Low light visibilty stinks!
09-08-2002, 11:30 PM
#51
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sheboygan WI USA
Posts: 255
RE: Low light visibilty stinks!
Arthur, No offence taken. By now you know that I can disagree with you and still hold a civil debate 
I will admit that I have not tested just how much of a differance the change in anchor makes...just knowing that it is different was enough for me.
For MY set up, I actually center my peep ON the pin guard. When at full draw, and I am at my anchor points, I cannot see the bright orange ring around my pin guard (Copper John's) ANY torque, or mis-alignment showes up as an orange line somewhere around my peep.
That's what works for ME.
I'm sure I could hit just fine centering the pins, But being a target archer long before a bow hunter, I want PERFECTION in MY form. The pin guard I use showes torque as well as a no-peep.
I DO conceed that when talking hunting, that 1/64" doesn't mean beans....but KNOWING that it's there KILLS the archer in ME.
I will admit that I have not tested just how much of a differance the change in anchor makes...just knowing that it is different was enough for me.
For MY set up, I actually center my peep ON the pin guard. When at full draw, and I am at my anchor points, I cannot see the bright orange ring around my pin guard (Copper John's) ANY torque, or mis-alignment showes up as an orange line somewhere around my peep.
That's what works for ME.
I'm sure I could hit just fine centering the pins, But being a target archer long before a bow hunter, I want PERFECTION in MY form. The pin guard I use showes torque as well as a no-peep.
I DO conceed that when talking hunting, that 1/64" doesn't mean beans....but KNOWING that it's there KILLS the archer in ME.
09-09-2002, 06:44 AM
#52
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Low light visibilty stinks!
It's those sights, Stealth! They're the work of the devil! A satanic plot to destroy your confidence in your natural abilities. Trying to make you think you must do things only 'this' way, that 1/64th of an inch will kill your soul. He also invented the mechanical release, trying to get us to believe his machinery is better than your God given fingers of Devine design. Get rid of all that stuff and be FREE!<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
No, really. I know where you're coming from. We strive for consistency on the target range when we're punching dots and anything that moves your anchor, however slightly, does seem to go against the whole point. Frankly, even though some people might be well trained enough to repeat their anchor within 1/64th of an inch, every time there's not many of 'em. There would never be anything but perfect scores shot every time if the human body was that precise.
There are some of us left that don't use sights, but use different aiming systems. Like the technique called 'face walking' where their entire aiming system is based on having a whole list of different anchors, a different one for each distance. String walkers too, where their pull point on the string varies with each distance. Lowly gap shooters like me. 'Instinctive' shooters also. We consider ourselves archers too, and we generally work harder to develop and maintain our skills than sights shooters do.
But your response is a perfect reflection of what I was saying earlier, that sights force you into a rigid shooting form and mental attitude that, I feel, doesn't flow well in the woods. At the end of the day when I'm bone tired, when it's cold, wet and windy, near dark and a buck's coming in, I don't want to be worrying about trying to get my anchor within a 64th of an inch of perfection. I don't want a peep in front of my eye, screening the ambient light and reducing my visibility. I don't want pins in front of my face, dictating how I hold the bow to shoot. I want to look at the deer, pick a spot and let the arrow fly at the best possible moment.
No, really. I know where you're coming from. We strive for consistency on the target range when we're punching dots and anything that moves your anchor, however slightly, does seem to go against the whole point. Frankly, even though some people might be well trained enough to repeat their anchor within 1/64th of an inch, every time there's not many of 'em. There would never be anything but perfect scores shot every time if the human body was that precise.
There are some of us left that don't use sights, but use different aiming systems. Like the technique called 'face walking' where their entire aiming system is based on having a whole list of different anchors, a different one for each distance. String walkers too, where their pull point on the string varies with each distance. Lowly gap shooters like me. 'Instinctive' shooters also. We consider ourselves archers too, and we generally work harder to develop and maintain our skills than sights shooters do.
But your response is a perfect reflection of what I was saying earlier, that sights force you into a rigid shooting form and mental attitude that, I feel, doesn't flow well in the woods. At the end of the day when I'm bone tired, when it's cold, wet and windy, near dark and a buck's coming in, I don't want to be worrying about trying to get my anchor within a 64th of an inch of perfection. I don't want a peep in front of my eye, screening the ambient light and reducing my visibility. I don't want pins in front of my face, dictating how I hold the bow to shoot. I want to look at the deer, pick a spot and let the arrow fly at the best possible moment.
09-09-2002, 08:01 AM
#53
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,413
RE: Low light visibilty stinks!
Arthur, I ripped the peep off my bow because it was a crutch I didn't want for hunting, and after reading your reasons for not using a sight, I'm about ready to rip that off also.
It reminds of of a couple decades ago, before I had ever used a sight. Shooting was definitely simpler back then and I never had a problem taking deer without all these gadgets. Simple can be better when dealing with a hunting situation where the brain doesn't function well and you have to let instinct take over. Taking the sight off this close to hunting season might not be the best idea, but I think I'll be shooting a lot next year without one. <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>
It reminds of of a couple decades ago, before I had ever used a sight. Shooting was definitely simpler back then and I never had a problem taking deer without all these gadgets. Simple can be better when dealing with a hunting situation where the brain doesn't function well and you have to let instinct take over. Taking the sight off this close to hunting season might not be the best idea, but I think I'll be shooting a lot next year without one. <img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>
09-09-2002, 08:29 AM
#54
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Miami FL USA
Posts: 208
RE: Low light visibilty stinks!
<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> Arthur are you telling us that string walkers and face walkers do not have to have consistant anchor points???? Like heck they don't!!! If a 1/64th of an inch is important to a sight shooter its also important to the other classes of archery. We have had some string walkers at our club, and I think counting stitches on your tab or wraps of serving is a bit difficult at times. How about finding multiple anchors on your face to perform the face walk. How consistant is the inconsistancy to all of this. I do shoot fingers and no sights with my recurve and shoot pretty well comparatively to 20 yds, the limit of my practiced ability for traditional hunting. The fact is that a release is much cleaner, a peep and sights are much more accurate. Otherwise the FITA, NAA, ASA, IBO, and NFAA field and indoor scores would reflect something much different.
Arthur I also feel that a fatiqued archer is just that regardless of the style of archery. I have been there when a barebow or traditional archer tires, the performance drops drastically. At least with sights and pins you have mechanical aids to assist getting you into fairly good shooting position. I agree there are advantages to no sights or peep such as running or walking animal shots. The downside is accuracy for most traditional archers compared to those with sight aimming systems. If I were the archer that won the trad. recently at the NFAA nationals with over a 2400 it would be a moot point. Unfortunately most of us are not that talented.
Aim Hard!
Edited by - FLHunter on 09/09/2002 09:51:28
Arthur I also feel that a fatiqued archer is just that regardless of the style of archery. I have been there when a barebow or traditional archer tires, the performance drops drastically. At least with sights and pins you have mechanical aids to assist getting you into fairly good shooting position. I agree there are advantages to no sights or peep such as running or walking animal shots. The downside is accuracy for most traditional archers compared to those with sight aimming systems. If I were the archer that won the trad. recently at the NFAA nationals with over a 2400 it would be a moot point. Unfortunately most of us are not that talented.
Aim Hard!
Edited by - FLHunter on 09/09/2002 09:51:28
09-09-2002, 11:23 AM
#55
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Low light visibilty stinks!
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The fact is that a release is much cleaner, a peep and sights are much more accurate. Otherwise the FITA, NAA, ASA, IBO, and NFAA field and indoor scores would reflect something much different. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
No argument with that. However, why not take a look at HUNTING shots a little more realistically. We're shooting at a deer with approximately a 9" kill zone at pretty close range rather than at a half inch X-ring at 20 yards or a FITA target at 90 meters. Pinpoint accuracy a goal that I work constantly to achieve. After all, that's the entire point of competitive archery as a sport. But, in the woods, a couple of inches one way or another from my aiming spot isn't going to make any difference in the outcome of a shot at a deer.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If a 1/64th of an inch is important to a sight shooter its also important to the other classes of archery. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
The key word in that sentence is 'if'. IF 1/64" variance in anchor is detrimental to accuracy, then you're right. I still say the human body is not geared up to perform to that level of repeatable accuracy. I doubt there's even a single bow on the market that hits the wall in exactly the same place, every time, within a 1/64" tolerance. Even with draw stops, you can get the ol' adrenaline flowing and bend the limbs an extra .016" after hitting the stops. Even with low stretch string and cables, you can still pick up that much stretch in the rigging system. In the machine shop I worked at, we called this the PWII Syndrome. Preoccupation With Inconsequential Increments.
I never said that everybody should shoot barebow, except in jest. I'm fully aware of the vast differences in people's innate abilities and skills, and I know that I'm pretty well above average with my shooting, but my original point still stands. Putting so much reliance on your equipment that you cannot make a killing shot within spitting distance <font color=red>without the aiming aids</font id=red> is going to cost you. Sooner or later, you're going to have to pass a shot that a 5 year old with a plastic bow and suction cup arrows could easily make.
Edited by - Arthur P on 09/09/2002 12:26:35
No argument with that. However, why not take a look at HUNTING shots a little more realistically. We're shooting at a deer with approximately a 9" kill zone at pretty close range rather than at a half inch X-ring at 20 yards or a FITA target at 90 meters. Pinpoint accuracy a goal that I work constantly to achieve. After all, that's the entire point of competitive archery as a sport. But, in the woods, a couple of inches one way or another from my aiming spot isn't going to make any difference in the outcome of a shot at a deer.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If a 1/64th of an inch is important to a sight shooter its also important to the other classes of archery. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
The key word in that sentence is 'if'. IF 1/64" variance in anchor is detrimental to accuracy, then you're right. I still say the human body is not geared up to perform to that level of repeatable accuracy. I doubt there's even a single bow on the market that hits the wall in exactly the same place, every time, within a 1/64" tolerance. Even with draw stops, you can get the ol' adrenaline flowing and bend the limbs an extra .016" after hitting the stops. Even with low stretch string and cables, you can still pick up that much stretch in the rigging system. In the machine shop I worked at, we called this the PWII Syndrome. Preoccupation With Inconsequential Increments.
I never said that everybody should shoot barebow, except in jest. I'm fully aware of the vast differences in people's innate abilities and skills, and I know that I'm pretty well above average with my shooting, but my original point still stands. Putting so much reliance on your equipment that you cannot make a killing shot within spitting distance <font color=red>without the aiming aids</font id=red> is going to cost you. Sooner or later, you're going to have to pass a shot that a 5 year old with a plastic bow and suction cup arrows could easily make.
Edited by - Arthur P on 09/09/2002 12:26:35
09-09-2002, 12:07 PM
#56
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Miami FL USA
Posts: 208
RE: Low light visibilty stinks!
Arthur,
What you are saying has some merit!!! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> However sights and peeps are not the root of all evil and allow more folks into our sport without having to marry their equipment. As far as me hitting something without sights, well thats not a big deal either. I came from the darkside and still shoot the recurve quite often. In fact on Saturday I was up about 20' at treestand height practicing with the recurve on my 3-D animals. Yes a much lower light shot is easier with my recurve, all I have to do is pretty much see the animal within 20yds.
Aim Hard!
What you are saying has some merit!!! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> However sights and peeps are not the root of all evil and allow more folks into our sport without having to marry their equipment. As far as me hitting something without sights, well thats not a big deal either. I came from the darkside and still shoot the recurve quite often. In fact on Saturday I was up about 20' at treestand height practicing with the recurve on my 3-D animals. Yes a much lower light shot is easier with my recurve, all I have to do is pretty much see the animal within 20yds.
Aim Hard!
09-09-2002, 12:45 PM
#57
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Low light visibilty stinks!
I tell ya, peeps-n-pins is the work of the devil! Well, actually he just supervises his underlings in that work. Micro-click adjustable scopes on extended sight bars is his personal project. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
09-09-2002, 12:48 PM
#58
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oh USA
Posts: 1,584
RE: Low light visibilty stinks!
I'm with the No-Peep camp on this one. I had one on my bow until I no longer needed it. Now my anchor is consistent enough to do without. I shoot both eyes open, and have a commanding view of my intented target in any shootable light. I started with a peep and soon realized I didn't want one at low light. Obviously Arthur is correct, in that no sight means no obstructions to upset the picture when light is poor. However, with a good bright pin and no peep sight, I can shoot until it's illegal. With good accuracy. It has taken months of shooting every day (nearly) to get the consistency I strive for, but it is possible. It may not be the best setup for spots, but you can turn on lights and take all the time you need. On the 3D range I don't feel at any disadvantage, at all. When hunting you don't always have the luxury of everything being perfect. So for me no peep is what works best.
Phil.
Phil.
09-09-2002, 05:58 PM
#59
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: HENDERSON KY USA
Posts: 6,634
RE: Low light visibilty stinks!
Hey,Stealth,there are a lot of target archers here.I am one.Accuracy is my main concern.ALL scope and slide bar users(such as I) move there anchor if you really want to call it that.Even Jeff Hopkins,Dave Cousins,Burley Hall,Tom Crowe,Eric Griggs,Mike Braden,Nathan Brooks and the list goes on and on.These are some of the best in the world.I have shot with some of these.Not saying that I'm in the same class because that would be a bold face lie.The point is that they have achieved some pretty amazing accuracy by shooting a floating anchor.They all use a movable sight and by what some seem to think here is that moves your anchor too much for target archery.This is just a crazy thought.The relationship between the pin and peep will always stay the same,it is just a matter of centering.
Arthur,I feel the same way about saying you have a kill zone of 9" as you do to using light arrows.There are a lot of things that can go wrong in the woods.If a person has a 5" group(well within the 9" kill) at 30 yards and shoots at a 34 yard deer thinking it's 30,they have just wounded the deer to not recover it or missed,or got lucky(no room for luck in my book).Most all will have a 1" drop per yard of misjudgement.On the other hand if you have a 2" group at 30 and miss by 4 yards,provided you shoot center lung,as I do,You have just drilled the deer thru the heart and low lung.What I'm trying to say is for every yard around 30 that is misjudged it adds about 1" to your group,but to the low or high side,according to wether or not you judged short or long.Thank goodness for rangefinders.
Besides,if you shoot the little ones like me,you only have a 6" kill.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
Edited by - tfox on 09/09/2002 19:09:31
Edited by - tfox on 09/09/2002 19:11:13
Arthur,I feel the same way about saying you have a kill zone of 9" as you do to using light arrows.There are a lot of things that can go wrong in the woods.If a person has a 5" group(well within the 9" kill) at 30 yards and shoots at a 34 yard deer thinking it's 30,they have just wounded the deer to not recover it or missed,or got lucky(no room for luck in my book).Most all will have a 1" drop per yard of misjudgement.On the other hand if you have a 2" group at 30 and miss by 4 yards,provided you shoot center lung,as I do,You have just drilled the deer thru the heart and low lung.What I'm trying to say is for every yard around 30 that is misjudged it adds about 1" to your group,but to the low or high side,according to wether or not you judged short or long.Thank goodness for rangefinders.
Besides,if you shoot the little ones like me,you only have a 6" kill.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
Edited by - tfox on 09/09/2002 19:09:31
Edited by - tfox on 09/09/2002 19:11:13
09-09-2002, 11:01 PM
#60
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Low light visibilty stinks!
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What I'm trying to say is for every yard around 30 that is misjudged it adds about 1" to your group,but to the low or high side,according to wether or not you judged short or long.Thank goodness for rangefinders.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
You're going back to what I was talking about earlier. Mechanical shooting style presents too many limitations for my blood. Seems like every mechanical aid works better with another mechanical aid to support it. One of these days it could get to the point where people are mounting their bows on robots and do all their hunting by sitting in front of a computer monitor using a joystick. Won't THAT be fun...<img src=icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle>
With my style, I don't judge yardage, so the problems you're talking about are not applicable.
You're going back to what I was talking about earlier. Mechanical shooting style presents too many limitations for my blood. Seems like every mechanical aid works better with another mechanical aid to support it. One of these days it could get to the point where people are mounting their bows on robots and do all their hunting by sitting in front of a computer monitor using a joystick. Won't THAT be fun...<img src=icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle>
With my style, I don't judge yardage, so the problems you're talking about are not applicable.