Archery Interests

[RosinBag]

5 Miles not necessarily on those real steep ones. The extreme angles, say 30 or more shoot less than the exact calculations using the angle and cosign. That is exactly why Gillingham has shot all the data as an arrow at a certain angle will differ than the yardage. Last year I was shooting with Dave Cousins and we had an extreme short shot, 15 yards and about 40 degrees and you could not go off the calculations or you would have missed the dot. Cousins is a knowledgeable guy and explained to me the why and how’s of those kind of angles.

 

[5MilesBack]

5 Miles not necessarily on those real steep ones. The extreme angles, say 30 or more shoot less than the exact calculations using the angle and cosign. That is exactly why Gillingham has shot all the data as an arrow at a certain angle will differ than the yardage. Last year I was shooting with Dave Cousins and we had an extreme short shot, 15 yards and about 40 degrees and you could not go off the calculations or you would have missed the dot. Cousins is a knowledgeable guy and explained to me the why and how’s of those kind of angles.

I just know that I've ranged the top of some really tall trees standing maybe 6 or 7 yards away from the base and it's been spot on. I've also ranged almost straight down at the bottom of a cliff and the SK was showing 5-6 yards. I think 5 is the minimum that shows up on the SK. But like I said, I always have to subtract yardage anyway on extreme angles because of my anchor. It would be interesting to test that all out at multiple distances and angles and shots etc, with flat ground and something to place targets on well above or below your shooting point, in order to get an exact measured horizontal distance (like the tree example).

 

[RosinBag]

I just know that I've ranged the top of some really tall trees standing maybe 6 or 7 yards away from the base and it's been spot on. I've also ranged almost straight down at the bottom of a cliff and the SK was showing 5-6 yards. I think 5 is the minimum that shows up on the SK.

I am not saying your range finder is off or it’s calculations are bad. I am saying at extreme angles, your arrow will not impact where it should based on the calculations. For example; 45 yards at a 35 degree angle would be a shoot to distance of 36.85 or just say 37. You can shoot your arrow for 37 and still be off because of the extreme angle.

Also, uphill cuts differ from downhill cuts of equal distance and degree at the extremes. That is why it is so difficult to build a range finder for archers.

 

[keithlmart]

I have been carrying the same bow for 29 years.

It kills every year without tape...or sights, or an arrow rest.

I wish you all the best in your endeavors with your chosen bow and all the paraphernalia that goes with it.

I'll stay with the simplicity of my old recurve, a hair popping fixed 2 blade at 2.5:1 And an extreme FOC.



Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

 

[RosinBag]

I have been carrying the same bow for 29 years.

It kills every year without tape...or sights, or an arrow rest.

I wish you all the best in your endeavors with your chosen bow and all the paraphernalia that goes with it.

I'll stay with the simplicity of my old recurve, a hair popping fixed 2 blade at 2.5:1 And an extreme FOC.



Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

Something to be said for simple. Way to get it done.

 

[keithlmart]

Something to be said for simple. Way to get it done.

Thanks, I like it.

Not that many years ago a bow was good to 50 yds and a black powder gun good to 100 yds. It had stayed that way for several hundred years.

Now a compound bow set up and tuned properly can be lethal out to 100 yds and a black powder gun with any work at all is lethal out to 300 yds.

With all of these advances, including trail cameras to pattern your quarry of choice, tree stands, crossbows etc:

Where does technology end and fair chase begin?

Where is the line between woodcraft and technology?

Does Pope and Young need to add a category?
Or add entries with an asterisk?

Sorry to be off topic but it seems relevant.

We had this discussion this year at 10,000 ft with the smell of Elk in the air.
Only we were trying to decide if ONX maps was an unfair advantage, as we were using it.

Quite the disparity of technology, carrying a recurve bow while using a cell phone network and satellites in geosynchronous orbit to locate where you are on the mountain and be in constant contact of help should you need it.

My two cents.



Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

Where does technology end and fair chase begin?

Do you use any types of calls? Would you consider using reed and latex calls and a bugle tube as an advantage? Is that really fair chase?

My bow nor the accessories on it give me any advantage at all to the "hunt" part. I don't use it for hunting in the least. It's just a big anchor to carry around throughout that hunting part. It's the shooting part where the bow comes into play, and by that time the hunting is over IMO. However, my bugle tube and diaphragms definitely give me an advantage over not using them.

 

[5MilesBack]

I am not saying your range finder is off or it’s calculations are bad. I am saying at extreme angles, your arrow will not impact where it should based on the calculations. For example; 45 yards at a 35 degree angle would be a shoot to distance of 36.85 or just say 37. You can shoot your arrow for 37 and still be off because of the extreme angle.

Also, uphill cuts differ from downhill cuts of equal distance and degree at the extremes. That is why it is so difficult to build a range finder for archers.

I would agree with that, but is it the RF or the archer's form? The better question would be......"if the RF shows 37 for a 45 yard angle shot.....is it a true measured 37 yard ballistic range?" You'd have to configure a Hooter Shooter to take the shooter's form out of the equation to see if there was a difference. The fact that there are different cuts based on uphill versus downhill shots tells me that it is indeed form and not RF physics. Because from a physics and math standpoint it doesn't matter whether it's uphill or downhill, they should be the same. The thing that changes is our form. And if that's what they are using them for.......I completely agree, as my severe up's and down's are different as well.

 

[keithlmart]

Do you use any types of calls? Would you consider using reed and latex calls and a bugle tube as an advantage? Is that really fair chase?

My bow nor the accessories on it give me any advantage at all to the "hunt" part. I don't use it for hunting in the least. It's just a big anchor to carry around throughout that hunting part. It's the shooting part where the bow comes into play, and by that time the hunting is over IMO. However, my bugle tube and diaphragms definitely give me an advantage over not using them.

Agreed, as I said, we were using satellites for location while carrying a recurve.

I carried manufactured cow call while wearing high performance synthetic fabrics that stretch and breath.

My broad heads were steel and screwed into carbon arrows.

The question that I asked was rhetorical, not accusatory.

But the question for me still is, at what point does technology take the place of fair chase?

I can and have taken animals in excess of 500 yds with a rifle, I personally no longer equate that to hunting skill, but rather shooting skill.
Another person may think the opposite, and that is ok with me, as I said, I've done it.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

But the question for me still is, at what point does technology take the place of fair chase?

I agree, and I don't really care how anyone else hunts. But I do know that the elk have never given me any kind of advantage over them, so I'm certainly not going to give them any advantage either......if I can help it.

 

[RosinBag]

I think “fair chase” is an individual thing. Some may want all the help and some my have a line in the sand where they say that’s to much. As technology changes we always have this discussion. I honestly think if technology gets more people into hunting because they think they can be successful, then I am all for it. Hunters as a group are a minority, so I am all for growing it.

And I still don’t fill all my tags every year, so I it has made it a gimme I fill your tag.

 

[keithlmart]

I agree, and I don't really care how anyone else hunts. But I do know that the elk have never given me any kind of advantage over them, so I'm certainly not going to give them any advantage either......if I can help it.

Hunting is such an individual sport, there really is no wrong way, just different ways.

A successful hunt can be defined in many ways. Not all of them end with backstraps on the grill.
But those are generally the best!


"I have always tempered my killing with respect for the game pursued. I see the
animal not only as a target but as a living creature with more freedom than I will ever have. I take that life if I can, with regret as well as joy, and with the sure knowledge that nature's ways of fang and claw or exposure and starvation are a far crueler fate than I bestow.
- Fred Bear


Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Gobbler36]

Would love this

 

[3forks]

I spend a lot of time at both indoor and outdoor archery ranges, and would contend that most archers need to focus more on learning to shoot better than worrying about gaining performance/accuracy from upgrading their bow or some component of it.

I think the bows made today (at even the lower price points) are so good, that unless someone is a very accomplished archer, the bow would not impede their ability to shoot a good group even at extended ranges.

By the same token, I think some of the trad archery guys I consistently see at the range and overhear talking about why they "want to keep it pure and simple" should really consider whether they are good enough to make a humane kill on an animal.

I really appreciate the concept of hunting with traditional archery gear and the emphasis using that gear puts on getting close to an animal; but I see the groups a lot of trad guys are shooting at even 20 yards and their accuracy is appalling. At some point, I would think that if someone can't consistently shoot good groups at even closer ranges using trad gear; then they should consider utilizing the technology in compound bows so they can still hunt during archery and enable themselves to make clean kills.

To bring it back to the question in the OP, I'd rather read about techniques to improve my form as much as I'd like to read about strings, sight tapes, and bows.

 

[keithlmart]

I think “fair chase” is an individual thing. Some may want all the help and some my have a line in the sand where they say that’s to much. As technology changes we always have this discussion. I honestly think if technology gets more people into hunting because they think they can be successful, then I am all for it. Hunters as a group are a minority, so I am all for growing it.

And I still don’t fill all my tags every year, so I it has made it a gimme I fill your tag.

In 1961, 35 members started the pope and young club as a means to get the states to take archery hunting seriously.

Technology has given numbers to that voice so that now bowhunting is acceptable in all 50 states.

Today our voice is loud and our dollars sustain people and habitat.

The more the merrier, we are going to need all the collaboration we can get in the next few years or we are going to lose the privileges that were previously won.

As for filling tags, I believe my recurve is a more efficient tool than a compound.
It is not a self imposed limitation but rather a means for effective fast accurate shooting at relatively short ranges...and the most fun you can have with your clothes on.

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

 

[keithlmart]

I spend a lot of time at both indoor and outdoor archery ranges, and would contend that most archers need to focus more on learning to shoot better than worrying about gaining performance/accuracy from upgrading their bow or some component of it.

I think the bows made today (at even the lower price points) are so good, that unless someone is a very accomplished archer, the bow would not impede their ability to shoot a good group even at extended ranges.

By the same token, I think some of the trad archery guys I consistently see at the range and overhear talking about why they "want to keep it pure and simple" should really consider whether they are good enough to make a humane kill on an animal.

I really appreciate the concept of hunting with traditional archery gear and the emphasis using that gear puts on getting close to an animal; but I see the groups a lot of trad guys are shooting at even 20 yards and their accuracy is appalling. At some point, I would think that if someone can't consistently shoot good groups at even closer ranges using trad gear; then they should consider utilizing the technology in compound bows so they can still hunt during archery and enable themselves to make clean kills.

To bring it back to the question in the OP, I'd rather read about techniques to improve my form as much as I'd like to read about strings, sight tapes, and bows.

Excellent observations and I agree.

But regardless of equipment, trad or otherwise you better to be able to put an arrow where it matters most on the first shot.

No excuses for trad guys here either, however instinctive shooting does not lend itself to tight groups of many arrows.
Gap shooters should have fairly tight groups, but that's very hard to do instinctively.

The question that every instinctive shooter needs to answer is where does the first arrow go...every time, at unknown yardages.

Not a bad idea for all archers actually.

If your first one sucks when it matters, it's going to be a long bad day... and ugly for the archer too!

As season approaches I have a target that moves easily in the yard.

Each morning I step out and shoot one arrow. I live with it, good or bad until evening when I pull it and shoot a few more. Then move the target to a new location for tomorrow's shot, either shorter or longer, never the same.

Better to live with a wounded foam 3d for a day than to gut shoot an animal that I respect.





Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk