Nose to string different than Kisser Button?

[sndmn11]

Here's a napkin drawing of what I'm thinking:
View attachment 760241

When sliding the sight down for longer distances the slider will not be centered in the peep, or if shooting long enough distance (or using a slower bow speed) the sight will be almost completely out of the peep picture. As shown in my napkin drawing, you would have to "move your eye up" in order to see the housing through the peep. Since you can't really do that, you end up moving the peep down / rotating the bow with the sight as the center of rotation (since your sight is going to be fixed on the target). When you rotate the bow / strings with the sight at the center, it will have to lengthen the anchor distance.

What degree of angle is there between the gray line and the green line?

 

[BBob]

There's no way around not dropping your anchor slightly for long shots with a slider. No way! I learned this so long ago I can't believe we are here but it's the internet. Maybe because we in the SW started pushing long distances so long ago that we figured it out so long ago? And the rifle with movable rear sight? Same damn thing. You are moving your anchor to maintain peep/sight alignment. No way around it.

 

[jimh406]

I've shot NFAA rounds at a high level without moving my anchor. The distances range from 20 ft - 80 yds. I've done that as BHFS (fixed pin) and FS (movable scope) as a NFAA Pro.

I wonder how many of the posts are theory vs actual experience?

 

[BBob]

Dunno? Been shooting for 45 years. Long known phenomena to me anyway. Anchor doesn't move much but it moves. It's not like my hand is in a completely different position it just moves or relaxes down a touch for a long shot. I like others set everything up with a mid range distance. For 20 yd pin the anchor might be just a hair tighter against my jaw and longer just a bit relaxed and everything in between just right. As it is I don't even think about it anymore.

 

[nubraskan]

What degree of angle is there between the gray line and the green line?

It would depend on a lot of factors like draw length and arrow speed. The napkin drawing is not to scale!

 

[3forks]

I thought I had a point to make on this discussion but have edited my post because I’ve always believed if you can’t explain something well, you don’t have a complete understanding of the concept.

*I’m also superstitious and have been in archery long enough to know that just when you think you’ve got it all figured out, the archery gods who actually control our accuracy will place a curse on us when we believe we’ve mastered the sport and start trying to explain it all.

 

[sndmn11]

It would depend on a lot of factors like draw length and arrow speed. The napkin drawing is not to scale!

Absolutely it would. Now think through why there aren't an equally infinite number of peep choices to match those string angles. When someone says they can't see through their peep at a degree different of elevation, yet the same peep can be used by someone at a 31" dl and extended sight vs a 25" dl and short bar, there's a disconnect between the statement and reality. "Impossible"

 

[nubraskan]

Absolutely it would. Now think through why there aren't an equally infinite number of peep choices to match those string angles. When someone says they can't see through their peep at a degree different of elevation, yet the same peep can be used by someone at a 31" dl and extended sight vs a 25" dl and short bar, there's a disconnect between the statement and reality. "Impossible"

Sorry I'm not following what you're saying here. I drew it up just to show what I'm thinking is happing with the angles in a more visual way since I'm a typical engineer and terrible about putting what's in my head into words. What I've noticed for me, is that you have to move the anchor around to line the peep back up to get it in line with your eye, sight, and target. I'm not really finding a way around it based on my mental modeling (and napkin drawings), and I've heard a lot of people with lots of archery experience say the same thing. Apologies if I'm making you re-explain it all, I just don't follow

 

[IdahoBeav]

I've seen people make this argument before. There are a lot of factors- peep size, bow speed, release type, and the fact that an anchor point is not as repeated and exact as "fixed-anchor" shooters think it is. In order to really show some people how this works, you have to photograph them at full draw as they shoot short and longer distances with their sliders. You will be able to show them the different anchor points. It's also popular with wrist strap shooters to place the thumb-index "V" of the hand against what they believe to be the same location on their face/jaw bone every shot, but then they tilt their neck to align the eye with the peep. I've even seen guys open their mouths in order to lower the peep and maintain what they believed was a consistent anchor point.

 

[Billy Goat]

It's pretty simple, the closer your anchor is in a vertical line to your eye, the less it will move. Get an anchor further back and it will matter more and more. I bet Cam Hanes with his thumb in his neck starts using different vertebrae, kinda joking.


But it absolutely has to move, I don't understand why this concept is hard to understand. Use a giant peep, maybe you don't notice it, but then you aren't really using a peep all that effectively.




You don't need a peep, you don't need a bunch of things in different places on your string for reference points. I was somewhere 8-10 years old and walked into a bow shop, asked the guy behind the counter if I needed a peep sight. I had read about one in Bowhunter magazine, or likely did. It doesn't stand out to me where I heard about it, but his answer did. He said it depends, you don't need one. I don't use one, and I can go there in the back where those guys are shooting right now and outshoot all of them without one. It can make it easier, just depends on how much you want to practice, with a compound, you probably want one.


I had no idea who he was, years later I figured it out, one of the better archery coaches in the country, and he doesn't remember the interaction at all. But it really ingrained a lot of archery in me, it's all repetition.



Find what can make you the most repeatable.

 

[Jon_G]

But it absolutely has to move, I don't understand why this concept is hard to understand. Use a giant peep, maybe you don't notice it, but then you aren't really using a peep all that effectively.



Find what can make you the most repeatable.

Well said. Case closed lol

 

[Jon_G]

I've seen people make this argument before. There are a lot of factors- peep size, bow speed, release type, and the fact that an anchor point is not as repeated and exact as "fixed-anchor" shooters think it is. In order to really show some people how this works, you have to photograph them at full draw as they shoot short and longer distances with their sliders. You will be able to show them the different anchor points. It's also popular with wrist strap shooters to place the thumb-index "V" of the hand against what they believe to be the same location on their face/jaw bone every shot, but then they tilt their neck to align the eye with the peep. I've even seen guys open their mouths in order to lower the peep and maintain what they believed was a consistent anchor point.

I've done this too, the whole opening your mouth thing to move your peep down slightly. It works if you have a solid, repeatable anchor. I just don't do it because I think I look silly lol

 

[Jon_G]

Dunno? Been shooting for 45 years. Long known phenomena to me anyway. Anchor doesn't move much but it moves. It's not like my hand is in a completely different position it just moves or relaxes down a touch for a long shot. I like others set everything up with a mid range distance. For 20 yd pin the anchor might be just a hair tighter against my jaw and longer just a bit relaxed and everything in between just right. As it is I don't even think about it anymore.

Well said. It's not like your anchor point is inches away or noticeably different but it definitely changes.

 

[sndmn11]

Sorry I'm not following what you're saying here. I drew it up just to show what I'm thinking is happing with the angles in a more visual way since I'm a typical engineer and terrible about putting what's in my head into words. What I've noticed for me, is that you have to move the anchor around to line the peep back up to get it in line with your eye, sight, and target. I'm not really finding a way around it based on my mental modeling (and napkin drawings), and I've heard a lot of people with lots of archery experience say the same thing. Apologies if I'm making you re-explain it all, I just don't follow

If you don't follow, it's a choice to do so and pointless to rehash.

He said it depends, you don't need one. I don't use one, and I can go there in the back where those guys are shooting right now and outshoot all of them without one.

Do you think he did so while anchoring differently everytime?

Find what can make you the most repeatable.

Ohhhh, gotcha.

You guys are short changing yourself thinking floating your anchor around is an equipment thing versus a discipline of form thing.

 

[Billy Goat]

Do you think he did so while anchoring differently everytime?

For shooting indoors at 20 yards everytime?

No.


Guess what happens at 80 meters?

 

[nubraskan]

If you don't follow, it's a choice to do so and pointless to rehash.

I re-read your other post half a dozen times trying to understand, I made my "choice" to try to understand your side. Guess I'm not worth the time to try to explain it though! It's not like I went through the trouble to reply or draw up a diagram or anything to explain my perspective...

 

[sndmn11]

For shooting indoors at 20 yards everytime?

No.

Right. He repeated his anchor to achieve consistency rather than floated it around?

I'm entertained by the idea the above gets turned into success lies in changing the anchor point.

I re-read your other post half a dozen times trying to understand, I made my "choice" to try to understand your side. Guess I'm not worth the time to try to explain it though! It's not like I went through the trouble to reply or draw up a diagram or anything to explain my perspective...

If you are an engineer you should have an objective lens to view life through and recognize when you are making contradicting statements. You probably understand where fact and myth diverge as well.

Looking through a ring is not the same as looking through a tube. A full circle of vision can be achieved through a ring from various angles. Proof of this exists because a peep with one (or two) string groove angles works for "all" archers. There's isn't a 35deg peep, a 35.15deg peep, a 36deg peep, so on and so forth.

Hamskea's raptor chart shows a whopping 10deg of use per groove. One can see through that peep in at least a 10deg window.

Engineers do math, right? Take the trajectory of the arrow and solve for the degree of angle needed to put arrows on POA at various distances. Is there less than 10deg of adjustment needed?

 

[nubraskan]

Right. He repeated his anchor to achieve consistency rather than floated it around?

I'm entertained by the idea the above gets turned into success lies in changing the anchor point.



If you are an engineer you should have an objective lens to view life through and recognize when you are making contradicting statements. You probably understand where fact and myth diverge as well.

Looking through a ring is not the same as looking through a tube. A full circle of vision can be achieved through a ring from various angles. Proof of this exists because a peep with one (or two) string groove angles works for "all" archers. There's isn't a 35deg peep, a 35.15deg peep, a 36deg peep, so on and so forth.

Hamskea's raptor chart shows a whopping 10deg of use per groove. One can see through that peep in at least a 10deg window.

Engineers do math, right? Take the trajectory of the arrow and solve for the degree of angle needed to put arrows on POA at various distances. Is there less than 10deg of adjustment needed?

I've contradicted nothing to my knowledge...

I'm well aware that looking through a ring is not the same as looking through a tube, otherwise the premise of a sliding sight would not work well at all.

I don't think this post refutes my caveman drawing at all, and since we're on the engineering route, if we were to go about this from a modeling design perspective we could lay out the varying degrees of freedom and fixed points. If you've ever used Solidworks or a similar software that utilizes assembly constraints then you'll see where I'm going with that.

Initial constraints:
2 Targets at the same height off the ground (20 and 100 yards)
Your eye is at a fixed height off the ground at the same height as the targets
The bow at full draw is a "triangle" with sides that are fixed lengths
The peep is at a fixed distance point from the release / anchor point along the side (string) of the bow triangle
The sight can slide up and down, but is at a fixed distance from the bow riser
The sight pin point center is coaxial with the target centers
The sight is coaxial with the center point of the peep
The anchor / release is at a fixed point on your face and cannot move (your assumption)

With these initial constraint conditions, it works fine at 1 distance, but you would not be able slide the sight up or down because it is fully constrained. The modeling software would not allow you to do it without opening up some degrees of freedom. What constraint can we remove to open up a degree of freedom and slide the sight? The only one on the list that would make sense is allowing the anchor point to move. Maybe I'll actually model this for real since I'm apparently way too invested in this scenario...

I'll try to explain it again since I feel that without a physical model it didn't make enough sense.
If you drop the sight lower but kept everything else at a fixed position, you would not have your sight centered in the peep any longer. If you kept your anchor / release in the exact same position and raised your bow hand up to align the sight back on target (since you slid the sight down earlier), your peep would raise up along with the rest of the bow and would no longer be in line with your eye. At that point, to realign your peep you have to pivot your anchor / release down to get the peep back in line with the sight and target.

 

[Billy Goat]

Keep on bending light waves, I'm out.

 

[sndmn11]

I've contradicted nothing to my knowledge...

You made a drawing stating you must change your anchor to accommodate the housing moving for elevation. You then stated moving the housing for windage doesn't need an anchor change. I've asked that contradiction to be resolved a few times

you would not be able slide the sight up or down because it is fully constrained. The modeling software would not allow you to do it without opening up some degrees of freedom. What constraint can we remove to open up a degree of freedom and slide the sight?

There ya go...
You are viewing the peep as a miniscule point that can only allow a view in the finest parameter oh however your brain works. It is not .000001 of a degree, it is at least 10 degrees of viewing angle. It is a hoop and not a micron of a dot that provides two cones of vision on each side of the peep rather a single line.

Did you solve for the degree of angle yet in the sight adjustment? We know that the peep allows at least a 10degree window, and we know the human eye can rotate vertically at least 120degrees, so we are still within the realm of possibility...