the first time. The archers release in that video is much different than any that I encounter on a daily basis as he drags his index finger to create the apex of the string angle at the nocking point. Even doing that, the arrow moves down the string. If a video was created that shows a typical release using all three fingers then the apex of the string angle would be much lower and create a lot more arrow movement down the string. I was glad to see Matt show a picture of Brady using two nocks. Back in 2005 I was the last person to beat Brady when he was still shooting freestyle. Just an aside, as the story is that he couldn't handle getting beat by an old fart, so he switched over to Oly shooting. Over the years, I have personally shown, in person, and hands on how the accuracy of an arrow was impacted by the use of 2 nocks. If MGF and Viper and ,any others who would argue the case, want to believe or teach something else, then I, for one, could care less what they teach. I am not a certified coach, but I would put my record of having Olympic champions, Nfaa champions, Asa champions, Ibo champions, Ifaa champions, and many state champions, who have come to me for advice on finger shooting and setup questions, up against some of the so called expert coaches on here who continue to teach things that don't measure up in the real world.


well of course i'm just guess'in but..i would say that right there seals the deal! :thumbs_up


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

CFGuy said:


> Thanks for this thread all, always love reading the most experiened's thoughts.
> 
> Has anyone noticed a difference between 2 brass and 1 brass and tie on, or just tie on? 2 brass seems like it would weight the string down.


CF, I like the tie on type for three reason:

1 - is as you mention, they are lighter in weight.
2 - with a double nock set, it is crucial you leave enough space between them 
to keep the leverage from the nock prying between the two points from damaging the string.
The tie on sets are a little more forgiving in this regard than are the brass crimp on.
3 - The tie on sets will not wear on your glove or tab as much as the brass.

Rick


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Rick Barbee said:


> I don't know if my credentials qualify me to answer, but I'll give it a go anyway. 8^)
> 
> Is a double nock set necessary to get a good tune? *Absolutely not*.
> 
> ...


Rick, by tune, are you referring to paper tuning or group tuning? It has been my experience that you can get a paper tune easier with the arrow coming out lownock, but it usually is a pseudo tune that won't group at point on distances because of the arrow slamming the rest.Your six of one or half dozen of the other analogy is ok for tuning but not for getting the most accuracy out of your bow, in my opinion.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

itbeso said:


> Rick, by tune, are you referring to paper tuning or group tuning? It has been my experience that you can get a paper tune easier with the arrow coming out lownock, but it usually is a pseudo tune that won't group at point on distances because of the arrow slamming the rest.Your six of one or half dozen of the other analogy is ok for tuning but not for getting the most accuracy out of your bow, in my opinion.


I tune for both arrow flight & accuracy. For me they are inseparable, but I can achieve that tune with ether one or two nock points.
I will say - the double nock set makes it all come together easier for me.

Rick


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Rick Barbee said:


> CF, I like the tie on type for three reason:
> 
> 1 - is as you mention, they are lighter in weight.
> 2 - with a double nock set, it is crucial you leave enough space between them
> ...


good points and I would add that with tie on nock points, the material is usually soft enough to allow just a small spacing between nocksets because at full draw, the nockset material will take a set to the nock after a few arrows, which eliminates any downward torque on you arrow.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Sanford said:


> If two nocking points were any requirement over preference, and added anything real to a score, this little forum right here would be the last place to hear discussion at this level over it. It really just seems to be one of the mountain to molehill things this forum is good at. I use two, but I know from all my scores, sighted and unsighted, my best scores have been shot both ways, one and with two - and yes, that's not just the 20 yard paper stuff. Why or what anyone else thinks about it matters about as much to my scoring. If it changed your score, you are then on side of the data that suggest different than what I have seen. Do I need you to believe me, no. Do I have to believe you, no.


Couldn't disagree more, but as you say, to each their own.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

itbeso said:


> Couldn't disagree more, but as you say, to each their own.


 I have shot quite a bit of Oly style shoots, and like that style and used to be my main game, so I read a good bit over in that forum too. The "OLY" guys, or what they do, has been bandied about here every time this thing comes up. Maybe you could find me a thread, one thread, on the irrefutable evidence that 2 nock sets are imperative to score. I know you will find preferences, from one to two, brass to tie on, much like some of us here, you might even find some well known past Olympians who use a single brass nock set. The tie to score is what's the question at hand.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

itbeso said:


> If MGF and Viper and ,any others who would argue the case, want to believe or teach something else, then I, for one, could care less what they teach. I am not a certified coach, but I would put my record of having Olympic champions, Nfaa champions, Asa champions, Ibo champions, Ifaa champions, and many state champions, who have come to me for advice on finger shooting and setup questions, up against some of the so called expert coaches on here who continue to teach things that don't measure up in the real world.


Again, I'm not argueing anything except the logic that's been offered.

It doesn't take a champion archer to understand that there are methods and standards that are commonly employed to determine the relative effect of variables on a process. 

So what about all the losers who had two knock points? Maybe they should have had only one? LOL, we're using your line of reasoning here not mine.

Real world...give us the numerical results of a well designed comparison. That's how these things are supposed to work.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

This is sort of silly there is no down side too two nock sets so why not cover your bases. 

Matt


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

itbeso said:


> good points and I would add that with tie on nock points, the material is usually soft enough to allow just a small spacing between nocksets because at full draw, the nockset material will take a set to the nock after a few arrows, which eliminates any downward torque on you arrow.


Good call, that makes sense.

Rick: Good points, I've noticed the brass bead did quite a number on my Bateman tab with the brass bead.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

ok I will settle this Sandy would not shoot her bow without two nock sets There we should be done my wife dosen't make mistakes.

Gary


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

MGF said:


> Again, I'm not argueing anything except the logic that's been offered.
> 
> It doesn't take a champion archer to understand that there are methods and standards that are commonly employed to determine the relative effect of variables on a process.
> 
> ...


Mgf, You seem to be asking for scientific proof and I can't supply that. My only reason in believing the 2 nockset theory is 43 years of archery in which I have experimented with just about any combination setup you can imagine. I have never seen a finger shooting setup where one nockset was superior to two. Does that mean there are none out there? NO. You asked about the losers that had 2 nocksets. I would argue that the first runnerup, the second runnerup, etc., are all, in fact, winners, and, In my opinion would not have done as well without the 2 nocksets. As for winners and losers, every sport has a winner and a bunch of runnerups. Talent is usually what seperates No. 1 from No. two but not giving yourself the best chance to win does not make sense to me. My only interest in posting my point of view is to help others shrink the timeline that it takes them to get up to speed on their shooting. As a group, we should be able to cut the learning curve time down for new and struggling archers.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

crw4 said:


> I shoot BB recurve three under.
> 42# @ 28"
> 62"
> 
> ...


crw4, you probably didn't realize you were smacking a hornets nest when you posted your good and often asked question. It's been an enjoyable thread and if you aren't aware there are some world class shooters posting in response (not me...lol).



Matt_Potter said:


> This is sort of silly there is no down side too two nock sets so why not cover your bases.
> 
> Matt


I am in complete agreement with Matt.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

That makes the most sense to me too. A tie on nock won't detract anything, so why not have it? Even if there's only an error probability of 1%, it eliminates that with no downside.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

itbeso said:


> I would add that with tie on nock points, the material is usually soft enough to allow just a small spacing between nocksets because at full draw, the nockset material will take a set to the nock after a few arrows, which eliminates any downward torque on you arrow.


Yep.

With double brass crimp on nock sets I leave a gap between the nock & the lower point that is equal in width to the thickness of the nock.
With double tie on nock sets I can easily cut that gap in half without fear of damaging the string.

Rick


----------



## WY_Archer (Jan 31, 2013)

I know that I have poor arrow flight with a slight porpoise that I could not tune out until I started using two nock sets. The difference in arrow flight, and my ability to successfully tune in the vertical direction, is absolutely striking. Paper tuning and bare shaft tuning told me exactly the same thing. Regardless of the nock set height, I could not get rid of slight porpoising with only one nock set regardless of the height I used. While adding a second nock set didn't give me good arrow flight immediately, it made it to where I could get perfect flight with adjusting the height of the nock set where I could not before. 

I agree that it would probably not be enough to impact scores when shooting with field tips, but it has been enough to make a significant difference with broadheads. I am very thankful to those who posted on this forum the advantages of two nock sets before I wounded an animal. I am so thankful that I found a solution to an issue that had haunted me and made me give up on a couple of bows that I went back and fixed after learning the trick. The question that started this debate is a very valid one.

I am concerned that when it is quite clear based on the reports of very reputable archers (like Kegan etc.) that for some people the two nock sets make an observable difference, there are still people going out of their way to discourage the practice. This is disturbing when you consider that the consequence of not using two nock sets for certain people, me included, could be a wounded animal. It is one thing to say that you don't observe the difference, but saying that it is not possible for some people to see a difference borders on being irresponsible given the consequences. I realize that using the second nock set could be a band-aid for a problem with my release, but if it prevents a wounded animal, it is certainly worth doing.

If you always have perfect arrow flight and great luck being able to tune in the vertical direction, you probably don't need to bother with a second nock set--the issues I had weren't subtle. The improvement with two nock sets was not subtle either. If you are at your wits end with slight porpoise and can't get rid of it, especially if you shoot 3 under, give the second nock set a try.


----------



## thorwulfx (Sep 26, 2011)

I've used both and had success with both. If I have sufficiently tight nock fit and I'm happy with the way the bow is shooting, I might only use one. If I'm feeling like the arrow is a little precarious on the string (I shoot 3-under), I'll slap on another one. I had my tie-on phase, but I'm using brass crimp-ons at this time. I have no ideological axe to grind on the subject. Nocks are so cheap that there's really no reason not to experiment a little and find what works best for your bow in your hands.

Cheers, 

Patrick


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

I don't want to throw another dog into the fight because I've also tried both ways. It's been a while since I used two and found that I just never needed the second one to begin with so I listed it under the 'things I tried because I read it on AT'.
But, I did observe the same things in the video as Jinkster and Sanford. The string was obviously traveling upward as opposed to the arrow traveling downward. With a nockpoint below the nock then the arrow would also be forced in the upward direction for a period of time during the power stroke. I was wondering what effect that travel might have on accuracy. Or is it another thing that gets compensated for by some other action just like placing the nockpoint higher to shoot with three fingers under?


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

I like a second nock point, firstly if something goes wrong with nock point (moves) it is spotted straight away, I spent a very frustrating shoot long time ago where I had bad arrow flight thinking I was having a bad form day, trying harder and harder to fix my form only to find when I got home my nock point had moved. When you have a bad day and get frustrated it is sometime hard to spot the obvious.

When the pressure in on I just like the peace of mind that if I make a crappy shot the 2nd nock may just get me in the scoring zone instead of zero.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

2413gary said:


> ok I will settle this Sandy would not shoot her bow without two nock sets There we should be done my wife dosen't make mistakes.
> 
> Gary


only when it involves climbing :shade:


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Now I do agree with itbeso, pretty much across the board. But that is not why I'm posting again. With what Forrest and some others have said we may be getting off into a converation actually worth having. What is REALLY going on?

I myself have always suspected that the arrow nock doesn't slide down the string but that as others have suggested, the string is getting pulled up through the nock throat. Now we know that either way that movement can't be frictionless. Also the problem that the second nock set solves is usually arrow porpoising. The string getting sucked up through the nock throat probably initiates that porpoising. And what about the idea that during the power stroke the arrow nock and and nock set meet back together? Sounds good, lets say that does happen. But again not good. The friction between the string and nock throat would still try and induce porpoising. Or worse yet, what if they meet up as suggested, and the string tries to over travel? That would slam the nock end of the arrow downward for sure. And when that mess runs into the shelf/rest, whoo-boy that is some jacked up arrow flight fer sure. There are all sorts of possibilities here that if one had unlimitted time would be amusing to look into.

Now lets say that one is able to tune and set up so that they get decent results using one nock set. With all these possibilities the shooter has to count on the nock slide occuring exactly the same way each and every time. The same precise amount of movement, shot after shot after shot. Not bloody likely. So even if we accept the idea that an arrow has a natural "home" position" that it will try and assume, and accept that using two nock sets keeps the arrow from assuming that postion on the string, at least the arrow behaves consistently. Hmmm. Seems I hear a lot about "consistency" around here. Shouldn't that apply to the arrow as well as the shooter?

Oh and BTW when I went to a second nock set my shooting/scores showed a quantifiable proven improvement. So I use a second nock set every time I set up and tune. A tie on because it is conforms to the arrow nock as pointed out by itbeso. Once I figured it out I never looked back. I really just don't feel the need the need to prove it to myself every time I do a new set up. Just because I got a new bow now I have to reinvent the wheel? There just ain't enough time for that foolishness. 

Oh and just gotta wonder, when this comes up why must somebody always refer to the woman who won the Olympics using no nocksets? Wasn't that the very first year that Archery was in the Olympics? Haven't scores improved SIGNIFICANTLY since then? You know, just because you CAN do something doesn't always mean that you SHOULD. All too often people trot out this or that shooter that is truly exceptional, I mean like one in a thousand, one in ten thousand. I don't know about you but personally I don't care to bank on being able to shoot precisely the same way as this or that one off shooter that nobody can even hope to duplicate.


----------



## Bebe (Mar 18, 2006)

I actually read through this thread twice to get the net worth from all the posts, and I think I've figured it out. If you shoot a "great" shot every time apparently you don't need 2 nocksets. Tony/viper said he doesn't see the need for two and he is fine with one. If my memory serves me right Tony also sees no real benefit in blank bale or back tension either. Unless he has changed his mind since then but he can correct me if he hasn't checked out already. We all have opinions. But getting back to nock locators...

I see benefit in having two nock locators on the string I either use 2 tied locators or one brass locator above the arrow and a tied floss locator below the arrow. I'm a mere mortal and in a 120 arrow field round I might have 20-30 perfect shots which according to some folks I could just as well have 1 nock, heck let's even say I could have "no" nock locator. But most of my shots during a field round are good but not great, and then there are those shots I'd rather forget but they do happen, well all those shots will and do benefit from having 2 nock sets, 90-100 arrows. It's most likely due to the fact that the string oscillation and limb vacillation is causing more deviation inducing instability in the string to nock area. By having two nock locators it stabilizes the arrow on the string. I sure hope that makes sense.

A while back I was at a World Championships in Norway, at the practice area a pear shaped gentleman with thick glasses was walking and observing archers shooting. He would occasionally reach into his travel bag and give an archer some swag. I couldn't resist and finally made my way over to him in hopes of meeting him and finding out what he had in his bag. The gentleman was Werner Beiter and he was kind enough to give me some nocks and his nocksets. These nocksets were designed to fit over the string and fit perfectly with his nocks. The point to this whole story is that they had a nock set above and below the arrow nock. These guys shooting at the worlds were all very high end archers, I dare say they were even better than Tony/viper, but that's obvious right? Even the best archers in the world benefit from 2 nocksets.

The neat thing about archery is it isn't built on absolutes, whether you are shooting ultra primitive with no nocksets, or ultra high tech with the most highly engineered recurve, both bows will still shoot. Build up your bow as you see fit. I just prefer you have some good information so you can make informed decisions. I'd be a lot more guarded if we were trying to convince you to buy a $2000 riser and limbs for better shooting, but jimminey Crickets we are talking about a 99 cent container of floss at walmart. This is a cheap way to better accuracy, and it isn't going to hurt you.  Cheers!


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Bebe said:


> I actually read through this thread twice to get the net worth from all the posts, and I think I've figured it out. If you shoot a "great" shot every time apparently you don't need 2 nocksets. Tony/viper said he doesn't see the need for two and he is fine with one. If my memory serves me right Tony also sees no real benefit in blank bale or back tension either. Unless he has changed his mind since then but he can correct me if he hasn't checked out already. We all have opinions. But getting back to nock locators...
> 
> I see benefit in having two nock locators on the string I either use 2 tied locators or one brass locator above the arrow and a tied floss locator below the arrow. I'm a mere mortal and in a 120 arrow field round I might have 20-30 perfect shots which according to some folks I could just as well have 1 nock, heck let's even say I could have "no" nock locator. But most of my shots during a field round are good but not great, and then there are those shots I'd rather forget but they do happen, well all those shots will and do benefit from having 2 nock sets, 90-100 arrows. It's most likely due to the fact that the string oscillation and limb vacillation is causing more deviation inducing instability in the string to nock area. By having two nock locators it stabilizes the arrow on the string. I sure hope that makes sense.
> 
> ...


Another world champion advocating 2 nocksets. Can I have an AMEN?:teeth:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Another world champion advocating 2 nocksets. Can I have an AMEN?


A-MEN!! Man I can't say how refreshing and entertaining this thread has been (although most of my entertainment has been via p.m.). It's certainly revived my hopes for the integrety of AT! :thumbs_up


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I think an "AMEN" is appropriate since we seem to be framing it primarily as a matter of faith.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LBR said:


> A-MEN!! Man I can't say how refreshing and entertaining this thread has been (although most of my entertainment has been via p.m.). It's certainly revived my hopes for the integrety of AT! :thumbs_up


"Refreshing" would be an attempt to measure and quantify the effect of a second nock. We get this"It's best because I said so." all day every day from all directions. Nothing refreshing about that.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

itbeso said:


> another world champion advocating 2 nocksets. Can i have an amen?:teeth:


*amen!* :77:


----------



## Nitroboy (Jan 15, 2006)

*amen*


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I like the part where Forrest pointed out the apparent fact that in the vids?..it's not so much the arrow moving downward as it is the string moving upwards..that's a cool catch right there..and adds yet another interesting perspective that peaked my interest in this thread again. 

Which then begs the question...if that's so?..that tells me that i could possibly be inducing porpoising with the addition of a lower nocking point..yes?....no?...maybe?...or?..only if ill tuned? 

I'm going with "only if ill tuned" :laugh:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> "Refreshing" would be an attempt to measure and quantify the effect of a second nock. We get this"It's best because I said so." all day every day from all directions. Nothing refreshing about that.


Let's see...we've had everyone from regular folks like myself to World Champions (and some with World Championships in their future) testify that their shooting improved with a second nock set. We have a slow-motion video showing how the nock doesn't remain in the same position on the string (whether it's due to the nock moving, or the string, is a moot point) and tying on a second nock set eliminates that variable. We've had explanations as to how the second nock point has made a huge difference in broadhead flight. 

On the other hand, we have chastisement claiming the only proof of benefits is "because I said so", which is obviously false...while the other side hypocritically claims there is no benefit "because I said so", offering no proof of anything, and denying/ignoring the evidence offered.

What I find refreshing is rather than a bunch of people getting their posts edited or removed, and others standing in line to kiss the ring and monkey-pile anyone who dares to disagree with "the author", we have open and honest discussion. That's something that, until fairly recently, has been a rarity on AT.

If you aren't refreshed by it, well, ok. But it is very refreshing to me, and I'm sure many others. 

Continuing to deny the evidence presented because it's not measured in numbers just makes you look silly, especially after so much of it has come from sources with outstanding reputations. It's like watching two cars racing on a street. One leaves the other in the dust, but since we can't tell you exactly how many car lengths it won by, or the difference in speed between the two, your "logic" would dictate there is no "evidence" that one car was faster than the other--even when by-standers were telling you which one was faster, and they included Richard Petty and Jeff Gordon.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I should have added, that you'd say that even if the by-standers telling you who won included the likes of Richard Petty and Jeff Gordon.


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

LBR said:


> I should have added, that you'd say that even if the by-standers telling you who won included the likes of Richard Petty and Jeff Gordon.


Amen!


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JINKSTER said:


> I like the part where Forrest pointed out the apparent fact that in the vids?..it's not so much the arrow moving downward as it is the string moving upwards..that's a cool catch right there..and adds yet another interesting perspective that peaked my interest in this thread again.
> 
> Which then begs the question...if that's so?..that tells me that i could possibly be inducing porpoising with the addition of a lower nocking point..yes?....no?...maybe?...or?..only if ill tuned?
> 
> I'm going with "only if ill tuned" :laugh:


Bill - like you I'm a "ok it works but explain to me why it works" kind of guy. I suspect the arrow just travels through the cycle with 2 nock sets and arrives at a consistent end point where as with just one its not ending at a consistent end point. I also suspect that one of the things we are tuning for ( weather we know it or not) when tiller tuning is level nock travel. 

I think this is why the border limbs work so well for string-walking - they are so vertically stiff that they limit the funky nock travel you get with string-walking. 

Matt


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LBR said:


> Continuing to deny the evidence presented because it's not measured in numbers just makes you look silly, especially after so much of it has come from sources with outstanding reputations.


What evidence? The video didn't show how the arrows flew or where they landed. 

In any environment where decisions are made with data, it's not I who would look silly.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

MGF

I was recently shooting with a group of guys when some one new joined the group. He was very open about being new (sandbagger) and wanting tips. 

The very first thing said to him by a 70 year old barebow shooter with numerous national titles to his name was "you need 2 nock sets". Personally if someone who has been playing the game for 50 years at a high level makes such a basic suggestion I'm just going to do it. 

Matt


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I currently have two knock points on the bow that I've been doing my target shooting with. I've gone back and forth...the second nock wears out (my index finger goes right on it) and I leave it off for a while, then put another one on.

I haven't noticed any difference with either bare shafts or fletched arrows. However, I haven't tried to do any sort of controled test to try to see if there is some small difference. Eventually, I do intend to see if there is some different when shooting broad heads. Everything so far with this bow has been with field tips.

I can't say that the second nock doesn't have some effect under some conditions. My best 300 round score so far is 273. It could be that the effect is so small that I'm just not good enough to see it.

Sorry if I offended somebody but the engineer in me just has to ask what the magnitude of the effect is and under what conditions. Even with all the great reputations involved, I guess nobody has anything to offer?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> Bill - like you I'm a "ok it works but explain to me why it works" kind of guy. I suspect the arrow just travels through the cycle with 2 nock sets and arrives at a consistent end point where as with just one its not ending at a consistent end point. I also suspect that one of the things we are tuning for ( weather we know it or not) when tiller tuning is level nock travel.
> 
> I think this is why the border limbs work so well for string-walking - they are so vertically stiff that they limit the funky nock travel you get with string-walking.
> 
> Matt


Cool...but check this out Matt..(and this is like the 3rd time i've brought it up and it seems either no one is catching on or?..i'm all wet and they don't care! LOL!)...but..if it is the string moving up and not the nock moving down?...then?...

*Why is ALL that movement done and over with before the strings 1/2" away from Blackys Fingers?*

cause i think if it were the string moving upwards?...it would continue to do so in a somewhat synchonous motion throughout the shot..but it doesn't..as that nock seems to almost IMMEDIATELY JUMP DOWN into that lower postion within the first 1/2" of string travel...AND STAYS THERE!

sorry for the caps but..like i said..this is like the 3rd time i've mentioned this little phenom observation and while it peaks my intrest as to "why"?..it seems to be ignored by all others thusfar..but i see it as a very important aspect/observation as it appears to me?..in the single nock point vids?..that the arrow immediatly upon release seeks out, and finds where it wants to be and then at knee-jerk/flinch speed gets there and stays there...within a millisecond of release and less than an inch of travel...."why"?

Cause right now?..i'm thinking i just figured out what Doreen Wilbur knew decades ago when she brought home the Gold using zero nocking points and just a pencil mark on her string..that being..by adding any nocking points whatsoever?...you're simply impeding and restricting the arrow from being where it naturally wants to be..which imho?..is dead center of the strings apex upon release.

just a thought.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> MGF
> 
> I was recently shooting with a group of guys when some one new joined the group. He was very open about being new (sandbagger) and wanting tips.
> 
> ...


That's ok and it's probably worth a try if there is no evidence to the contrary. It doesn't make for a very enlightening discussion theough. I've been using two nocks (on and off) and if it's something I need, I just haven't seen it.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

I can't say whether it is some flaw in my form, or some other anomaly, but a double nock set allows me to more accurately/easily tune my rigs.
I can tune & shoot just as well with a single point, but with the single point it takes more effort to get that tune, and I always wind up with a nocking
point that is pretty high compared to where I wind up with a double. 

Rick


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I've been here before. 

Here's a cute (but true) story that I like to tell at times like these. Once I was sent out to an assembly line (an automotive switch) to investigate a long-time problem. I watched the operator at the end of the line take a switch that failed on the "tester", take it apart, turn a round spring a partial turn and place it back on the tester where it then passed. She did that a bunch of times. Oh, the problem was that not only were those switches failing our tests but they would also sometimes fail the customers tests.

This really interested me because, as I said, the spring was round and I couldn't see what difference turning it should make. So I asked the operator. "What if you just re-test it without doing anything?" Well, she and a few others jumped in and promptly explained that it would of course fail. They went on to explain that they had been telling engineers for years and were frustrated that nothing had been done (I had only been there a short time).

I asked the operator to try it just to humor me. In a matter of minutes I proved to the operator that tugging on your left ear lobe has the same effect as rotating the round spring.

There was indeed a problem with the switch which was partially (intermittently) masked by the position of the switch in the test fixture. Reorienting the fixture eliminated (or greatly reduced) the intermittent results and rendered the operator's rotating of the spring ineffective (even by their standards).

They were seeing something. They just didn't understand what it was that they were seeing...even though they cited many years experience and expertise in the building of that switch and great frustration over the fact that I didn't except their word as fact.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> What evidence? The video didn't show how the arrows flew or where they landed.


The nocks move, or at least change position on the string--that's the whole point, and the proof on the video. That is a variable that can be eliminated. 

Where the arrow impacts is a moot point--some folks aren't good enough to shoot the difference. We know it's a fact that if you move the nocking point for the arrow, all else remaining the same, the point of impact with change and the tune will change.

How much it will change will vary depending on the set-up. How much you will notice it depends on how good you are. Again, moot points. It's a fact that if the arrow leaves the string from a different point on the string, it will affect accuracy. The chance of getting that movement to be precisely the same every shot is slim to none--as was already mentioned.

You referance a single quirk on a single assembly line as if that is a legitimate comparsion to the experience of countless professionals. You are implying that eliminating a variable won't aid in consistency. Is that what you learned as an engineer???


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Rick Barbee said:


> I can't say whether it is some flaw in my form, or some other anomaly, but a double nock set allows me to more accurately/easily tune my rigs.
> I can tune & shoot just as well with a single point, but with the single point it takes more effort to get that tune, and I always wind up with a nocking
> point that is pretty high compared to where I wind up with a double.
> 
> Rick


The thing that I've found the most frustrating over the last 6 months or so that I've been working really hard to improve my shooting is trying to figure out which changes really have a positive effect. A lot of things have seemed to work for a time. I think some of the reading I've done has helped but some of it has also sent me off in some pretty crazy directions that turned out to be dead-ends.

My shooting has come a long way but I can't say that a second nock point has had a significant effect one way or the other. Admittedly, this is shooting field tips and mostly 30 yards and under. I may very weel see something different with borad heads or if I move back to 50 yards.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Since no one as of yet has attempted any viable explaination for the question i posed (for the 3rd time) in post #108 above?..i also offer you all this extra morsal of food for thought...

When your fingers leave the string?..it immediately and in an almost violent fashion?..

changes shape.

As that big radius imparted into the string by your fingers being in the way of it wanting to be in a nice tight apex/angle at it's centerpoint of pressure are suddenly removed?...the string immediately changes shape and goes into the nice tight apex shape with only the width of the nock separating the string from it's completely natural shape..as the arrow moves into "the deepest part of the strings apex" (aka "The Throat")..just like your bowhand naturally seeks out the throat of a high wrist grip.

Nocking points?..prevent it from doing so...and would be akin to wrapping a zip-tie around the grip of your bow to keep your hand from naturally sliding up and into the deepest part of the bows grip..the throat of the apex. 

That's my story and i'm sticking to it.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

You make a good point Bill. Don't see anyone commenting probably because there's no argument.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> Cool...but check this out Matt..(and this is like the 3rd time i've brought it up and it seems either no one is catching on or?..i'm all wet and they don't care! LOL!)...but..if it is the string moving up and not the nock moving down?...then?...
> 
> *Why is ALL that movement done and over with before the strings 1/2" away from Blackys Fingers?*
> 
> ...


Just a guess on my part but I also think the _string travels up through the nock_ in the video. What happens as the arrow moves out of the frame in undetermined. I would guess the inertia of the arrow is greater than the friction between the nock and string which results in the nock showing little if any vertical displacement as the string slips through it. 

The real question is where is the nock when the arrow leaves the string. No matter what it does, if it does it consistently you could tune for it. The visual evidence provided by the video, even though incomplete, definitely shows the nock and nock set parting ways as the arrow moves forward. If that movement were in any way inconsistent, it seems to me that would be pretty strong evidence that the second nock point was eliminating a variable. Unfortunately you can't make that case with this video. 

Why the string goes up is another question. I would speculate there is a slight timing or force difference between the top and bottom limb. A question probably easily answered by a bowyer. Tiller, idiosyncracy
of the bow/bows in the video, the archers release or pressure on the string, I don't know.

All you can tell from the video is what happens in the first few inches of arrow travel. Anything else is pure speculation.

Great discussion on what's happening. Since there is little documented evidence on the side of two nock points ( a couple video fragments, well done but incomplete), and _none_ on the superiority of a single nock point, seems you would have to examine the anecdotal evidence provided which is overwhelmingly on the side of two nock points.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> Since no one as of yet has attempted any viable explaination for the question i posed (for the 3rd time) in post #108 above?..i also offer you all this extra morsal of food for thought...
> 
> When your fingers leave the string?..it immediately and in an almost violent fashion?..
> 
> ...


Possibly true. That is basically the reasoning why a second nock point is most often recommended for three under shooters since they would deform the string more than split finger shooter from the ideal of having the nock at the apex of the string angle at anchor. I don't know if that holds up scientifically but it make sense from the surface.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

LBR said:


> You make a good point Bill. Don't see anyone commenting probably because there's no argument.


Thanks LBR...and i can't help but chuckle as i've always been reading about these folks who insist that when shooting 3under?..that the arrow be nocked waaaay abnormally "ABOVE SQUARE"...like 3/4-1" above square nock points?...with the arrow sitting on the bow like a jacked up '70's dragster?...really?..LOL!....when the realty is?..their arrow is immediatley and naturally sliding right back down (from their single nocking point) into it's natural position..because it's not being restrained by a lower nocking point..so you have some single nock point archers starting their tuning regimine at 1" high and working their way down...

too where? :laugh:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LBR said:


> The nocks move, or at least change position on the string--that's the whole point, and the proof on the video. That is a variable that can be eliminated.
> 
> Where the arrow impacts is a moot point--some folks aren't good enough to shoot the difference. We know it's a fact that if you move the nocking point for the arrow, all else remaining the same, the point of impact with change and the tune will change.
> 
> ...


What I learned as an engineer is that you have to ask the right question in order to get the right answer. Where the arrow hits is NOT a moot point.

I saw the arrow move...in both vids. I don't know if that's "good" or "bad". Does it really eliminate a variable and is it a variable of interest? I agree that changing the position of the primary nocking point has an easily demontrable effect on arrow flight and point of impact...even without a second nock. That certainly tells us something bout starting point but I haven't seen anything that tells me about ending point.

My reference to a "single quirk" on an assembly line is just a cute little story that I think does a good job of illustrating human nature. I could reference hundreds of stories that illustrate the same thing involving MANY "professionals". In fact, you could even say that I've made a living questioning the word of those who's word was beyond question. Fortunately for me, they are often wrong and it usually isn't hard to prove it...though you don't win any popularity contests by doing it. The professionals who's word is beyond question just don't like to be questioned, especially, when they are not prepared to back their position.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> Thanks LBR...and i can't help but chuckle as i've always been reading about these folks who insist that when shooting 3under?..that the arrow be nocked waaaay abnormally "ABOVE SQUARE"...like 3/4-1" above square nock points?...with the arrow sitting on the bow like a jacked up '70's dragster?...really?..LOL!....when the realty is?..their arrow is immediatley and naturally sliding right back down (from their single nocking point) into it's natural position..because it's not being restrained by a lower nocking point..so you have some single nock point archers starting their tuning regimine at 1" high and working their way down...
> 
> too where? :laugh:


I haven't found that I need a higher nock location shooting 3 under. Here too, I'm not shooting bare shafts further than 20 yards so maybe I'd see something different if I moved back some.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

A cute but true story. 
I worked at a factory as a machine operator. On one occaision I got to see an engineer destroy a machine worth $250K. He purposefully ignored the warnings of the operator.
On another occaision I got to watch an engineer seriously damage a machine worth $4 mil. It was offline for a month. Molten aluminum actually poured poured out of it. Again the machine operator was purposefully ignored. I understand. You operate a machine for a few years, become familiar with its capabilities, its limits, its specifications, what could you possibly know compared against an engineering degree fresh out of the Cracker Jack box?

Engineers, you gotta love 'em......Can't live with them....hmmmm, ......that's all I got.

So actually making a significant improvement in one's scores, an actual quantifiable number, is not sufficient?

Jinx I see what you're seeing and I believe I have an idea as to why it is happening. Can't prove this, its just a thought. When shooting 3 under there is bit of string that is held pretty straight by the fingers. Upon release, as the limbs move forward that bit could be acting like slack. I know that the string is under tension through its entire length, but that bit held by the fingers does need to be pulled into line with the rest of the string that is heading off to the limb tips, so "slack" is the only word I can think of right now to describe it. That stretch of slack is all below the upper nock set and arrow nock. It takes a tiny but finite amount of time for the lower limb to pull that slack back into line. In the meantime the upper limb is also pulling some of that slack up through the nock. When the slack is all gone, tension is equalized, and the arrow has settled into a "home" position on the string. 

I'm thinking that this theory (unproven) may also explain why this nock slide thing becomes more apparent when shooting 3 under. When shooting split there is a bit of string above the nock set that is also being held straight by a finger. It may help offset the bit held by the fingers below the arrow. And given that split finger was the "only" way to shoot for so many years, the use of one nock set was perfectly adequate for that same time period, and most people had no idea that such a thing as nock slide could even happen.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

MGF

Look at it this way you shoot 273 that's high level shooting right there. 245 wasn't that hard for you to get to - you had to work for 260 and 270 was very hard to get to every single point and arrow counted. Now you are eye balling 280 and you can't effort a single marginal arrow out of 60. If your arrow slides 1/8 of an inch your out of the 5 ring - I'd be doing everything I could equipment wise to keep that from happening even if it only happens once out of 1000 arrows. What if that one arrow is a 3 instead of the 5 that you executed perfectly but got let down by your equipment 278 has a very different ring to it than 280. 

Matt


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LBR said:


> You referance a single quirk on a single assembly line as if that is a legitimate comparsion to the experience of countless professionals. You are implying that eliminating a variable won't aid in consistency. Is that what you learned as an engineer???


I have a better one for you.

Another switch with field failures. The one switch actually had two seperate sets of contacts. It took me about 6 mintes to find that the software to test the second set of contacts wasn't in the test machine. It had never been there. The reason? They had to deliver the machine before there existed parts to test the function of the tester. LOL

It's typical in that the second half is just a copy and past of the first half with changed I/O addresses and you don't bother until you test the first half. It was never done.

So, there I am...called into a big meeting in a conference room with all the big shots INCLUDING the big shot who had been the QA manager AND manufacturing enginssring manger when the switch went into production.

I presented my evidence. They asked me how that could have happened. I could only guess and say that they apparently never tested the machine. Paul (the big shot I'm talking about) says "Yes we did, I did it myself." ok, so I asked to see the test samples and the run-off data...which naturally didn't exist.

I saved the company mllions and got them out of trouble with their biggest customer (Chrysler) AND just about got my balls cut off for it. LOL you see Paul was an accomplished "professional" who's word was beyond question and he was high enough up that his word was beyond question if he said it was.

Then there was the time we had a leaky transmission switch and the tester didn't catch it because they coded the the leak rate calculation wrong. They just mixed units resulting in an error of several orders of magnitude. I looked silly and was pretty much called a liar that time too.

People are very often happier being fed BS because it doesn't require as much effort on their part.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> Thanks LBR...and i can't help but chuckle as i've always been reading about these *folks who insist that when shooting 3under?..that the arrow be nocked waaaay abnormally "ABOVE SQUARE"...like 3/4-1" above square nock points?*...with the arrow sitting on the bow like a jacked up '70's dragster?...really?..LOL!....when the realty is?..their arrow is immediatley and naturally sliding right back down (from their single nocking point) into it's natural position..because it's not being restrained by a lower nocking point..so you have some single nock point archers starting their tuning regimine at 1" high and working their way down...
> 
> too where? :laugh:


Them's fightin' words Jinkster...:set1_STOOGE2:...:wink:

I _always_ end up with a relatively high nock point when I try to shoot three under. I thinks it's a big part of the slight increase in noise I get from my bows when shooting 3U (all my bows are tillered split). I can minimize the additional height of my 3U nock point by taking more pressure on my index finger, which probably comes closer to mimicking the pressure distribution on my fingers when I shoot splitm but it's uncomfortable.

_I even use two nocking points when I'm tuning_...:doh:, but then what do I know, I'm just an old hick out on the prairie. Tied on sets are easy to move.

I'm back to shooting split anyway, but I still end up with a higher nock point than some, in the range of 1/2"-5/8" above perpendicular. Either way, split finger or three under I can get good bare shaft flight out to about 30 yards, which is the farthest I usually shoot bare shafts with my recurve, and that's all I care about.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

MGF said:


> What I learned as an engineer is that you have to ask the right question in order to get the right answer. Where the arrow hits is NOT a moot point.
> 
> I saw the arrow move...in both vids. I don't know if that's "good" or "bad". Does it really eliminate a variable and is it a variable of interest? I agree that changing the position of the primary nocking point has an easily demontrable effect on arrow flight and point of impact...even without a second nock. That certainly tells us something bout starting point but I haven't seen anything that tells me about ending point.
> 
> My reference to a "single quirk" on an assembly line is just a cute little story that I think does a good job of illustrating human nature. I could reference hundreds of stories that illustrate the same thing involving MANY "professionals". In fact, you could even say that I've made a living questioning the word of those who's word was beyond question. Fortunately for me, they are often wrong and it usually isn't hard to prove it...though you don't win any popularity contests by doing it. The professionals who's word is beyond question just don't like to be questioned, especially, when they are not prepared to back their position.


Mgf, I don't think it is a situation where anyone thinks their word is beyond question. Instead, I , personally, am stating my opinion based on years of experimentation, so that anyone coming on these threads looking for suggestions, such as the op, doesn't have to go through the many years of frustration that many of us here spent trying to improve our game. It doesn't matter where information comes from. I have, on many occasions, been around other archers, not especially noted for their prowess, and heard a little gem come from someones mouth that caused me to take notice and want to go home and try it. Do they always work? No. But, over the course of years, you will pick up enough to help improve your game. It is hard enough to find practice time in archery so I personally, do not spend time trying to scientifically prove or disprove things that I feel work the best. Nor do I feel compelled to force my opinions on people looking to argue them, but I will usually be adamant about the important parts of making your setup shoot better. Whether an archer choses to use that info is on them, at least I walk away knowing I tried my best to give back to this sport. There are many top competitors who won't let go of their trade secrets, which is a shame in itself.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

As some have mentioned, what we don't see in the video presented is all the other things that are going on at the moment of release. We know that the top limb is obviously moving in an upward direction so the string is forced to follow it. Anything attached to the string,nocking point in this case, will also be forced upward. It just doesn't seem like a good idea to jerk the back end of the arrow upwards at a high rate of speed at such a critical time.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

MGF said:


> I haven't found that I need a higher nock location shooting 3 under. Here too, I'm not shooting bare shafts further than 20 yards so maybe I'd see something different if I moved back some.


Well now that you bring up bareshafting?...and also aluding to how the un-educated human mind can tend to wander a bit until they figure out why the rules governing physics are known as "laws"? LOL!...i offer you this little tidbit..because i discovered that when i (as a prefered instinctive shooter) bareshaft tune?..

I "HAFTA" consciously use "A Gap Aiming System"...and here's why..

If i try to bareshaft tune by aiming intuitively?...here's what happens..

I shoot my 3 fletched first...and my first fletched shot seems to always come as somewhat of a bit of a surprise by an inch or several..then i'd aim for that arrow (wherever it may be) and the following two fletched shots would typically wind up right there with it....then the first bareshaft?...might be there (if it is in fact well tuned) but more often than not wouldn't be with the fletched (when not tuned)..but guess where the last two bareshafts would always seem to be wether it was properly tuned or not?..yep...right with the fletched...yeilding me with an end result of.."A False State Of Tune"..writing the first bareshaft off as a fluke or bad shot in some way when te truth of the matter was i subconsciously (and un-wittingly for wuite awhile) compensated (based on the first bareshaft) and physically moved and put the last two with the fletched..instead of aqquiring a proper tune...and it took me about a solid year to figure that crap out! :laugh:

and realize..a proper bareshaft state-of-tune can not be properly aqquired by an archer who's aiming intuitively..and that i hafta hold a hard fixed gap to aqquire such that DOESN'T end with.."A False State-Of-Tune".

Now here's the rub as it could possibly apply here...

Via "Intuitive/Subconscious Adjustment"?...I can impose a veritable plethora of physical influences upon the bow to get an ill-tuned rig to launch a clean flying arrow...<insert "Keyword" here>..."UN-WITTINGLY"...and if i can do it?...lotsa folks can..and most likely do..just like me...and wind up with great end results from rigs that may be suffering from numerous tuning malodys..and i've seen it many times before..as it seems there's no end to the deltas of "What We Know" and "What We Think We Know"..couple that with what at first glance seems to be the most basic projectile casting weapon known to man?..in it's simpliest form?.."Stick & String"..and how much we can complicate it?..i guess that's what i find most intriguing about trad archery. :laugh:

One stick..one string...one arrow...thousands of years...millions of archers...and?..

it's glarringly obviouse..

we still don't have it all figured out! :laugh:

and i still can't imagine what thoughts might go through the minds of the wheelie crowd when they see a thread 2 days old, and 5 pages long on a topic of...

"One Lump or Two?" :laugh:

and the immense science behind it...L8R, Bill.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Great discussion guys! Been interesting to see the experienced guys go at it. I think I'm with MGF in a sense.

I think it's important to kind of take a step back.

This is what I've gathered so far: first step is to understand both sides of the argument. I don't think anyone was saying "one nock point is superior", therefore I don't think it's rightly stating the other viewpoint.
So what we have is "one is sufficient" and "two is necessary".

As far as evidence, it's all been "case" or "anecdotal" so far. Doesn't mean disregard it, just means you can't imply *causation*.

The video evidence we have, as Jinks wisely pointed out, is _not_ sufficient proof for a second nock point, since it appears the nock slides down (or string goes up, doesn't really matter in this point) the same distance either way. Since we don't know if that movement is variable based on the evidence, we again can't say that this is proof for the "two nock" theory.
Looking at the rest of it, there are a number of guys on here (very experienced) who claim that two nock points has made a difference. Again, who knows what the variables are and whether or not it's 100% true that the nock points made the difference, we can't really know. Still nothing to imply causation in any sort of sound matter.

Big picture, common sense conclusion: yes, no one here can claim that two nock points causes more accuracy than one. But, based on the fact that there are a number of very experienced archers who have anecdotally said it does make a difference, and there is (albeit very limited) video footage showing the nock point sliding down, at this point I think it's rather logical to conclude that two nocking points makes sense, since there is no downside (other than with using two brass beads) to tying a nock below the first. You are not losing anything by doing so, it costs next to nothing, and at best you are eliminating a possible variable.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

CFGuy said:


> Great discussion guys! Been interesting to see the experienced guys go at it. I think I'm with MGF in a sense.
> 
> I think it's important to kind of take a step back.
> 
> ...


Ding, ding, ding...I think we have a winner...:shade:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

FORESTGUMP said:


> As some have mentioned, what we don't see in the video presented is all the other things that are going on at the moment of release. We know that the top limb is obviously moving in an upward direction so the string is forced to follow it. Anything attached to the string,nocking point in this case, will also be forced upward. It just doesn't seem like a good idea to jerk the back end of the arrow upwards at a high rate of speed at such a critical time.


Forest..yes..the top limb does in fact move upward..hopefully about the same amount that the lower limb moves downward..and from midpoint upwards?...yes..the string moves upwards...but from midpoint downwards?...the string moves downward..and yes..there are other controlling factors such as limb tillering..and how tight or loose the string radius portion of the nocks fit the actual string diameter..(thereby dictating how easily or reluctantly and the speed at which they'll move on the string)..as the weight of the arrow itself could potentially "Move" (via inertia lock) the true apex/midpoint of the string...and since the 3under shooter pulls from a lower point and the split finger shooter pulls from a high point?...this also explains why there are subtle differences in nockpoint heigth between the two as well as the stereotypical splitfinger shooter enjoying a somewhat quieter shooting bow...but physics is physics..and to my minds eye?...upon release?..the arrow will always tend to seek out and rapidly head towards the strings apex..the deepest part of the throat..unless we limit it's range of motion with the addition of a second lower nocking point..so your right...as the arrow is always nocked above center no matter which grasp of the string the archer chooses?..the string above midpoint will tend to want to drag the arrow upwards with it..while the arrow will tend to wanna move downward towards the strings true apex..ones fighting the other..and viola.."Porpousing"..occurs...via vertical plane stress induction.

Ya like that one MGF? :laugh:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

CFGuy, I'm not so sure. Are you eliminating a variable or adding another one, and is it really needed to start with? It seems to work in practice for lots of people,but why? I want to know why it works.


I don't know Jinks, mine don't tend to porpoise unless I get the nock point too high. So, are those who shoot three under creating the very problem that is being solved by an additional nocking point under the arrow? Maybe that's why I never accepted the three under method. Created more variables to be compensated for.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Man...i thought this thread was gonna be a lame'r but..through intelligent discussion?..this thread is off the chain! :laugh:

and has stirred all sorts of thoughts within my twisted mind..and right now?..i've gotta brand new 18 strand triple bundle FF+ string laying in front of me...and right now?..i'm gonna toss it on the new SuperK with no silencers, wraps or?..you guessed it.."nock points"...zero....like doreen wilbur did it..i am then going to place some sorta "mark" 9/16th above the shelf (where my arrows seem pristinely tuned shooting 3 under) and nock by sight..then i'm gonna toss on my bigshot glove and shoot it split finger..ya'll want me to vid the results? :laugh:

I dunno if ya'll are interested but i am! 

heck...i'm actually excited for some reason!..but then again?..i don't get outta the house much. :laugh:


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Matt_Potter said:


> MGF
> 
> Look at it this way you shoot 273 that's high level shooting right there. 245 wasn't that hard for you to get to - you had to work for 260 and 270 was very hard to get to every single point and arrow counted. Now you are eye balling 280 and you can't effort a single marginal arrow out of 60. If your arrow slides 1/8 of an inch your out of the 5 ring - I'd be doing everything I could equipment wise to keep that from happening even if it only happens once out of 1000 arrows. What if that one arrow is a 3 instead of the 5 that you executed perfectly but got let down by your equipment 278 has a very different ring to it than 280.
> 
> Matt


All true. I have certaily done things because they seemed to work yesterday with no explanation as to why. I'll tug on my ear lobe if I think I might pick up a few points. A wise man once said "What works, works."


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> MGF
> 
> Look at it this way you shoot 273 that's high level shooting right there. 245 wasn't that hard for you to get to - you had to work for 260 and 270 was very hard to get to every single point and arrow counted. Now you are eye balling 280 and you can't effort a single marginal arrow out of 60. If your arrow slides 1/8 of an inch your out of the 5 ring - I'd be doing everything I could equipment wise to keep that from happening even if it only happens once out of 1000 arrows. What if that one arrow is a 3 instead of the 5 that you executed perfectly but got let down by your equipment 278 has a very different ring to it than 280.
> 
> Matt





MGF said:


> All true. I have certaily done things because they seemed to work yesterday with no explanation as to why. I'll tug on my ear lobe if I think I might pick up a few points. A wise man once said "What works, works."


Absolutely!...Great Call Matt!...cause with as much discipline and dedication the archer MUST invest into each and every shot?..

if I don't have complete and utter confidence in the tune of my bow?..

my efforts at execution typically wind up compromised and fall short.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> CFGuy, I'm not so sure. Are you eliminating a variable or adding another one, and is it really needed to start with? It seems to work in practice for lots of people,but why? I want to know why it works.


Great question. Problem is, at this point we have no idea. As far as the limited evidence we have goes, two points seems favourable. I'd love to know why too, and whether or not it is a variable.



> So, are those who shoot three under creating the very problem that is being solved by an additional nocking point under the arrow? Maybe that's why I never accepted the three under method. Created more variables to be compensated for.


Good point - again though, even if shooting 3 under is creating a variable and this is changing it, it's worth it in my eyes - smaller gaps mean user error (in terms of gauging distance) is lessened in a statistically significant way.

I don't really get why this wouldn't happen with split though if the arrow was placed similarly under a nocking point as opposed to above.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Bender said:


> A cute but true story.
> I worked at a factory as a machine operator. On one occaision I got to see an engineer destroy a machine worth $250K. He purposefully ignored the warnings of the operator.
> On another occaision I got to watch an engineer seriously damage a machine worth $4 mil. It was offline for a month. Molten aluminum actually poured poured out of it. Again the machine operator was purposefully ignored. I understand. You operate a machine for a few years, become familiar with its capabilities, its limits, its specifications, what could you possibly know compared against an engineering degree fresh out of the Cracker Jack box?
> 
> Engineers, you gotta love 'em......Can't live with them....hmmmm, ......that's all I got.


Engineers are not immune to human nature or the desire to take "the easy way". In fact, my last little story told of the follies of a former engineer who had moved way up the ladder. I worked as an engineer for about 17 years. I could count the engineer I worked with who I really thought were "good" or talented on one hand and probably have a couple of fingers left over. That's out of at least hundreds of engineers working for dozens of different companies and living in several different countries.

My first job out of school was as a technician. It just so happened that the lab was physically between the "front" offices and manufacturing that as in "back". We had a saying..."The people in back consider us as people up front and the people up front don't consider us".

That held as something of an axiom throughout my career.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

CFGuy said:


> Great discussion guys! Been interesting to see the experienced guys go at it. I think I'm with MGF in a sense.
> 
> I think it's important to kind of take a step back.
> 
> ...


I'd have to agree. If a significant percentage of top shooters are using it, it's really doubtful that it could really hurt. As I said, I usually have one on the bow that I've been shooting the most. That just doesn't stop me from questioning it.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Bender: The same can be said for virtually any field with similar divisions, be it army (experienced NCO's vs. young 2LT's), the medical field (arrogant doctors ignoring the wisdom of those more experienced), etc. Good illustration to look for what people know and what they do with it, not what their piece of paper says. I personally know some incredibly ignorant clinicians who I would honestly be confident enough to debate with regarding basic, practical practice (specifically rehab) - and I don't consider myself to know much in light of who I study under.

MGF: Of course, I haven't stopped questioning it either - I'd love to know. As for now though, this is doing the best I can with the information I have - ignoring it seems to be the less wise choice in this case.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Mgf, I don't think it is a situation where anyone thinks their word is beyond question. Instead, I , personally, am stating my opinion based on years of experimentation, so that anyone coming on these threads looking for suggestions, such as the op, doesn't have to go through the many years of frustration that many of us here spent trying to improve our game. It doesn't matter where information comes from. I have, on many occasions, been around other archers, not especially noted for their prowess, and heard a little gem come from someones mouth that caused me to take notice and want to go home and try it. Do they always work? No. But, over the course of years, you will pick up enough to help improve your game. It is hard enough to find practice time in archery so I personally, do not spend time trying to scientifically prove or disprove things that I feel work the best. Nor do I feel compelled to force my opinions on people looking to argue them, but I will usually be adamant about the important parts of making your setup shoot better. Whether an archer choses to use that info is on them, at least I walk away knowing I tried my best to give back to this sport. There are many top competitors who won't let go of their trade secrets, which is a shame in itself.


I understand and I don't really diagree with your approach. For all practical purposes, it's probably about the best that somebody could expect.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

MGF said:


> I understand and I don't really diagree with your approach. For all practical purposes, it's probably about the best that somebody could expect.



Not saying that two nocks points is wrong or right, but we know that it's possible to do some things wrong and still produce consistent results by doing it precisely the same way every time.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Not saying that two nocks points is wrong or right, but we know that it's possible to do some things wrong and still produce consistent results by doing it precisely the same way every time.


No where it gets perhaps unnecessarily complex (since this is theory more than anything), is defining what "wrong" means. If doing something "wrong" leads to _more_ consistency, is it still wrong?

Not that I'm disagreeing, just discussing. Still open to interpretation in my eyes, but I'm using two points for right now. I'll side with the experienced since I have nothing better to go off of.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

itbeso said:


> I don't think it is a situation where anyone thinks their word is beyond question. Instead, I , personally, am stating my opinion based on years of experimentation, so that anyone coming on these threads looking for suggestions, such as the op, doesn't have to go through the many years of frustration that many of us here spent trying to improve our game.


Itbeso, conventional wisdom seems to always prevail. Why? Because it makes more sense sometimes than not given the data doesn't always prove one way or the other. In that regard, two nock sets can be prudent from the sense of conventional wisdom. That's why I use two, can't hurt but don't really know if helps any for real because it's there and because I didn't have a problem beforehand, but it's there. For the person that wants to know the real basis for the conventional wisdom, it helps to have the expert opinions. That's why it's good you threw a lot into your opinion and as an expert on the subject, you see the facts to it as real facts. 

Now, for other experts. Do they add to the basis or just muddy it. That's why I referred you to look at other conversations. There have been a few discussions over in the FITA forum along these lines, but never to the extent of it being imperative to scoring. Just again, good practice in conventional wisdom by some if not many shooters. There, you have experts like McKinney stating a single brass nock has served him well his whole career. He never got the memo on it being imperative to his score? - or, he just might be that good he didn't need a second. Then, you as an expert, and I mean that really, state that a tie on is better than a brass because it conforms to the nock. McKinney states that he has always felt that a brass set is more clean at contact with the nock and less chance of binding or riding into the nock groove, exactly the effect you want. So, from a new OP, who's the best expert to listen to there?

For me, I was never pitting any one expert opinion against another or questioning any opinion, just showing how in light of conflicting expert opinions, and lack of any real data one way or the other, it's not totally out of line for anyone to want to know the real truth to why they do conventional wisdom. If it's better scores, it's testable. If past champions have won Olympic medals on several occasions without any or with one, it that still the case? Do they just have the skill? But, if there's proven fact that maybe it prevents one loss of point or two, why did they not use two? Why do many use them? Is it insurance against some occasional finger displacement? Any of these topics seem better to pursue than just the fact that most all good shooters do it and trying to shut down the conversation based on who is expert to comment and who is not, or, just because it's done by the best. If there's scoring facts, who is experiencing them and by how much to make it imperative? If it's for insurance, that's different. I do it, but I know it has nothing to do with nock slide unless I induced that slide. I lean to the insurance side since the premium is so low, so why not? That's a very different way of looking at it, knowing at least one reason, even if on the far side, for your set up but still knowing it may or may not be necessary.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> What I learned as an engineer is that you have to ask the right question in order to get the right answer. Where the arrow hits is NOT a moot point.


In the video, it absolutely is a moot point. You can hit the bull with a poorly tuned set-up. JRW won big tournaments with over-spined arrows. If you are consistent, you can adjust. Again, not the point. The point was, with only one nock point, the placement of the nock on the string can move.

Does arrow placement on the string affect consistency? Does consistency affect accuracy? Can the nock sliding around on the string be consistent for every shot?




> I saw the arrow move...in both vids. I don't know if that's "good" or "bad". Does it really eliminate a variable and is it a variable of interest?


Then why use a nockset at all? How can it NOT eliminate a variable???? That makes no sense. A second nock set stops nock travel. Nock travel is obviously not consistent. 



> I agree that changing the position of the primary nocking point has an easily demontrable effect on arrow flight and point of impact...even without a second nock. That certainly tells us something bout starting point but I haven't seen anything that tells me about ending point.


So now it matters? You seem to be contradicting yourself. You can purposely change the nock point and see a difference. This isn't rocket science.




> My reference to a "single quirk" on an assembly line is just a cute little story that I think does a good job of illustrating human nature. I could reference hundreds of stories that illustrate the same thing involving MANY "professionals".


And those of us who have delt with engineers on the job could tell the same basic stories about engineers--I could write a book. It's not a relevant comparison. 



> In fact, you could even say that I've made a living questioning the word of those who's word was beyond question. Fortunately for me, they are often wrong and it usually isn't hard to prove it...though you don't win any popularity contests by doing it. The professionals who's word is beyond question just don't like to be questioned, especially, when they are not prepared to back their position.


Nobody has said their word was without question. The fact of the matter is they have figured it out--unlike the people in your scenario. It's not broken, they aren't denying the fix--you are. They have proven they can do the job, do it consistently, and do it better than anyone else. They don't need an engineer to figure it out for them--again, just the opposite of your scenarios. 

They have it working correctly, and the engineer is trying to say "no, you really don't know what you are talking about" because the answers and experiences don't fall within your chosen parameters. Because you don't like the way the answer is presented doesn't change the accuracy of the answer. Just because Petty and Gordon can't give you the formula for why car A was faster than car B doesn't change which car crossed the finish line first, or mean that Petty and Gordon don't know what they are talking about.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Conventions are interesting and what's popular doesn't always have a good reason.

How to cook fish...a woman is teaching her daughter how to prepare fish. She says cut it up like this that and the other and put it in the oven. The daughter says why do we cut it up that way and Mom says "That's how my mom showed me.

So the girl goes to her grandmother and asks "Why do we cut up the fish this way?" Grandma says "That's the way your great grandma taught me.".

The girl was fortunate and great grandma was still alive so she asked her why we cut the fish this way. Great grandma says "Well, the oven I had back then was too small for the fish to fit in so I had to cut them."

So, three generations down the road, they're still cutting the fish the same way even though they don't need to without giving it any thought.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

LBR said:


> In the video, it absolutely is a moot point. You can hit the bull with a poorly tuned set-up. JRW won big tournaments with over-spined arrows. If you are consistent, you can adjust. Again, not the point. The point was, with only one nock point, the placement of the nock on the string can move.
> 
> Does arrow placement on the string affect consistency? Does consistency affect accuracy? Can the nock sliding around on the string be consistent for every shot?


You've got me all confused now. I thought the point was to hit the target.


> Then why use a nockset at all? How can it NOT eliminate a variable???? That makes no sense. A second nock set stops nock travel. Nock travel is obviously not consistent.
> 
> 
> So now it matters? You seem to be contradicting yourself. You can purposely change the nock point and see a difference. This isn't rocket science.


How is it obvious that nock travel isn't consistent? I use a nock point because I probably wouldn't place the arrow in the same starting point consistantly without it. It's a marker.


> And those of us who have delt with engineers on the job could tell the same basic stories about engineers--I could write a book. It's not a relevant comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now you're just getting silly.

Lets put some money on this. Lets set a base line...your shooting, my shooting, anybody or a bunch of us. Lets shoot a bunch of arrows with one and with two over some period of time. Have to think it through a little...maybe a shooting machine? I'm open.

Oh, the money part. We bet on the the point spread between one nock and two.

What do you say? Two is obviously better so it should be easy money for you. How much are you in for?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

MGF said:


> You've got me all confused now. I thought the point was to hit the target.
> 
> How is it obvious that nock travel isn't consistent? I use a nock point because I probably wouldn't place the arrow in the same starting point consistantly without it. It's a marker.
> 
> ...


all in as long as fingers are used on the shooting machine and not a release.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

LBR said:


> Then why use a nockset at all? How can it NOT eliminate a variable???? That makes no sense. *A second nock set stops nock travel. Nock travel is obviously not consistent.*


_None_ of the evidence so far has proven this in any way. You have shown nothing to prove this yourself - even if true, to those reading this that is a big assumption.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Itbeso, conventional wisdom seems to always prevail. Why? Because it makes more sense sometimes than not given the data doesn't always prove one way or the other. In that regard, two nock sets can be prudent from the sense of conventional wisdom. That's why I use two, can't hurt but don't really know if helps any for real because it's there and because I didn't have a problem beforehand, but it's there. For the person that wants to know the real basis for the conventional wisdom, it helps to have the expert opinions. That's why it's good you threw a lot into your opinion and as an expert on the subject, you see the facts to it as real facts.
> 
> Now, for other experts. Do they add to the basis or just muddy it. That's why I referred you to look at other conversations. There have been a few discussions over in the FITA forum along these lines, but never to the extent of it being imperative to scoring. Just again, good practice in conventional wisdom by some if not many shooters. There, you have experts like McKinney stating a single brass nock has served him well his whole career. He never got the memo on it being imperative to his score? - or, he just might be that good he didn't need a second. Then, you as an expert, and I mean that really, state that a tie on is better than a brass because it conforms to the nock. McKinney states that he has always felt that a brass set is more clean at contact with the nock and less chance of binding or riding into the nock groove, exactly the effect you want. So, from a new OP, who's the best expert to listen to there?
> 
> For me, I was never pitting any one expert opinion against another or questioning any opinion, just showing how in light of conflicting expert opinions, and lack of any real data one way or the other, it's not totally out of line for anyone to want to know the real truth to why they do conventional wisdom. If it's better scores, it's testable. If past champions have won Olympic medals on several occasions without any or with one, it that still the case? Do they just have the skill? But, if there's proven fact that maybe it prevents one loss of point or two, why did they not use two? Why do many use them? Is it insurance against some occasional finger displacement? Any of these topics seem better to pursue than just the fact that most all good shooters do it and trying to shut down the conversation based on who is expert to comment and who is not, or, just because it's done by the best. If there's scoring facts, who is experiencing them and by how much to make it imperative? If it's for insurance, that's different. I do it, but I know it has nothing to do with nock slide unless I induced that slide. I lean to the insurance side since the premium is so low, so why not? That's a very different way of looking at it, knowing at least one reason, even if on the far side, for your set up but still knowing it may or may not be necessary.


Sanford, I really do not consider myself an expert, just experienced. Talking to a couple of your points, there is a completely different dynamic to releasing the string split vs 3 under, and taking that even further, split can be broken down into several different dynamics such as split with more bottom finger, split with mostly middle finger, split with mostly index finger, split using 2 fingers, etc. Each of those scenarios will impact how much nock slide you will have without a bottom nockset. The same goes for 3 under so having a lower nockset will negate all those variables and let the arrow exit from the string the same everytime. There has been mention of Doreen Wilbur winning the olympics with no nocksets. Has anyone on here, besides myself ever talked to Doreen or physically seen her bow and setup? Her arrow was captured on the string over and under so put that bs to rest. Rick mcKinney was a great Oly style shooter but maybe, just maybe, he might have been an Olympic champion with two nock sets. Just saying.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

CFGuy said:


> _None_ of the evidence so far has proven this in any way. You have shown nothing to prove this yourself - even if true, to those reading this that is a big assumption.


What's not understood by some is if you have nock travel, you cannot totally eliminate it. You either let it ride or fixate the arrow to it. Nock travel is inherent in the dynamic tiller of the bow, built into the bow, unless the bow is designed to have adjustment to compensate for it. Here's a brief explanation: http://www.bowhunting.net/eMagazine/Articles/2003/03-RexDarlington-NockTravel.html


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> _None_ of the evidence so far has proven this in any way. You have shown nothing to prove this yourself - even if true, to those reading this that is a big assumption.


There is an absolutely positive way to prove it that I have used many times. Crimp a lower nockset on lightly so there is no resistance and shoot an arrow. The lower nockset will be forced down. Do it ten times and measure the distance down every time. You will be enlightened.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

itbeso said:


> Sanford, I really do not consider myself an expert, just experienced. Talking to a couple of your points, there is a completely different dynamic to releasing the string split vs 3 under, and taking that even further, split can be broken down into several different dynamics such as split with more bottom finger, split with mostly middle finger, split with mostly index finger, split using 2 fingers, etc. Each of those scenarios will impact how much nock slide you will have without a bottom nockset. The same goes for 3 under so having a lower nockset will negate all those variables and let the arrow exit from the string the same everytime. There has been mention of Doreen Wilbur winning the olympics with no nocksets. Has anyone on here, besides myself ever talked to Doreen or physically seen her bow and setup? Her arrow was captured on the string over and under so put that bs to rest. Rick mcKinney was a great Oly style shooter but maybe, just maybe, he might have been an Olympic champion with two nock sets. Just saying.


Can't argue that! Good points to consider. How we eventually release the string matters on arrow impact. I've seen it when my pressure points change considerably, and how we tune via our release initially to it matters.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

CFGuy said:


> _None_ of the evidence so far has proven this in any way. You have shown nothing to prove this yourself - even if true, to those reading this that is a big assumption.




There again,how do you define consistent? If it's zero tolerance then we have no way to make comparison. But, based on my own personal obersavation of the two videos of two different arrows shot by two different shooters, then it appeared to be pretty consistent. It seemed to be moving about the same distance from the nockpoint in both cases. Actually it was more like the arrow seeking straight and level flight and the nock point moving upward away from it.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> There is an absolutely positive way to prove it that I have used many times. Crimp a lower nockset on lightly so there is no resistance and shoot an arrow. The lower nockset will be forced down. Do it ten times and measure the distance down every time. You will be enlightened.


Just for the heck of it,how about you tell us about your observations of that test. I think most will believe it. I believe that the lower nockset has the effect of offsetting an out of balance situation created by a high nock position used for three under shooting. I can't possibly say if I'm right or not.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Forrest, for some shooters the lower nock is exactly for what itbeso describes. To measure and keep tabs on ANY nock point changes. If you know the usual nocking gap you have a permanent and ready gauge in the field.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> You've got me all confused now. I thought the point was to hit the target.


What is the first lesson in "Archery 101"? If you don't have consistency, how do you consistently hit the target? Obviously the video isn't about hitting the target, it's how the nock doesn't stay in the same place on the string without a second nock set.



> How is it obvious that nock travel isn't consistent?


Itbeso covered that. Why do you think mechanical releases were invented? *hint* Consistency....



> Now you're just getting silly.


Hey, it was your scenario.



> Lets put some money on this.


Now who is being silly? You have testimony from several excellent archers, including World Champions, and you basically are saying they either aren't being truthful or simply don't know what they are talking about. Why would you believe me, a nobody, saying the same thing? For that matter, why would I believe you?



> None of the evidence so far has proven this in any way. You have shown nothing to prove this yourself - even if true, to those reading this that is a big assumption.



???? Ok, again I ask this question--for the 3rd or 4th time I think--how can a second nock set NOT stop nock travel? How can the nock pass through it and keep moving? That doesn't make any sense at all. Unless of course you place it with a big gap in-between, which is pointless.



> There is an absolutely positive way to prove it that I have used many times. Crimp a lower nockset on lightly so there is no resistance and shoot an arrow. The lower nockset will be forced down. Do it ten times and measure the distance down every time. You will be enlightened.


That should be simple enough. I may do that just for kicks, to see how much I get on various bows with split and 3-under. 'Course there will be people who ignore and/or deny the results, even if you get it on film!:loco:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

well?...one things definantly become glarringly apparent in the last hour or so.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

FORESTGUMP said:


> There again,how do you define consistent? If it's zero tolerance then we have no way to make comparison. But, based on my own personal obersavation of the two videos of two different arrows shot by two different shooters, then it appeared to be pretty consistent. It seemed to be moving about the same distance from the nockpoint in both cases. Actually it was more like the arrow seeking straight and level flight and the nock point moving upward away from it.


True. Well before I would say that something is inconsistent, you'd need a decent sample size - two is far too small. I agree with you, the nock seemed to move consistenly, but LBR has said that nock moving is inconsistent which is what I was referring to.
Based on the collective data we have though, and from itbeso saying it as well, is that again it's more logical to go with the second option.

itbeso: Problem though is how do you know it's the nock moving the point down and not the fingers on the nock point?


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> ...but LBR has said that nock moving is inconsistent which is what I was referring to.


I wasn't referring to the video, but in general. Can't tell if it's consistent or not with one shot. That's why the release aid was invented--nobody has a perfect release. If we could get the same release every time, the release aid would be pointless. Some are much better than others, none are perfect.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

LBR said:


> Itbeso covered that. Why do you think mechanical releases were invented? *hint* Consistency....


This has little, if anything, to do with nock slide consistency. True, but relevant to the conversation it's somewhat of a red herring.



> ???? Ok, again I ask this question--for the 3rd or 4th time I think--how can a second nock set NOT stop nock travel? How can the nock pass through it and keep moving? That doesn't make any sense at all. Unless of course you place it with a big gap in-between, which is pointless.


a) the nock might not reach the second nock, b) if you're using a tie-on, it can potentially catch on it (again it depends). I agree though, two brass beads or a proper bottom nock won't-not stop the nock. The issue though isn't the capability of it stopping nock travel, it's that you made an outright claim that nock travel is entirely inconsistent, which I've seen no evidence for so far save for anecdotal experience (not that I minimize that itbeso, remember I'm going with your wisdom here as to what I'm actually doing). You're making a claim and if I read correct, doing so as if opposite opinions are contrary to evidence, which is not yet the case.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

LBR said:


> I wasn't referring to the video, but in general. Can't tell if it's consistent or not with one shot. That's why the release aid was invented--nobody has a perfect release. If we could get the same release every time, the release aid would be pointless. Some are much better than others, none are perfect.


Wrote my other reply before I saw this. True, good point. Again why I'll opt for the second nock point.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

crw4 said:


> i shoot bb recurve three under.
> 42# @ 28"
> 62"
> 
> ...


one....


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

If the nock is moving the string is moving. A second nock set will have no effect other than to carry the arrow with the travel. The travel cannot be stopped by the second nock set.


----------



## crw4 (Feb 22, 2010)

I did not realise my request for thoughts on "one or two" would create so many responses. THANKYOU
I set two nocks yesterday and my grouping way improved.
Works for me so two it is.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Sanford said:


> If the nock is moving the string is moving. A second nock set will have no effect other than to carry the arrow with the travel. The travel cannot be stopped by the second nock set.


Oooh interesting!


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I think it's pretty safe to assume that _any_ recurve or longbow shot with fingers, regardless whether the hold is split or three under, will exhibit less than perfectly straight and level nock travel. It's the rare _compound_ that has close to straight and level nock travel and even that would require just the right tune and a mechanical release. With a stickbow, holding and releasing the bow is most likely going to produce nock travel _in addition_ to the inherent nock travel of the design and tiller of the bow. Not only do you have all the different possible combinations of finger pressure on the string, you have the string rolling off the fingers at release and picking up lateral movement.

The best you can hope for is to keep the nock travel consistent. The one thing the video _does_ show is the string sliding up through the nock. A dynamic motion like that is going to be very easily influenced by any inconsistency in the shooters form and release. I think the one thing you can take from the video is there will most likely be displacement between the nock and nock point at release. I would feel pretty safe that this displacement will be anything but consistent, and I don't think you can accurately determine the consistency from those two videos. It wouldn't have to be a large inconsistency to influence arrow flight. Think about bare shaft tuning, 1/16" can make the difference between good bare shaft flight and a nock high condition. I really doubt a dynamic motion like presented in the video is going to be consistent to that degree.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Sanford said:


> If the nock is moving the string is moving. A second nock set will have no effect other than to carry the arrow with the travel. The travel cannot be stopped by the second nock set.


Exactly. But at least it will be consistent because you eliminate the other variable of nock motion _on the string_.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

crw4 said:


> I did not realise my request for thoughts on "one or two" would create so many responses. THANKYOU
> I set two nocks yesterday and my grouping way improved.
> Works for me so two it is.


Come on back when you want to discuss the inherent superiority of instinctive or gap aiming methods...:wink:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Good call Easy.



> Come on back when you want to discuss the inherent superiority of instinctive or gap aiming methods


Not NEARLY as awful as "Is instinctive aiming instinctive".


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Easykeeper said:


> Exactly. But at least it will be consistent because you eliminate the other variable of nock motion _on the string_.


That's a good question! IIRC, a person related to the making of the video even posed that question himself at one time in another discussion. Kinda an equilibrium in the inconsistency - which is better, having inconsistent arrow nock travel up with the string nock, which means the same inconsistent movement in reverse when moved back again, or have a means to slip between on inconsistent movement.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Sanford said:


> That's a good question! IIRC, a person related to the making of the video even posed that question himself at one time in another discussion. Kinda an equilibrium in the inconsistency - which is better, having inconsistent arrow nock travel up with the string nock, which means the same inconsistent movement in reverse when moved back again, or have a means to slip between on inconsistent movement.


If the displacement between the nock and nock point that is seen in the video was _consistent_ and resulted in less _actual_ vertical displacement of the nock relative to true level travel during the time the arrow is on the string, it would be a good thing. However I think it's unlikely that the unrestrained motion of the nock _on_ the string (one nock point) would be as consistent as the restrained motion of the nock _with_ the string (two nock points) even though the restrained nock follows a less than ideal path.

If you assume the video shows the nock "seeking" the optimal path and not just an imbalance of forces between the string and friction of the nock in the vertical plane you then have to wonder if inconsistent but closer to ideal (one nock point and let the nock find it's place) is preferable to consistent but further from ideal (the nock is trapped by two nock points and forced to follow the path of that point on the string).

I would think what really counts is the position of the nock on the string at the moment it _leaves_ the string.

Unfortunately with the scientific evidence presented there is no conclusion to be drawn. The fact that I go with two nock points on all my bows puts me in the camp of consistency being easiest to deal with. I personally feel that if there were 10 videos each of the two archers you would find 10 _slightly_ different amounts of slip. I have no way to prove that, it's really just speculation on my part. It would take very little change in the amount of slip to show up in arrow flight or vertical dispersion at the target.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> Really good point. The nock is only going to slide if the bow or shooter is causing some kind of vertical acceleration upwards.



Contrary to popular belief, nock slide is *not* a result of a tuning issue, nor is it a result of vertical acceleration upwards. 

It is a result of finger placement on the string and the arrow sliding down the string to fill the void created by those fingers at the split second it rolls off the fingers. (figure 3) As seen in my illustration, this is most prevalent with three fingers under (but still happens with two fingers under). Because of where your fingers are on the string, the string is actually drawn back further than the nock (as seen in figure 2) and at the split second of release, the nock slides down to meet the apex of the string.



This is why release shooters use a string loop, which puts the apex of the string directly behind the nock at full draw. (figure 1)

The reason it doesn't always happen is primarily because some people have their nocks too tight, which can indeed eliminate the problem of nock slip but can create other issues.

KPC


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

crw4 said:


> I did not realise my request for thoughts on "one or two" would create so many responses. THANKYOU
> I set two nocks yesterday and my grouping way improved.
> Works for me so two it is.


Cool glad you figured it out - a very wise man once said "archery is were the OCD go to play" - looks like he was right on the money


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

GEREP said:


> Contrary to popular belief, nock slide is *not* a result of a tuning issue, nor is it a result of vertical acceleration upwards.
> 
> It is a result of finger placement on the string and the arrow sliding down the string to fill the void created by those fingers at the split second it rolls off the fingers. (figure 3) As seen in my illustration, this is most prevalent with three fingers under (but still happens with two fingers under). Because of where your fingers are on the string, the string is actually drawn back further than the nock (as seen in figure 2) and at the split second of release, the nock slides down to meet the apex of the string.
> 
> ...


Your explanation has always intuitively made sense to me. I wonder if that is only part of it though. If the string _does_ have a vertical component to it's forward motion (seems possible to me) due to an imbalance in the limbs inherent to the bow, or imparted by the shooter, wouldn't the lack of a lower nock contribute to the condition you describe? I doubt many, if any, recurves or longbows would display level travel of a specific point on the string between anchor and brace. Once again, speculation on my part.

Another thing that has not been a part of this discussion and isn't visible in either of the linked videos is the overall oscillation in the string as the string moves forward. I have seen some photos that show large and complicated sinusoidal waves traveling and interacting along the length of the string as it moves forward. 

I really wish I had a good high-speed video camera. The phenomenon addressed in this thread is probably complicated enough for a _lot_ of experimentation. Ultimately it's just interesting on a theoretical basis for the most part. It's clear accurate and repeatable results are relatively easy to obtain by most of us when it comes to shooting. I have seen nothing presented yet that leads me to believe there is any benefit to only one nock set and plenty that leads me to believe there can be a benefit to two nock sets. 

Isn't archery fun?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Easykeeper said:


> Come on back when you want to discuss the inherent superiority of instinctive or gap aiming methods...:wink:



Come on back when you want to discuss the inherent superiorty of instinctive *over* gap aiming methods.
There, fixed it for ya.:wave3:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Easykeeper said:


> Your explanation has always intuitively made sense to me. I wonder if that is only part of it though. If the string _does_ have a vertical component to it's forward motion (seems possible to me) due to an imbalance in the limbs inherent to the bow, or imparted by the shooter, wouldn't the lack of a lower nock contribute to the condition you describe? I doubt many, if any, recurves or longbows would display level travel of a specific point on the string between anchor and brace. Once again, speculation on my part


I suspect you are probably right to a certain extent easy, but I would think the nock travel (as opposed to nock slip) is more of a cam timing issue for compound shooters. I'm sure there are probably other minor forces involved also. The point I was trying to make is that this idea that if you tune your bow correctly, you will eliminate nock slip, is in my opinion simply not the case. If your nocks are loose enough on the string to allow it, it is simply the nature of the beast as a result of how your fingers contort the string.

KPC


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Come on back when you want to discuss the inherent superiorty of instinctive *over* gap aiming methods.
> There, fixed it for ya.:wave3:


Good one...:tape2:


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

GEREP said:


> I suspect you are probably right to a certain extent easy, but I would think the nock travel (as opposed to nock slip) is more of a cam timing issue for compound shooters. I'm sure there are probably other minor forces involved also. The point I was trying to make is that this idea that if you tune your bow correctly, you will eliminate nock slip, is in my opinion simply not the case. If your nocks are loose enough on the string to allow it, it is simply the nature of the beast as a result of how your fingers contort the string.
> 
> KPC


I think I would agree with that although I do think there will be some vertical nock travel imparted by the bow on most any recurve or longbow unless the limbs are perfectly balanced and the shooter imparts zero torque through the grip.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> If the nock is moving the string is moving. A second nock set will have no effect other than to carry the arrow with the travel. The travel cannot be stopped by the second nock set.


EK nailed it.



> ...at least it will be consistent because you eliminate the other variable of nock motion on the string.


Exactly! What I was referring to was the nock motion on the string--travelling up and down the string. That's the variable the second nock set eliminates. I thought that part was as clear as a bell--guess not.

At any rate...it eliminates a variable, with no known negatives. Several reputable archers have advocated it's use, and declared it's value. There's no proof it doesn't help. So why in the world was there such a heated debate???????

Glad it's settled.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Maybe it was this question:



LBR said:


> ???? Ok, again I ask this question--for the 3rd or 4th time I think--how can a second nock set NOT stop nock travel? *How can the nock pass through it and keep moving*? That doesn't make any sense at all. Unless of course you place it with a big gap in-between, which is pointless.


BTW, if you are quoting EK as "nailing it", that was my post your quoted


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Maybe it was this question:


??? You have a nockset above and below. For the nock to travel up or down the string, it would have to pass through the nockset. Made no sense, still doesn't.




> BTW, if you are quoting EK as "nailing it", that was my post your quoted


I posted what you said, followed by EK's reply--the reply which "nailed it". Your comment makes no sense in relation to what I said. Why would I agree with something that is the opposite of what I've been saying all along? Makes as much sense as the nock being able to pass through the nock set and keep moving.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

LBR, nice try but the history of those posts and questions don't support what you are now saying. If it wasn't one of my posts being used wrongly, I would't care either way.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

Matt_Potter said:


> Cool glad you figured it out - a very wise man once said "archery is were the OCD go to play" - looks like he was right on the money


I am NOT OCD!!!!!!
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

My comments have been consistent from start to finish. Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my fault.


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

GEREP said:


>


That illustration is great. Seems to me with all of the science related to oly style archery there would be a clear cut explanation somewhere of how much of this travel [or possibly none at all] between the nok sets is best.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Beendare said:


> That illustration is great. Seems to me with all of the science related to oly style archery there would be a clear cut explanation somewhere of how much of this travel [or possibly none at all] between the nok sets is best.


A couple things Beendare.

First, I think for Oly archers, the slip is lessened due to the fact that to my knowledge, they all shoot split finger which tends to work more like a string loop as you are pulling both above and below the nock. Second, from what I have seen, most all of them use two nock points.

KPC


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

GEREP said:


> A couple things Beendare.
> 
> First, I think for Oly archers, the slip is lessened due to the fact that to my knowledge, they all shoot split finger which tends to work more like a string loop as you are pulling both above and below the nock. Second, from what I have seen, most all of them use two nock points.
> 
> KPC


And I believe that would be...all true.

And i also believe that this is the very reason why it seems that most bows exhibit a slighty louder note at the shot when shot 3under as opposed to being shot split-finger..but for non-sighted bows?..to many..the aiming system advantages related to 3under are well worth the extra few decibles. jmho.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

OK, late to the party here…….:shade:

After reading the beginning of this thread last night, and watching the two video`s provided that shows the nock slipping upon release, I decided to tie on a second nock set on my brothers bow and mine this morning when we got to our 3-D shoot.

I placed the lower nock set roughly 1/8" under the arrow nock. Coming from a compound bow world this is a LOT of space between the arrow nock and lower nock set. 

Utilizing a 3 under release, this setup caused the arrow nock to be pinched well before we could achieve full draw. Arrow flight went out the window……well, arrow flight actually went just about everywhere but the target butt.:mg:

I cut those nock sets off and played around until I had the lower nock sets low enough to keep from pinching the arrow nock at full draw and the world was good again.:darkbeer:

Did we notice any difference in accuracy? Not at all. As far down the string as I had to tie the new nock sets on, it would have surprised me to see any improvement. There is a lot of room for the arrow nock to slide before it hits the lower nock set.

Back before loops were common on compound bows, we used rubber eliminator buttons under the arrow nock to provide a constant yet subtle pinch to keep the arrow nock from sliding, but I am not about to start with that stuff on my trad rigs.

With all of that being said, there must be something to this two nock set theory, but I am missing on the proper way to set it up……...:sad:

Is the answer in this thread somewhere, as I have only read a few posts so far?


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Country said:


> OK, late to the party here…….:shade:
> 
> After reading the beginning of this thread last night, and watching the two video`s provided that shows the nock slipping upon release, I decided to tie on a second nock set on my brothers bow and mine this morning when we got to our 3-D shoot.
> 
> ...


I made two vids yesterday and posted the results of me shooting with two nock points and another one with no nocking points..and ya know what the difference was?..

my form. :laugh:


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Big - 

It still amazes me that after 7 pages of misunderstandings, sheer non-sense and a fair amount of well, fill in the blank, only you and the OP did what you were supposed to do. (OK, I did do the test myself... but that doesn't count, right?)

Test it for yourself. 

(Sorry if I messed any one - I haven't read every page either.)

We're talking about a nocking point, not a cure for cancer. 

If it works for you, great, if it doesn't, that's great too. 
Oddly enough, I don't have any investment in either scenario. 

The only thing I would add, is that when performing any test, one criteria that's non-negotiable is reproducibility. 
If you try something and it works, try it again (usually over several weeks) and see if the changes are transient or permanent. 
Ditto if initial testing s negative.

Viper1 out.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> Big -
> 
> It still amazes me that after 7 pages of misunderstandings, sheer non-sense and a fair amount of well, fill in the blank, only you and the OP did what you were supposed to do. (OK, I did do the test myself... but that doesn't count, right?)
> 
> ...


Viper, I have now read about 95% of the posts in this thread……and it was some colorful reading material. :lol:

I have come to the conclusion that I need to perform some more testing on this subject. I wrongly "assumed" that when I came back to traditional archery things would be simple.:mg:

After shooting at a fairly high level for decades with wheel bows, those things are simple, because I know them, and their accessories, inside and out. Stickbows……not so much. Throw in the inherent repeatability difficulty when compared to wheelbows with letoff and mechanical releases and the traditional weapon is not so simple as it was originally suspected to be.

Luckily, I have decades of form and back tension practice to help shorten my learning curve, along with the ability to "usually" understand immediately whether my performance, or lack thereof is due to bow tune, or me being out of tune.:shade:

My guess is that I need to use a softer nock set material above and below, tie the nock sets in a rough pyramid shape to allow maximum containment with minimum nock pinch, and go from there.

This is just a guess on my part at this point in time, but I am guessing that two nock sets may not yield noticeable results to me right now, because I am simply not that good with trad bows……yet.

Concerning the call for provable results where two nock sets are concerned, here is my opinion, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to anybody here, as I do not know anyone in the discussion, or what they have accomplished in archery competitions……..

My thought is that improved accuracy by two nock sets could ONLY be measured by the individual archer, and even then only over a period of time.

My experience again comes from the wheel bow world, but I bet the same general principles apply………using examples from wheel bow shooting here> my first NFAA 5 spot round ever was a 270. I have no clue how many "X"`s I hit that day. I rapidly improved until I hit the mid 290`s, then like with most folks, improvement slowed down. Once I shot my first 300, I never looked back, even with a hunting rig, but going from an average of 54X to 56X took longer than it took me to get from a 270 to a 300 with 54X`s.

Once you hit a certain level, obviously improvement is harder to come by, but if a shooter has the ability to objectively dissect their game, he/she will be able to feel whether any equipment change makes it easier for them to perform.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Big - 

The way I look at it is fairly simple. 

If a change (typically form) makes the shot easier or more consistent it's plus.
If a change (technique or equipment) results in a sustained higher score (beyond statistical error), it's a plus. 

No change or a loss in any of the above and is either not necessary or a detriment, respectively. 

The science or in some cases pseudo-science being applied is fine and dandy, but the only results I can take seriously are the numbers. 

So definitely keep trying. and go with what's real. 

As you get more into it, you might find that some things matter more than others.
IOWs, I've met very few bows than I can out shoot. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Sanford said:


> What's not understood by some is if you have nock travel, you cannot totally eliminate it. You either let it ride or fixate the arrow to it. Nock travel is inherent in the dynamic tiller of the bow, built into the bow, unless the bow is designed to have adjustment to compensate for it. Here's a brief explanation: http://www.bowhunting.net/eMagazine/Articles/2003/03-RexDarlington-NockTravel.html





itbeso said:


> There is an absolutely positive way to prove it that I have used many times. Crimp a lower nockset on lightly so there is no resistance and shoot an arrow. The lower nockset will be forced down. Do it ten times and measure the distance down every time. You will be enlightened.


Sanford, unless I got sidetracked while attempting to read the entire thread at once, we are not really discussing nock travel here. Nock travel is pretty tough to level where wheel bows are concerned, often times impossible to flatline in fact, depending on the bow. I doubt it is possible to do much with it where a longbow/recurve is concerned. And FWIW I have messed with nock travel a fair amount with wheel bows on a draw board/shooting machine, and the machine could one hole level nock travel and really non-level nock travel with equal success.

Nock travel is one thing, but nock slippage during the arrow dump is a totally different animal for obvious reasons. As out nocks wear, and serving wears, nock slippage will vary in distance. Also, since we are not using a mechanical release, my guess is that folks with a less than consistent finger release(like me)will also aggravate the average slippage distance.

If we can control the slippage, make it the same distance every time, regardless of nock and serving wear, it seems to me that we would now be eliminating another variable. When consistency is the goal, variables of any kind can only be good if we rely on luck to find the target.

The more I ponder this subject, the more my feeble mind hurts. :lol:

One thing that keeps coming to mind is……..when I make bad shots, I almost always know what I did wrong. A couple of targets on the 3-D course today were far enough off the mark to earn me a 5, and I had no clue what I did wrong? Every part of my shot sequence, including the release seemed right. Thinking back on those two shots, they were BOTH fine left/right, but they were high…….and since my group shoots for fun and to get better for hunting, we do carry and use a rangefinder after the group is done shooting. My yardage was exactly on for both of those high misses.

Those two arrows well out the top could simply be coincidence, but maybe they were a result of excessive nock slippage? Most of my glaring bombs out of the group at the practice bales are out the top as well. Now I really have to get two good nock sets tied in and see if this bears any fruit?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

BC, that's part the problem at the root of this debate every time. Barring nocks that would slide down the string, which should be loose enough a nocking to notice that simple problem before even drawn, some see that video and believe they can get their fingers out from under a high tension string fast enough to leave a "pocket" of sorts for the string to fall down into. Some feel, like me, that's physically and humanly impossible - the string either moves the fingers out of the way or the string is dropped by the fingers. The pocket would have to be gone before arrow can even start to move, anyway. No human fingers are fast enough to outrun that string  That would be the sliding nock theory. 

You actually bring up a good point here. If it's slippage, new folks should see the most improvement by a second nock set as a fix, not the best shooters. 

The nock travel is what I see in the video. That's just inherent dynamic tiller in the bow - unequal unloading of the limbs - one limb returning faster than the other. In recurves, the shooter is as much a part of that as is the build of the bow, actually more. It's just part of recurves and part of one's tuning process. Consistency in your tune via form and release is the key here, not so much the amount of nock travel I would think.

Someone else stated it best - how it leaves the bow at the end of string travel is what matters most. With all the dynamics of a recurve finger shot bow, what really matters is getting a good tune that remains consistent. What happens all before, that is nothing we can see anyway.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Sanford said:


> BC, that's part the problem at the root of this debate every time. Barring nocks that would slide down the string, which should be loose enough a nocking to notice that simple problem before even drawn, some see that video and believe they can get their fingers out from under a high tension string fast enough to leave a "pocket" of sorts for the string to fall down into. Some feel, like me, that's physically and humanly impossible - the string either moves the fingers out of the way or the string is dropped by the fingers. The pocket would have to be gone before arrow can even start to move, anyway. No human fingers are fast enough to outrun that string  That would be the sliding nock theory.
> 
> You actually bring up a good point here. If it's slippage, new folks should see the most improvement, not the best shooters.
> 
> ...



Good points Sanford, but I can easily get my fingers out of the way in time to create a pocket. On a 15 yard shot, my top finger is a good 2" under the nock to start with. :wink:

And while I agree with you 100% that whatever your nock travel is, is what it is. That said, without going back and viewing the video`s again, I am pretty sure I saw the arrow nock actually move away from the nock set. That is not nock travel, that would be a slipping nock.

Now, if that nock would be kind enough to remain level while the string itself works up and down, that would be awesome! And maybe it does?

Chances are though…..the arrow nock does not always return to the same place prior to releasing itself from the string though, and that would be a pretty big variable.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Big Country said:


> And while I agree with you 100% that whatever your nock travel is, is what it is. That said, without going back and viewing the video`s again, I am pretty sure I saw the arrow nock actually move away from the nock set. *That is not nock travel, that would be a slipping nock.*


Agreed.

KPC


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Sanford said:


> The pocket would have to be gone before arrow can even start to move, anyway. No human fingers are fast enough to outrun that string  That would be the sliding nock theory.
> 
> You actually bring up a good point here. If it's slippage, new folks should see the most improvement by a second nock set as a fix, not the best shooters.


I disagree with your the first statement but that's OK. I think we're allowed to do that.

:wink:

As to the second statement, if the "best shooters" see no improvement, why do you suppose all the "best shooters" seem to be using two nock points?

KPC


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I was the one to use "nock travel"--my poor choice of words, although I thought I made it clear what I was talking about. Oh well...



> As to the second statement, if the "best shooters" see no improvement, why do you suppose all the "best shooters" seem to be using two nock points?


Because they really don't know what they are talking about--even the ones who have coached champions! It's the ones who have never done anything on their own--never made their mark by actually shooting or coaching--who are "in the know". ***insert giant sarcasm smilie here***


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I disagree with your the first statement but that's OK. I think we're allowed to do that.
> 
> :wink:


Sure! It's just an Internet message board. If we couldn't swap out on opinions the first several go arounds on that subject, it probably wouldn't happen now, either.



> As to the second statement, if the "best shooters" see no improvement, why do you suppose all the "best shooters" seem to be using two nock points?


Several reasons I know of, but for all, I don't know. I know why I do, but it wasn't from any changes in my scoring, as I should and am confident in my score both ways. If not, I would investigate why I need to rely on the second set. I've had great scores both ways, but I still use two as mentioned before in this thread. If you keep regular score, take your bow and a pencil and see what it does in that regard for you. That way you know for you.

So far, just knowing a lot of folks use two makes sense enough for using two - costs nothing, but knowing the actual difference is better. If someone is stating a score benefit, sure would be nice if they quantified it for us, though. Would settle a lot of debate in that regard, which is really only a debate in some Trad forums as far as I have ever seen on the subject. For me, there's a world of difference between something that's just prudent and something that's mandatory.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

I am amazed by the egos of a lot of posters on here. Of course, someone will counter that I have a big ego. Anyone who has been following this thread and reading all the posts is probably still in limbo over whether to use 1 or 2 nocksets. I don't know most of the posters who say that it doesn't make a difference or that one is better, but I would bet everything in my wallet that they have never won major championships. Granted, a lot of the posters here are not into big time competitions, but I can't help but feel that they do want to shoot the best they can, whether it be at targets, foam or real animals. If a certain group of finger shooters are regularly shooting for national and world championships and the winners all use two nocksets, why in the world would any finger shooter want to use only one, except to be a contrarian. The readers of these threads have a chance to shorten their learning curve 5-fold with the information that comes across these boards. Of course, we often hear the old argument that just because someone is a champion doesn't give his opinion any more clout than someone who isn't. I call B.S. on that. Someone who is a champion has probably tried every possible combination of setups available and is using the results of those tests to shoot the best available set up possible. When that champion is willing to share the results of his hard work and testing, so that everyone doesn't have to make his mistakes, then I, for one, am going to try his methods first, hopefully to get me up to speed quicker. The posters on here who don't shoot competitively or think they are coaching legends, but naysay everything that really works in the real world, are doing a great disservice to those that are wanting to learn.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

To be the contrarian, for someone who has put in all that research and development, tried every combination, what was the difference is score on your combination tests? If it works a difference, by how much? You have to know that if you made the decision in the first place. See, the believe me because I'm a champion card is worn out with me. I have championships too, but tell you what, if I tell a man to do something, I use facts, not my accomplishments. A true champion leaves his crown at home.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> If someone is stating a score benefit, sure would be nice if they quantified it for us, though. _Would settle a lot of debate in that regard,_...


No it wouldn't. They would get the same underhanded ridicule and attempts at questioning their knowledge and reputation as they have already gotten on this thread. 

Itbeso, you are on the money again.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Sanford said:


> To be the contrarian, for someone who has put in all that research and development, tried every combination, what was the difference is score on your combination tests? If it works a difference, by how much? You have to know that if you made the decision in the first place.


Difference in scores for what round? Field, fita, 3-d, indoor 300? If the average difference was 1 point then it is a winner. I, personally, didn't measure it in points and I certainly don't want to get into the look at me concept but here goes. I measured the difference by going from three time runnerup to 7 time Nfaa field champion. I measured the difference by going unbeaten for 7 years on an Nfaa field tournament at any level, I measured the difference by being able to shoot a 300 with 47 x bowhunter style, one anchor, no sights, no string walking, no level at a pre Vegas money shoot, I measured the difference by beating Butch Johnson, Eric Hall, and Tim Strickland in a team event score at the Big Sky archery tournament in 1988. They were the top freestyle limited shooters in the country at the time and I was shooting bowhunter, no sights. At the time, all three were using one nock, split finger. I never saw them shoot one nock again after that tournament. Probably coincidence. My recommendation to all those finger shooters wanting to be more consistent is to always use 2 nocksets.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

But Ben you were aiming and we all know that's cheating. 

Great shooting with you last weekend hope we get more of a chance to bs next time 

Matt


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

itbeso, I've always respected your opinions, that is, till you started this being testy and condescending towards anyone who questions you. But, now that I know you are the one who got Ellison to shoot recurve (nothing to do with him wanting to shoot in the Olympics and they only shoot recurve), and you were the one responsible for all those other legends switching to two nock sets, I guess I may have rethink that. To tell you the truth, I will still listen to you regardless. I don't take anyone one here that serious - what they say either holds water or it doesn't. I'm a good enough archer to tell the difference.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Just for the heck of it,how about you tell us about your observations of that test. I think most will believe it. I believe that the lower nockset has the effect of offsetting an out of balance situation created by a high nock position used for three under shooting. I can't possibly say if I'm right or not.



This was my request for itbeso to present his findings for everyone to see. Might save all those who are on the fence on the issue some trouble in deciding about trying two nocksets for themselves.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Yeah, but does that really mean you actually knew what you were doing, or were you just driving without actually having any idea of how the engine worked? ***insert another giant sarcasm smile***

Seriously, that is an amazing record.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

I realize that different size fingers, bow length, etc. will make a small difference, but as a rule of thumb, what distance would be a good starting point for placing the lower nocking point?

Oh, and what serving material, or string material seems to work best?

Thanks…….


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

LBR said:


> Seriously, that is an amazing record.


Definitely far north of moderately impressive.:thumbs_up


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> itbeso, I've always respected your opinions, that is, till you started this being testy and condescending towards anyone who questions you.


Yes, anyone who's been around here any amount of time knows you have no respect at all for anyone who is testy and condescending when their opinions are questioned.......***not enough bandwidth for the size sarcasm smile required***

Thanks for proving my point so quickly. Was that a new record?


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Gents, it's been an intriguing conversation! I for one have had fun and learned. Thanks to the experienced who shared their wisdom and experience, and who were willing to take part in an arguably semi-OCD discussion . As far as being "heated" or "sheer non-sense", I think that relates to few people here and the latter is an especially assuming, unnecessary remark. I've learned a few things and I appreciate the depth - I personally love investigating details, whether or not it makes a significant difference. My final conclusion is to side with the "two nock" crowd out of expertise experience more than anything else. Post if you have new info, data or insights. I'm personally not going to partake in internet sarcasm or becoming emotionally attached to an idea, but I'll be reading.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Does anybody else on here own a bow? It is an archery forum, or is it just a place to read what others do? I know what mine does, do you?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

itbeso said:


> There is an absolutely positive way to prove it that I have used many times. Crimp a lower nockset on lightly so there is no resistance and shoot an arrow. The lower nockset will be forced down. Do it ten times and measure the distance down every time. You will be enlightened.



And this was the enlightening test. Seems like it would be easy to state the results. Was it 10 out of 10 ? Or was it 5 out of ten? Then we all will know if we are interested enough to try it.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Forest - I don't think this is something you can do a quantitative test on. But who cares if it only helps on 1 out of 5000 arrows if that one arrow happens when you have a 150 class whitetail under your stand. 

Matt


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Sanford said:


> itbeso, I've always respected your opinions, that is, till you started this being testy and condescending towards anyone who questions you. But, now that I know you are the one who got Ellison to shoot recurve (nothing to do with him wanting to shoot in the Olympics and they only shoot recurve), and you were the one responsible for all those other legends switching to two nock sets, I guess I may have rethink that. To tell you the truth, I will still listen to you regardless. I don't take anyone one here that serious - what they say either holds water or it doesn't. I'm a good enough archer to tell the difference.


Sanford, The Brady thing has been a standing joke for a long time and I should have put a smilie on it. He and I have had a good laugh over it several times. I don't think I have been testy or condescending towards anyone. What I have done is stand up for a position that I feel is one of the most important components of shooting fingers. Next to form, it just might be the most important aspect for bringing consistency to ones shooting. To hear you or anyone else say that there is no difference is ludicrous. Please, and remember that this is a trad forum where the overwhelming majority of archers are shooting 3-under, please quote me the names of national or world champions in trad, bowhunter, barebow, or longbow who shoot with one nockset. You seem to be the one here who is getting his knickers in a twist over a situation that has been proven over and over on the field of competition. Your sarcasm about some of the archers who I have had the opportunity to shoot and trade ideas with over the years was very childish, but it doesn't stop the fact that I have been fortunate enough to have a positive impact on a lot of archers over the years and that is as satisfying as winning championships.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

FORESTGUMP said:


> And this was the enlightening test. Seems like it would be easy to state the results. Was it 10 out of 10 ? Or was it 5 out of ten? Then we all will know if we are interested enough to try it.


Forest, the test was to show you that it will force it down everytime. The enlightenment part was for you to discover that the distance that it is forced down will not be the same everytime and that is the key to inconsistency in point of impact of launched arrows


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

itbeso, there's the* Traditional Archery Rule Number One* sticky at the top. It's what keeps us all on equal footing. I know we all come close to the line on it with our opinions, but anyways, here it is again in case you think any championship is grounds of superiority here:

"From now going forward, you will not be allowed to argue your opinions over another member's. When a member asks for help, give your advice and move on. Any commenting on how another member's advice isn't worth a hill of beans, will have their access from this sub forum removed."

This rule was created for the very reason we are discussing this, one or two members telling others that other opinions don't matter.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> Forest - I don't think this is something you can do a quantitative test on. But who cares if it only helps on 1 out of 5000 arrows if that one arrow happens when you have a 150 class whitetail under your stand.
> 
> Matt


Don't know. The post that I qouted said that there is an absolutely positive way to prove it.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Don't know. The post that I qouted said that there is an absolutely positive way to prove it.


Ahhhh - for me what Ben stated about the loose lower nock is a ten out of ten type thing - same with my kids shooting 3 under. Interesting thing when I was playing with limbs this winter this was one of the things I checked and the borders seem to have the most level nock travel. 

Matt


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Big Country said:


> I realize that different size fingers, bow length, etc. will make a small difference, but as a rule of thumb, what distance would be a good starting point for placing the lower nocking point?
> 
> Oh, and what serving material, or string material seems to work best?
> 
> Thanks…….


Big, When I am in a hurryup situation I use dental floss which would be my number one choice but it wears quickly. For permanent nocksets I use no. 2 serving thread using a double wrap over and under knot. For the top nockset, I usually use a triple wrap over and under. I use the double under because it is slightly less bulky to put your tab on'


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Sanford said:


> itbeso, there's the* Traditional Archery Rule Number One* sticky at the top. It's what keeps us all on equal footing. I know we all come close to the line on it with our opinions, but anyways, here it is again in case you think any championship is grounds of superiority here:
> 
> "From now going forward, you will not be allowed to argue your opinions over another member's. When a member asks for help, give your advice and move on. Any commenting on how another member's advice isn't worth a hill of beans, will have their access from this sub forum removed."
> 
> *This rule was created for the very reason we are discussing this, one or two members telling others that other opinions don't matter*.


I thought that I caught up and had read every post on this thread? I guess not though, since I never saw the posts stating that someone else`s opinion did not matter.

I have seen several posts that were pretty clear cut personal attacks though.

Through all of that, I personally have found this thread to be very enlightening, and it address`s a possible issue that I never had to worry about in my wheelbow shooting days.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Matt_Potter said:


> Ahhhh - for me what Ben stated about the loose lower nock is a ten out of ten type thing - same with my kids shooting 3 under. Interesting thing when I was playing with limbs this winter this was one of the things I checked and the borders seem to have the most level nock travel.
> 
> Matt



OK,now I get it. It happens because of the three fingers under the nock thing. And adding another one corrects it.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

itbeso said:


> Big, When I am in a hurryup situation I use dental floss which would be my number one choice but it wears quickly. For permanent nocksets I use no. 2 serving thread using a double wrap over and under knot. For the top nockset, I usually use a triple wrap over and under. I use the double under because it is slightly less bulky to put your tab on'


Thanks for the info itbeso.  How much space do you normally give the arrow nock to move between the top and bottom nock sets?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

FORESTGUMP said:


> OK,now I get it. It happens because of the three fingers under the nock thing. And adding another one corrects it.


Yeah I think it's not near the issue shooting split as your pressure on the string is on both sides of the nock. My guess is if you shot 2 finger split it wouldn't be an issue at all. 

Matt


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Big Country said:


> Thanks for the info itbeso.  How much space do you normally give the arrow nock to move between the top and bottom nock sets?


I personally like mine snug because the soft serving material will usually take a set to the nock after 20-30 shots. If you are string walking I would start out with about 1/16 inch max. If you are shooting a short bow three under , start out with 1/16 space as the string angle is greater and will tend to put downward torque on the arrow if too tight. Shooting split, I would keep it a little tighter as there is no string angle to put downward torque on the arrow. I see a number of archers who are using two nocksets but have them spaced so far apart that they are not being effective.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

itbeso said:


> I personally like mine snug because the soft serving material will usually take a set to the nock after 20-30 shots. If you are string walking I would start out with about 1/16 inch max. If you are shooting a short bow three under , start out with 1/16 space as the string angle is greater and will tend to put downward torque on the arrow if too tight. Shooting split, I would keep it a little tighter as there is no string angle to put downward torque on the arrow. I see a number of archers who are using two nocksets but have them spaced so far apart that they are not being effective.


This explains it perfectly for me itbeso, thank you.

I am shooting 3 under, and string walking, and my bows that I actually shoot regularly are 62" and longer so I will make the fit fairly snug. This time I will tie the nocks on BEFORE I head out on a 3-D course though and break them in. :lol:


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

I am impressed some really good info here on why you should use two nocks. for the few who want to see a score difference. for me I never checked the score I just saw my groups get tighter. so I'm sure if my groups are tighter with two nocks that my scores are higher with two nocks. 

Itbeso thanks for showing this to me in 1985 its kind of like those old Vicroy cigarette comericals I"D RATHER FIGHT THAN SWITCH!!!!!
:shade:
Gary


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Sanford said:


> To be the contrarian, for someone who has put in all that research and development, tried every combination, what was the difference is score on your combination tests? If it works a difference, by how much? You have to know that if you made the decision in the first place. See, the believe me because I'm a champion card is worn out with me. I have championships too, but tell you what, if I tell a man to do something, I use facts, not my accomplishments. A true champion leaves his crown at home.


Sanford, your ego is hurt and you are trying to make me look small with the "champion card" thing. I did leave most of my crowns at home, probably 60 or more of them. Tell me how you use facts in archery when we are talking about nocking points. The only facts that I see that are useable are the results of the people who use one or the other. If the fact is that every Nfaa barebow, bowhunter, and trad champion for the past 30 years has used 2 nocksets, That in itself should be a catalyst for anyone shooting fingers in our divisions to give 2 nocksets primary consideration. If this was a situation where I felt there could be a valid argument made either way, then I would have stated my opinion and left it at that, but I think the results speak overwhelmingly in favor of two nocksets.
i


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Sanford said:


> To be the contrarian, for someone who has put in all that research and development, tried every combination, what was the difference is score on your combination tests? If it works a difference, by how much? You have to know that if you made the decision in the first place. See, the believe me because I'm a champion card is worn out with me. I have championships too, but tell you what, if I tell a man to do something, I use facts, not my accomplishments. A true champion leaves his crown at home.


I would assume that at least some here are familiar with the concept of a "peer reviewed study". Not only is the data and conclusions shown but also the methods and procedures used in the test. You have to show your work. Mistakes are still made which is where the "peer review" comes in. Somebody else picks your work apart and maybe finds the mistakes or what was missed. LOL how insulting of them to question the word of one of such fine reputation, huh? LOL


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Big Country said:


> Thanks for the info itbeso.  How much space do you normally give the arrow nock to move between the top and bottom nock sets?



The easiest way to answer that question BC is to say "it depends." 

It depends on the size of your arrow nocks and how susceptible they are to getting pinched between the two nock sets. The size and shape of your nock can make a big difference.

 


It can also depend on the actual size of your nock sets. Are you using brass crimp on nock sets, or are you using tie on nock sets? If you are using tie on sets, how big are the knots? It can even depend on how long the bow is that you are shooting and how acute the string angle is, the size of your string and how many strands you are using, etc.

Personally, my gap is about 1/8". I'm using very small nocks, a 10 strand string, and I tie my nock sets and try to make my bottom set as small as possible.

Having said all that, I question how much any potential nock pinch even matters. Even if your nock is pinched at full draw, by the time the nock leaves the string, the string is straight again and there will be no pinch. As was stated earlier, the only thing that matters is what is happening at the moment the nock leaves the string.

At the end of the day, you'll just have to do your own experimentation.

:wink:



KPC


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

I switched from one nok to 2 [rookie shooter] I can add this for the other rookies considering it;

1) It significantly changed the tune on my bow and I had to spend some time getting it right
2) It seems to have taken away most of my "flyers" or lets just say there are far less of them

Maybe the pros don't get those flyers...??? Tom Daley explained this to me just as Ben [Itbeso] has done in this thread- Thanks to Tom and Ben for the quality info. I can only guess that the second nok not only keeps my tab/fingers from influencing the arrow nok on an inconsistent release but also if for some reason I'm not pulling perfectly [elbow a bit higher or lower]

Many may say," then you need to work on your form" ......well yeah of course.....but if you can have a buffer that helps with minor inconsistencies....why not?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

GEREP said:


> The easiest way to answer that question BC is to say "it depends."
> 
> It depends on the size of your arrow nocks and how susceptible they are to getting pinched between the two nock sets. The size and shape of your nock can make a big difference.
> 
> ...


Again, this is an example of someone giving their opinion that contains information that will confuse and hurt a newcomers learning curve. Putting nockset so tight together that the arrow is under a downward torque at fulldraw wil most definitely affect the arrows launch in a negative way long before the arrow is actually off the string. Slamming your arrow into the rest because it starts out bent in a downward curve is a recipe for disaster. Nock size only matters for the spacing of the nocksets, the relief spacing between the nock and the nocksets is the same. I think you will find in all my posts that I have been consistent in stating that I never use crimp on brass nocksets, but rather use tied on in all instances so brass nocksets don't come into play as a criterion for whatever opinions I have passed on. Your bottom nockset has to be big enough in diameter to capture the downward force of the arrow at release so making it as small as possible isn't a good idea. Making it as small as possible and still big enough to keep the nock throat from slipping over it, is.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

itbeso said:


> Sanford, your ego is hurt and you are trying to make me look small with the "champion card" thing.


Itbeso, my ego is in full check. This is just an archery message board on a discussion of something as incidental as a second nock set. In the real world, it would be laughable at the level it's gone here - more than a "just in case" on the incidental at the nock or for nocking point movement referencing or just because. 

I have trained well and shot well and know why I use two and why most others do as well. I also know that I could not keep a straight face and tell someone that my scores and grouping would improve with two v. one. Given a normal string hand hookup at the nock, to do so would be an admission that my tune ability, form, and release are such that I cannot shot my bow with one nock set - any decent archer should be able to do that. IOW, it doesn't matter except in the incidental or insurance field but your opinion my vary from that and you can state it's integral to tune. 

My ego is way comfortable in this regard, to know it ain't so unless something way beyond the archer's ability to tune out is at play. That's what tune is about. Again, if I "required" a second set, me and that rig would soon be parting.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

MGF said:


> I would assume that at least some here are familiar with the concept of a "peer reviewed study". Not only is the data and conclusions shown but also the methods and procedures used in the test. You have to show your work. Mistakes are still made which is where the "peer review" comes in. Somebody else picks your work apart and maybe finds the mistakes or what was missed. LOL how insulting of them to question the word of one of such fine reputation, huh? LOL


Apparently you have no concept of how a "peer review" works. This 1 vs 2 nocksets is not a new phenomenon. It has been peer reviewed for at least the last 38 years that I know of and as a result of that "peer review' there isn't a serious barebow type shooter out there who doesn't use two nocksets. I understand that you are new to the "peer review" process, so do your own due diligence and end up wasting time that you could have spent working on other aspects of you game. The old saying that "those who don't know anything about history are bound to repeat it" certainly applies in this case. Cute story. I am a building contractor. I never do work for engineers. Wood is milled to nominal sizes however, depending on how much water it has in it, a 2x4 stud can vary from 3 3/8 inches to 3 5/8 inches wide and from 1 3/8 to 1 5/8 inches thick. Same goes for headers , floor joist, ceiling joists, etc. Engineers are used to working with absolutes such as plastics, steel, glass and other products which can be milled to a specific size and stay there. I haven't found an engineer yet that can handle the fact that framing a house does not produce exact dimensions all around. I leave all the engineers for others that want to put up with lack of common sense.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Sanford said:


> Itbeso, my ego is in full check. This is just an archery message board on a discussion of something as incidental as a second nock set. In the real world, it would be laughable at the level it's gone here - more than a "just in case" on the incidental at the nock or for nocking point movement referencing or just because.
> 
> I have trained well and shot well and know why I use two and why most others do as well. I also know that I could not keep a straight face and tell someone that my scores and grouping would improve with two v. one. Given a normal string hand hookup at the nock, to do so would be an admission that my tune ability, form, and release are such that I cannot shot my bow with one nock set - any decent archer should be able to do that. IOW, it doesn't matter except in the incidental or insurance field but your opinion my vary from that and you can state it's integral to tune.
> 
> My ego is way comfortable in this regard, to know it ain't so.


You are right, anyone can shoot an arrow with only one nockset. That same archer will shoot the same arrow, with fingers, more accurately with 2 nocks. By the way, I think this is the real world and there is nothing incidental about one of the most important consistency components to a finger shooting setup. You say you couldn't keep a straight face and yet you say you shoot two for your own reasons. What is that reason?


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

itbeso said:


> You are right, anyone can shoot an arrow with only one nockset. That same archer will shoot the same arrow, with fingers, more accurately with 2 nocks.


Can't agrue with that logic. Can't agree with it, either  That's OK with my ego, too!


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

itbeso said:


> Again, this is an example of someone giving their opinion that contains information that will confuse and hurt a newcomers learning curve.


And this would be a perfect example of someone that only looks for or sees certain things in a post, probably in an attempt to prove themselves right.

If you go back and read my post, you would notice that I said there are a number of things that *"CAN"* make a difference. All the things I mentioned CAN indeed make a difference, depending on each person's setup, draw length, shooting style, smoothness of release, etc.

Second, one assumes a certain amount of proficiency coming out of the gate. The idea that the pinch would be so great that it would cause the arrow shaft to "slam" into the rest, what do you think might happen if the nock slips down the string 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch?

In case you didn't know this, the fact that you don't use crimp on nock sets doesn't mean everyone doesn't. This forum is totally about you.

Lastly, in the following statement:

*"Having said all that, I question how much any potential nock pinch even matters. Even if your nock is pinched at full draw, by the time the nock leaves the string, the string is straight again and there will be no pinch. As was stated earlier, the only thing that matters is what is happening at the moment the nock leaves the string."*

Notice I said, *"I question"* how much it really matters. I question a LOT of things. I don't take any old wives tales as gospel. I work it out for myself and use what works best for me. Then, if I feel I can help, I share what works for me with others.

And, as I said before...

*"At the end of the day, you'll just have to do your own experimentation."*

Good grief. Some of you guys really need to switch to decaf.





KPC


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Sanford, we have all seen the two video clips showing the nock sliding down the serving away from the single nocking point. 

Is this a result of bad nocks and worn serving?

How often does this occur?

By your own admission, you are a pretty fair shot with traditional archery equipment, so I will "assume" that you have competed at least on a local level before.

Again, "assuming" that you have competed before, you already know that turning one 10 into an 8 on a 3-D target can be the difference between 1st place and 2nd or 3rd place. On paper targets one 4 ring instead of another 5 ring can drop you out of any chance of winning. And in the hunting woods the consequences can be much worse.

The vast majority of my bow tuning/setup experience is with wheelbows, but that is rapidly changing, and I am extremely grateful to have folks like you, and itbeso, and many others that can shorten my learning curve. I had to learn the wheelbow stuff on my own.

I am confident that much of what I learned with wheelbows will be pertinent to the trad bows, and the biggest thing is to make everything I can as bulletproof as possible so that the only issues I have to worry about are standing behind the bow.

I am thinking that this two nock set system may be one of the most important steps towards eliminating unexplained flyers. I don`t mind when I make a mistake, I can work on that, but when my bow setup costs me, that makes me mad at myself for not having it right.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

GEREP said:


> And this would be a perfect example of someone that only looks for or sees certain things in a post, probably in an attempt to prove themselves right.
> 
> If you go back and read my post, you would notice that I said there are a number of things that *"CAN"* make a difference. All the things I mentioned CAN indeed make a difference, depending on each person's setup, draw length, shooting style, smoothness of release, etc.
> 
> ...


If a drug is approved by the FDA and put on the market because it has been tested for 8 years under all possible scenarios, are you then going to do your own testing before you use it? Good grief! If you know anything about the dynamics of an arrow, you would know that an arrow loosed under downward torque will react entirely different from an arrow that is simply loosed with a low nocking point. Apparently, you don't get the message that the only reason for my posting is to possibly cut down the learning curve time for new and struggling archers. Good grief! This is in no way a "my way or the highway" scenario. Apparently, there are a few, like yourself, who would prefer to spend a lot of time experimenting rather than start out using time tested methods. I have no problem with that but I will defend those methods when someone comes on here posting bogus or uninformed information. Good grief! I don't even drink coffee so I don't think it has anything to do with decaf, just a love for the sport of archery.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Big Country said:


> Sanford, we have all seen the two video clips showing the nock sliding down the serving away from the single nocking point.
> 
> Is this a result of bad nocks and worn serving?
> 
> ...


Well said, and without my fervor and passion.:teeth:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Big Country said:


> Sanford, we have all seen the two video clips showing the nock sliding down the serving away from the single nocking point.


No, watch the arrow and watch the nock set. You can gauge the movements in relation to his face and nose. The arrow does not slide down by my gauging - yours may be different, but that's what I have always seen. The nock set and string travel up, look at the nock set in relation to his nose - what you would expect happening with the dynamic tiller and equalization of forces. 

In terms of dynamics, is it good reaction or bad reaction has always been the real question, even by the ones who made the video from what I recall of past discussions, but still, it gets all kinds of interpretations across the internet. What's missing is the tune, or impact of arrow without and with - same, or a change, no one seems to want to test it.

I have shot at the local, state, national, and international level. I would not hesitate to shoot any competition with just one, confident enough there and have, but for sake of conventional wisdom you describe, I'm more apt to use two - that's why you see most with two. It's not a mandate for good scores, though. The most important thing you can do to eliminate fliers is to work on you, not the bow.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Sanford said:


> No, watch the arrow and watch the nock set. You can gauge the movements in relation to his face and nose. The arrow does not slide down by my gauging - yours may be different, but that's what I have always seen. The nock set and string travel up, look at the nock set in relation to his nose - what you would expect happening with the dynamic tiller and equalization of forces.
> 
> In terms of dynamics, is it good reaction or bad reaction has always been the real question, even by the ones who made the video from what I recall of past discussions, but still, it gets all kinds of interpretations across the internet. What's missing is the tune, or impact of arrow without and with - same, or a change, no one seems to want to test it.
> 
> I have shot at the local, state, national, and international level. I would not hesitate to shoot any competition with just one, confident enough there and have, but for sake of conventional wisdom you describe, I'm more apt to use two - that's why you see most with two. It's not a mandate for good scores, though. *The most important thing you can do to eliminate fliers is to work on you, not the bow*.



Most of my "fliers" are indeed me. And since you have confirmed that you are indeed steps above the "average" archer, you already know that 99% of the time you know what you did to cause a flyer. At high levels of competition, that 1% will have you riding the pine before the end of the tournament.

I am working on me daily. I have a long way to go before I will be satisfied. This darn trad stuff is causing me to practice like I used to with the wheelbows……..I thought I was done with feeling the need to be able to sit everybody around me down come tournament time. I realize that at my age, I am not going to get there, but I still gotta try. :lol:


----------



## fotoguy (Jul 30, 2007)

Some background information on the video....I was the person filming those shots when I worked at Lancaster Archery Supply. It was at the time when Blacky flew over to Lancaster from Germany to spend a week using our high speed camera to test various things, such as different string material and strands, arrow paradox, etc. We also tested and chronographed many bows, including some vintage bows that are in the shooting center display case....we had several people come by that Saturday to observe some of the testing.

That part of the testing was not originally designed to prove or disprove nock slide, or whatever you wish to call it....it was done at the end of the day when we decided to video everyone shooting so that we could evaluate our release when shooting, a little self help exercise....we felt it would be good for us to see our various releases on slow motion.....Upon reviewing the video in slow motion, it was then that we noticed the nock/string slide....and it was evident with every shot...enough to cause Blacky, a well respected person in archery because of his testing, etc, to surmise that it may be the cause for his occasional "flyer" arrow that he could never explain...it also grabbed the attention of Rob Kaufhold, owner of LAS, an NCAA National Champion at James Madison University, an Olympic Qualifyer, and a person who has spent his lifetime involved in all aspects of archery, whether competition, hunting, and owning a successful business for over 25 years, dealing daily with the sport....It was an eye opening moment for them, as well as the rest of us in attendance......

Based on their opinions, and those here who I consider much more proficient shooters and experienced than me, and who I have the utmost respect for...who advocate the use of a second nocking point, I immediately started using a second point. Coupled with the fact that I have not read a post from anyone stating the second nock set actually HURT arrow flight and tuning, lead me to my decision....it takes very little time to install...so personally I see no disadvantage to using it....

It is up to those reading all the posts to separate the opinions and decide for themselves....but I will take the word of those who I have met and talked with, and whose opinions I value.................I know I will continue to use a second nock set...until someone proves it is detrimental.....and I experience poor results.....

Your individual mileage may vary!


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

itbeso said:


> If a drug is approved by the FDA and put on the market because it has been tested for 8 years under all possible scenarios, are you then going to do your own testing before you use it? Good grief! If you know anything about the dynamics of an arrow, you would know that an arrow loosed under downward torque will react entirely different from an arrow that is simply loosed with a low nocking point. Apparently, you don't get the message that the only reason for my posting is to possibly cut down the learning curve time for new and struggling archers. Good grief! This is in no way a "my way or the highway" scenario. Apparently, there are a few, like yourself, who would prefer to spend a lot of time experimenting rather than start out using time tested methods. I have no problem with that but I will defend those methods when someone comes on here posting bogus or uninformed information. Good grief! I don't even drink coffee so I don't think it has anything to do with decaf, just a love for the sport of archery.


Your screen name is apparently a window into how you think.

As to your question about the FDA. No, I wouldn't do my own testing on drugs because I don't have the ability to do so. However, based on all the drug recalls we have every year, maybe your peer reviewed bs isn't all it's cracked up to be. No, I just test for myself the things I feel qualified to test.

Peer reviewed means nothing more than your peers have reviewed it an they agree with your findings. If that was infallible, I'd still be shooting cock feather out, and we'd still be boring into people's skulls to let the evil spirits out.

KPC


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

fotoguy said:


> Some background information on the video....I was the person filming those shots when I worked at Lancaster Archery Supply. It was at the time when Blacky flew over to Lancaster from Germany to spend a week using our high speed camera to test various things, such as different string material and strands, arrow paradox, etc. We also tested and chronographed many bows, including some vintage bows that are in the shooting center display case....we had several people come by that Saturday to observe some of the testing.
> 
> That part of the testing was not originally designed to prove or disprove nock slide, or whatever you wish to call it....it was done at the end of the day when we decided to video everyone shooting so that we could evaluate our release when shooting, a little self help exercise....we felt it would be good for us to see our various releases on slow motion.....Upon reviewing the video in slow motion, it was then that we noticed the nock/string slide....and it was evident with every shot...enough to cause Blacky, a well respected person in archery because of his testing, etc, to surmise that it may be the cause for his occasional "flyer" arrow that he could never explain...it also grabbed the attention of Rob Kaufhold, owner of LAS, an NCAA National Champion at James Madison University, an Olympic Qualifyer, and a person who has spent his lifetime involved in all aspects of archery, whether competition, hunting, and owning a successful business for over 25 years, dealing daily with the sport....It was an eye opening moment for them, as well as the rest of us in attendance......
> 
> ...


Thank you for the background information on the video. Any information that can reduce our "learning time" is valuable in our archery journeys.


----------



## Rick Barbee (Jan 16, 2013)

Whether it is the nock sliding on the string, or the string moving upward, the simple fact of the matter is - when this occurs, the nock does not exit the string from the same spot it is attached.

Is there a possibility of inconsistency in where the arrow exits the string when only a single nock point is used. I think the answer to that is an obvious YES.
Is there a possibility of inconsistency in where the arrow exits the string when a double nock set is used. I think the answer to that is an obvious NO

I'll utilize every method I can to insure mechanical consistency. Outside the mechanical spectrum it's all up to me.

Rick


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Big Country said:


> Most of my "fliers" are indeed me. And since you have confirmed that you are indeed steps above the "average" archer, you already know that 99% of the time you know what you did to cause a flyer. At high levels of competition, that 1% will have you riding the pine before the end of the tournament.


Matter of fact, if you are tuned right with no major issues there, all of your fliers will always be you, and to tell you the truth, some will still happen no matter what level you get to. They happen to ALL, and I mean all at every level - one nock set or two or three. Set your bow how you feel confident, one nock set, two, or three and then just keep working on you, that's where it all is anyway. If a rig will throw one arrow in the bull, it should throw all but for us.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

GEREP said:


> Your screen name is apparently a window into how you think.
> 
> As to your question about the FDA. No, I wouldn't do my own testing on drugs because I don't have the ability to do so. However, based on all the drug recalls we have every year, maybe your peer reviewed bs isn't all it's cracked up to be. No, I just test for myself the things I feel qualified to test.
> 
> ...


Gerep. I will stay with my B.S. and you stay with yours . There are people in this world who have to be contrarians to get noticed and when confronted with overwhelming evidence, will still find an excuse to argue a point. That's your bag and not mine. You have no idea of what my screen name refers to but your not so subtle put down is noted. The bottom line is....2 nocksets!


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Unexplained fliers in terms of very good/experienced shooters that know that the unexplained flier that just happened was nothing to do with Form.

After many years of shooting Longbow split finger with a single nock point I never worried about Fliers as it didnt seem to be an issue with me, if it ever was a flier I nearly always traced it back to a Form error or a bent/damaged POC. 

When I switched to Recurve and 3 under I did notice some unexplained fliers (it is possible that 3 under being new to me caused the issues), a second nock solved the problem, for me it is just one less thing to thing or worry about, the whole point of high level tourney shooting is to feel 110% confident about your form and setup, even the slightest doubt will impact on your performance at some point. I would say it does improve my scores, just on the fact Im shooting with more confidence about my setup.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Ok I have to ask:


Does the relatively simple physics of letting go of a bowstring not dictate that the nock itself isn't the thing being caused to move, but the bowstring compensating for the fact that the things (fingers) that were pulling it are no longer there and are no longer the resistance applied to the string, meaning string sliding up? This was addressed with a diagram not long ago. It would also explain the lack (or lessening) of slide shooting split finger.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> Ok I have to ask:
> 
> 
> Does the relatively simple physics of letting go of a bowstring not dictate that the nock itself isn't the thing being caused to move, but the bowstring compensating for the fact that the things (fingers) that were pulling it are no longer there and are no longer the resistance applied to the string, meaning string sliding up? This was addressed with a diagram not long ago. It would also explain the lack (or lessening) of slide shooting split finger.


My feeling is that the string is moving forward, not up, and that the arrow is being forced toward the apex of the string angle by the force of the forward movement of the string.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

CFGuy said:


> Ok I have to ask:
> 
> 
> Does the relatively simple physics of letting go of a bowstring not dictate that the nock itself isn't the thing being caused to move, but the bowstring compensating for the fact that the things (fingers) that were pulling it are no longer there and are no longer the resistance applied to the string, meaning string sliding up? This was addressed with a diagram not long ago. It would also explain the lack (or lessening) of slide shooting split finger.


It is very possible that the 3 under release is the cause of the arrow nock and nock set separating during the string dump. Which one is actually initiating the move is probably irrelevant.

What would be relevant is that the arrow may not launch from the same point on the string every time. We all likely know that moving a nocking point even a little bit makes a big difference in vertical impact, plus……move the launch point enough and all kinds of not good things are possible.

I would agree with your idea that a split finger release probably does not have to deal with this dilemma much, if at all.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

Sanford said:


> *Matter of fact, if you are tuned right with no major issues there, all of your fliers will always be you*, and to tell you the truth, some will still happen no matter what level you get to. They happen to ALL, and I mean all at every level - one nock set or two or three. Set your bow how you feel confident, one nock set, two, or three and then just keep working on you, that's where it all is anyway. If a rig will throw one arrow in the bull, it should throw all but for us.


Not trying to be a wiseguy here Sanford, but the bolded portion above should be pretty clear to all of us that can walk and breath at the same time. 

And I agree, a rig that will throw one arrow into the bull, should be able to do so until the shooter grows tired………but, if this theory of the arrow nock sliding down is real, then unless the nock goes to the exact same point every single time, then the best tuned rig in the world is not going to repeat. No machine performs flawlessly until ALL variables are removed. If my bow cannot one hole all day long out of a shooting machine, the chances of me shooting tight groups just went out the window.

I am still learning everybody here, and their posting styles……..I am starting to think that your style Sanford is to debate until the others in the debate give up, making you the default winner. 

Then again, maybe you are right……maybe 2 nocking points are a waste of time and string material. If this is the case, I will likely still waste some of my time and serving thread just like itbeso, and you do.:darkbeer:


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Big Country said:


> It is very possible that the 3 under release is the cause of the arrow nock and nock set separating during the string dump. Which one is actually initiating the move is probably irrelevant.


That's exactly why reading all these different experiences is not apples to apples. You have different bows, arrow choices, and shooters. For some, moving from split to three-under is just a relative move - by same amount of distance of one finger moved down, they almost have to raise their nocking point same. Nothing changed in the center of pressure at the string or at the bow, just the arrow leaving at a higher elevation on the string - now, we get into arrow spine involving these multiple dynamics.

For me, it's always been that my nocking point has never varied - split or three under. With all the forces and vectors involved and different bows, dynamic spines, and shooter combos, there is no pat or correct tune involving nocking point - it's a personal part of your tuning.



Big Country said:


> Then again, maybe you are right……maybe 2 nocking points are a waste of time and string material. If this is the case, I will likely still waste some of my time and serving thread just like itbeso, and you do.:darkbeer:


I couldn't be right, I've never said that. Just the opposite, cheap insurance.


----------



## Arrowwood (Nov 16, 2010)

> we'd still be boring into people's skulls to let the evil spirits out.


Are we not supposed to do that anymore? Uh oh..


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

itbeso said:


> Gerep. I will stay with my B.S. and you stay with yours . There are people in this world who have to be contrarians to get noticed and when confronted with overwhelming evidence, will still find an excuse to argue a point. That's your bag and not mine. You have no idea of what my screen name refers to but your not so subtle put down is noted. The bottom line is....2 nocksets!



That's interesting coming from a person that takes it upon himself to tell another person his findings and opinions are wrong, even though they agree on subject at hand.



KPC


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

itbeso and Big Country: Good points, nothing on my end to refute that. Would be interesting if a physics-savvy guy could explain that as I'm not sure myself. So far, two points still wins. I think the only way two points would be a disadvantage at this point is if they were too close together and inhibited some of the natural travel of the nock.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

GEREP said:


> That's interesting coming from a person that takes it upon himself to tell another person his findings and opinions are wrong, even though they agree on subject at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> KPC


And you get the last words.


----------



## Arcus (Jul 7, 2005)

Viper1 said:


> If it works for you, great, if it doesn't, that's great too.


I fail to see how one can take issue with this.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I can't say I was able to wade through this whole thread...

Some good information in between the filler 

Can you guys be best buds again?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> I can't say I was able to wade through this whole thread...
> 
> Some good information in between the filler
> 
> Can you guys be best buds again?


Barney, I'm glad you didn't say "can y'all be best buds again?" because any body that knows southern knows that y'all is singular and all y'all is plural.:teeth:


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> I can't say I was able to wade through this whole thread...
> 
> Some good information in between the filler
> 
> Can you guys be best buds again?


You're from the Santa Cruz foothills, of course you couldn't stay focused that long. Residual effects from the 60s passed down.:smile:


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

itbeso said:


> You're from the Santa Cruz foothills, of course you couldn't stay focused that long. Residual effects from the 60s passed down.:smile:


Probably some truth in that. Meth labs contaminating the ground water. Flippin' addicts are enough to tempt a peaceful man to cease to be qualified for the description.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Apparently you have no concept of how a "peer review" works. This 1 vs 2 nocksets is not a new phenomenon. It has been peer reviewed for at least the last 38 years that I know of and as a result of that "peer review' there isn't a serious barebow type shooter out there who doesn't use two nocksets. I understand that you are new to the "peer review" process, so do your own due diligence and end up wasting time that you could have spent working on other aspects of you game. The old saying that "those who don't know anything about history are bound to repeat it" certainly applies in this case. Cute story. I am a building contractor. I never do work for engineers. Wood is milled to nominal sizes however, depending on how much water it has in it, a 2x4 stud can vary from 3 3/8 inches to 3 5/8 inches wide and from 1 3/8 to 1 5/8 inches thick. Same goes for headers , floor joist, ceiling joists, etc. Engineers are used to working with absolutes such as plastics, steel, glass and other products which can be milled to a specific size and stay there. I haven't found an engineer yet that can handle the fact that framing a house does not produce exact dimensions all around. I leave all the engineers for others that want to put up with lack of common sense.


No engineer deals with absolutes. All dimensions have a tolerance and a series of tolerances will always "stack". The tolerance of a specific dimension is dependent on the material and the fabrication process. Any process has variance also. I spent most of my career designing test equipment and test processes so I kind of made a living measuring tolerance/deviation and it's effect. There's even error in measurements and test processes so that has to be accounted for too. Oh, and wood is one of the materials typically employed by engineers. lol


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

I think we have some very narrow minded views of what engineers do here . They don't all fit into a nice tight category.


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

CFGuy said:


> I think we have some very narrow minded views of what engineers do here . They don't all fit into a nice tight category.


I have worked with, and employed a boatload of them. In my personal experiences, about 85% do fit into a nice tight category.

The other 15% were a true pleasure to work with. :thumbs_up


----------



## spcenigma (Apr 3, 2007)

Another plus for me of a double set;
When you are 22' in a tree, and tasty venison carried by 4 legs comes slipping by, and you slide your bow off the hook to ready for the shot, 
your arrow will be nocked exactly where it was left.
One less thing to think about.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

Big Country said:


> I have worked with, and employed a boatload of them. In my personal experiences, about 85% do fit into a nice tight category.
> 
> The other 15% were a true pleasure to work with. :thumbs_up


My experience in the three different professions that I've had (and everything else I've done) is that somewhere around 85% of the people aren't very good at what they do...no matter what they do. Maybe 10 or 12% are competent and just a couple percent are really talented.


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

MGF said:


> My experience in the three different professions that I've had (and everything else I've done) is that somewhere around 85% of the people aren't very good at what they do...no matter what they do. Maybe 10 or 12% are competent and just a couple percent are really talented.


Yep, one can apply Pareto or Empirical Rule, but in the end, the mean ain't all that promising sometimes


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

spcenigma said:


> View attachment 1649386
> 
> 
> Another plus for me of a double set;
> ...


Jeff, congratulations on using 2 nocks. Just an observation. The amount of clearance you left between your bottom nockset and the arrow nock will result in about a 4-6 inch variance in impact height at 40 yards depending on whether the arrow stays where it is now upon loose, or slides down to engage the lower nocnkset. Good luck on your hunting


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

spcenigma said:


> View attachment 1649386
> 
> 
> Another plus for me of a double set;
> ...


Nice-looking setup you've got there!


----------



## spcenigma (Apr 3, 2007)

BarneySlayer said:


> Nice-looking setup you've got there!


Thank you!


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Big Country said:


> I have worked with, and employed a boatload of them. In my personal experiences, about 85% do fit into a nice tight category.
> 
> The other 15% were a true pleasure to work with. :thumbs_up


Gotta say I'd have to agree with MGF.

The problem is we want to be able to categorize people into similar groups based on profession, ethnicity, gender, etc, any sort of way we can logically group them.

Fact of the matter is, just because you did well in school, doesn't mean you are "smart" in a holistic manner of speaking. Whether it's an engineering degree, a PhD in Psychology, a medical degree, or a chiropractor with 15 different qualifications behind the name, there are unfortunately "smart" people and "qualified" people. I've encountered relatively few of the former throughout my life to an exceptional degree. This is more to do with a combination of a way of thinking, a humble heart and a mind open to incessantly and insatiably learning from as many perspectives as possible, even if poorly understood. I wouldn't doubt if the majority of engineers you meet fall into your "85%" category, but I wouldn't say this is exclusive to engineering. Humility is probably the best start - whether engineer, doctor, whatever the case may be, being able to admit that you don't know something or being wise enough to learn from someone else regardless of their qualification (absorb what is useful, discard what is useless - be careful about categorizing those things though) is likely the smartest thing you can do.


----------



## spcenigma (Apr 3, 2007)

itbeso said:


> Jeff, congratulations on using 2 nocks. Just an observation. The amount of clearance you left between your bottom nockset and the arrow nock will result in about a 4-6 inch variance in impact height at 40 yards depending on whether the arrow stays where it is now upon loose, or slides down to engage the lower nocnkset. Good luck on your hunting


Thanks for the comment and observation sir.

It is hard to see, but there is a brass nocking indicator crimped above the arrow. I tie an extra stop above the brass during hunting season to make sure the brass locator does not move even a mm. 
I do a lot of crawling thru thickets and vines when stalking hogs and such. Rough on the equipment.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

MGF said:


> My experience in the three different professions that I've had (and everything else I've done) is that somewhere around 85% of the people aren't very good at what they do...no matter what they do. Maybe 10 or 12% are competent and just a couple percent are really talented.


I'm betting that last couple of percent were using two nocking points !!!!!

couldn't help myself:teeth:


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

itbeso:
This interested me


itbeso said:


> The amount of clearance you left between your bottom nockset and the arrow nock will result in about a 4-6 inch variance in impact height at 40 yards depending on whether the arrow stays where it is now upon loose, or slides down to engage the lower nocnkset.


I thought I read before that a 1/2 nock space between the two was what you needed - how much space would you recommend if using tie on nocks vs brass nocks vs a combo of both?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> Gotta say I'd have to agree with MGF.
> 
> The problem is we want to be able to categorize people into similar groups based on profession, ethnicity, gender, etc, any sort of way we can logically group them.
> 
> Fact of the matter is, just because you did well in school, doesn't mean you are "smart" in a holistic manner of speaking. Whether it's an engineering degree, a PhD in Psychology, a medical degree, or a chiropractor with 15 different qualifications behind the name, there are unfortunately "smart" people and "qualified" people. I've encountered relatively few of the former throughout my life to an exceptional degree. This is more to do with a combination of a way of thinking, a humble heart and a mind open to incessantly and insatiably learning from as many perspectives as possible, even if poorly understood. I wouldn't doubt if the majority of engineers you meet fall into your "85%" category, but I wouldn't say this is exclusive to engineering. Humility is probably the best start - whether engineer, doctor, whatever the case may be, being able to admit that you don't know something or being wise enough to learn from someone else regardless of their qualification (absorb what is useful, discard what is useless - be careful about categorizing those things though) is likely the smartest thing you can do.


A great perspective Cf, agree wholeheartedly.


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> itbeso:
> This interested me
> 
> I thought I read before that a 1/2 nock space between the two was what you needed - how much space would you recommend if using tie on nocks vs brass nocks vs a combo of both?


Cf, If you are using a soft tie on material then you can keep your nocksets snug, but not tight, to your nocks whether shooting 3 under or split. The soft tie on material will form ( take a set if you will) into the angle of your arrow nock at full draw without needing the relief that you would need using brass crimp ons because of their ridgidity. I usually use dental floss to tie on temporary nocksets until I have tuned my arrows for nock height. I then take off the top nockset tie on and tie a no.2 serving tight against a nock placed on the string. When that is done I leave the nock in place, take the bottom temporary nockset off, and tie a couple of over-under knots snug against the bottom of the nock. I then take the nock and force it up and down a couple of times to about a 50 degree angle just to make sure I am not too tight against the nock . I then continue to finish tieing the bottom nockset and you should be good to go. For string walking I would recommend about 1/16 space under the nock. That is just my method, I"m sure there are many more.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks to both replies! I try my best to stay as open minded and emotionally detached (from ideas) as possible. Obviously don't do the greatest job at times but I can't imagine life any other way.

Good idea! I'll try that with mine. Do you find that fingers will move the nocks/interfere with them or is that not an issue if they're tied on properly?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

CFGuy said:


> Thanks to both replies! I try my best to stay as open minded and emotionally detached (from ideas) as possible. Obviously don't do the greatest job at times but I can't imagine life any other way.
> 
> Good idea! I'll try that with mine. Do you find that fingers will move the nocks/interfere with them or is that not an issue if they're tied on properly?


Usually not an issue if they aren tied on snug.


----------



## CFGuy (Sep 14, 2012)

Good to know, thanks for the advice!


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

2413gary said:


> I'm betting that last couple of percent were using two nocking points !!!!!
> 
> couldn't help myself:teeth:


That's ok, I'm using two nocking points. I'm just not convinced that it's doing much for me.

As I said earlier in the thread, all my shooting with two has been under 35 yards (mostly 30 and under) and with field points. I'll eventually get around to shooting some broad heads and longer distance and we'll see what happens.


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

itbeso said:


> Usually not an issue if they aren tied on snug.


My lower one tends to cork screw down the string unless I put some glue on it. Then it's not "soft". It also seems to wear out kind of fast although I shoot alot so "fast" might still be a lot of arrows.


----------

