Doing it the hard way...

[Viper]

Gents -

I usually don't post in this section, so bear with me...

The "doing it the hard way" thing we keep hearing about has always been a little bit of a problem for me. Walk into your boss's ofice one day and tell him you've found a harder, more time-consuming (less efficient) way of doing your job and would like to start on it immediately. See if you still have a job that afternoon, or if you like the fit of the straight jacket.

We all get satisfaction from doing things ourselves, with our own hands, as it were. I just get to a point were I like a fair amount of efficiency when I do something. Put another way way, when I put X amount of effort into something, I expect "X" amount of return.

Once we define the parameters of what we are attempting to accomplish, it seems to make sense to do it the most efficient way possible.

Thoughts?

Viper out.

[Desert Archer]

I don't consider barebow shooting as "the hard way", rather it is...gag, choke, stutter, tremble (come on, you can say it)...the traditional way of shooting a bow. Goes back thousands of years, so I guess it appeals to the historian in me.

I find it interesting that the same folks who claim to be doing it the hard way, also claim it is the simplier way. Wouldn't a more complicated way of shooting be "the hard way"? (smile)

Dave

[Joe -->]

Once we define the parameters of what we are attempting to accomplish, it seems to make sense to do it the most efficient way possible.
Everyone draws the line someplace different. Hunting: Give up the bow. Buy infrared gear, semi auto, and become a sniper. Like mountain climbing, some things you do because they are hard. Other wise they aren't worth doing. Read the exploits of some of the greats. They went out under "full" conditions(storms) and left as much equipment behind as possible. Most "outdoors men" draw comfortable, safe lines for themselves so as to effortlessly stroke the ego. Instant gratification. Like Pope said, "the true hunter counts his achievement in proportion to the effort involved."

[BowDonkey]

I don't usually comment on posts like that either, even being someone of my stature in the sport. But since I'm the resident expert on all things Traditional here at TradTalk I'll give it a go anyway. Let me sit back in my chair and have a sip of tea and think about this. Most these guys, not all, are Howard Hill wannabe's. Nothing wrong with that, but they get the idea that an animal bagged or a high score shot not using " the hard way " somehow isn't as noteworthy or satisfying. That doing it barebow this way is better than barebow that way. Let's be real boys. I know what a mess this will become if I keep jacking my jaws so enough said. Shooting without sights, and without wheels for that matter, is just another way. It takes more dissipline and practice that's for sure. But maybe it just appeals to our nature. Not everyone has that drive, dedication or whatever it is that makes a great barebow shot. And deep down all the "hard way boys" want to be a great shot even if it means employing a secret aiming system. Don't let them fool you or rile you with their rhetoric. Most of them are a bunch of blowhards. Speaking of blowhards, the ole lady is calling, so I'll close for now.

[Viper]

Donk -

Secretly, I still believe there are a lot of "trad" guys out there who "do it the hard way" as an excuse for being lousy shots. That certainly doesn't apply to the guys who are actually doing it right (ie - hitting what they are aiming at on a somewhat regualr basis). I base that on the number of "trad" people who are tickled to death about a pie plate sized group at relatively close range.

Viper out.

[estacado]

Doing it the hard way was HH s reference to hunting with a bow and not a firearm. Whatever we want to make it beyond that is well whatever we want to make it.

Estacado

[gitnbetr]

I don't relate well to "doing it the hard way". I shoot a recurve barebow not because I think it is the hard way or I am any better than anyone else because I do, but simply because that is the way I enjoy most.

I do get a kick out of beating sighted bows, though.:)

[Larry Hatfield]

i've always been way to lazy to do things the hard way! of course i learned to shoot a bow back when even some self yew longbows on the line at york rounds had one pin sliding sights screwed on the back of the bow at one end and taped at the other, so it could be adjusted to a slant that would let the archer use it. even in the mid fifties i had to restrain myself to keep from informing those poor fools that they were not traditional! instead, i adapted and blended in and found out that it was easier on the back to pull your arrows out of a slightly tilted target butt than from the ground.
with that lesson learned i am proud to report that at 73 years of age my back still is in very good condition and i'm still not "doing it the hard way".
larry

[Pinelander]

Doing it the hard way was HH s reference to hunting with a bow and not a firearm. Whatever we want to make it beyond that is well whatever we want to make it.

Estacado

There ya go, my thoughts exactly!!! :D

It seems to have changed considerably since then.... The rifle hunter thinks shooting a compound is the hard way. The compound guy thinks shooting a recurve is the hard way. The recurve guy thinks shooting a longbow is the hard way. And the longbow guy thinks throwing an atlatl is the hard way. Guess we could all just throw rocks and be happy, floundering in the uselessness of it all.

[Steve]

Secretly, I still believe there are a lot of "trad" guys out there who "do it the hard way" as an excuse for being lousy shots.

I'll second you on that - at least for some.

One of the given "truths" expounded by some "trads" is that a compound shoots itself - anyone can pick one up and be shooting dimes at 50 yds at once. When some fail to do this or even become reasonably proficient at 20, they gravitate towards a stick bow so they have a reason for poor shooting.

Truth is, shooting barebow trad carries with it a reduced expectation of accuracy, both by many who shoot it and most who don't. How may times have we made a shot that was marginal at best only to have one of the above praise it for being done with a stick?

Steve

[hogtamer]

OK, I promise I won't try to "fool you with my rhetoric" or make excuses for my generally "lousy" shooting but will try once again to offer a little different perspective. The stripers I brought home one evening from the lake last week cost me about $12.00 per pound, considering the gas, lures, etc and don't taste nearly as good as the fresh flounder I can buy at the local fish market for 1/5 the cost. Hell, I even fished out of a wooden boat I made myself that cost twice as much as a similar fiberglass model. Now, I've never fished in a bass tournament, much less won such an event, the rules are foreign to me....fishing and competition, well, just not for me. Folks that know me think I'm a pretty decent fisherman, though. And sure, my high dollar 7' Loomis spinning rod and Penn 460 Gold is a casting dream, a fish-catching machine. But you know, it sure was a lot of fun working my old beat up 8 weight fly rod with a cheap popper and boating enough fish to make a memory under one of the most glorious sun sets of the year. And I'm just gonna say it: If you've never done what I did that day, frankly, you've missed something and have no idea about what you've missed. Nothing I can write can convey the experience. And as much as I enjoyed that perfect afternoon last week, I would have preferred a crisp day in the woods, my old bow in hand, doing it the "hard way" on the ground, yearning to get close enough to a deer to have the opportunity for a shot - one shot- one perfect shot: not one of 60 shots of a 300 round or a hundred and something (I don't know anything about field archery) shots in a field event. Why? Well, the meat, all told will cost many dollars per pound, a lot more than even prime beef, a surely a lot more trouble. And so on and on and on.... Well, I hope this made some sense, anyway.

[Viper]

Hal -

But what exactly does that have to do with "doing it the hard way"??? You're doing something YOU enjoy the way YOU enjoy it. That's not only fine, but IMHO, the way it should be.

My point, on the other hand, was about the guys who enjoy patting themselves on their backs for being "purists" or put another way, "doing it the hard way" and in effect putting down the other guys for taking a "short cut". The phrase I normally use is "they stink and are damn proud of it".

IF someone's purpose is to put meat on the table (litterally), then a stickbow is the worst possible choice, IMHO. A compound is more efficient and a rifle more efficient still. I get a kick out of the guys who proclaim, and quite loudly, that a stickbow is a superior "hunting" weapon because of "quick shots" or "unorthodox positions" or some other non-sense. As for most people, those "circus shots" connect more by luck than anything else. I don't have hard statistics, but overall, I'd be willing to bet that more animals are taken (per number of shooters) with compounds and rifles than with stickbows. So much for the superior weapon theory and more to the "excuse for mising" thing.

Is what we do "harder"? Of course it is, in actual effort required to achieve similar levels of accuracy. Is it "better, because it's harder", depends on your definition of better. I have no intention of changing the way I shoot or the equipment I use for anyone, save myself. But I can also see the logic or lack thereof in some arguements presented by others.

Hal, I know the type of hunting you do, and honestly, crawling through the brush doesn't really appeal to me anymore, not sure that part ever did. Too much work. But I do agree, that walking through the woods with a good stickbow and back quiver full of arrows still does hit me deep inside whether I loose an arrow or not. That's why I started playing with bows and arrows back in '68 or so. What I do just evolved into something a little different. The feeling I get stacking arrows in a target may be quite DIFFERENT from that walk in the woods, but I'd have a hard time saying which is better on a given day. Just all part of the human experience.

Viper out.

[hogtamer]

Viper:
Exactly - part of the human experience - and every human is unique. Of course you and I have had this conversation several times and no one should read any rancor into this exchange with Tony. In fact, Viper has helped me along the road to being a much better archer. I, like many of the guys ya'll are referring to above, am "self taught" with a bow which is probably a lot like being "self lawyered." And that surely produces some foolishness in deed and thought about shooting. Add a dose of pride and a little immaturity (if not in years, then experience) and you have created the potential for a perfect jerk! Most of us have spent some time in that personna about one thing or another. From my experience, men who love a "stickbow" have much in common and we are far better served when we celebrate the joy we share in the bow than when we dwell on the differences. And for those who have labored long to become excellent archers or spent years learning the intimacies of nature, the same truth holds: "To whom much is given, much is required."

[Martin Farrent]

If you do things 'the hard way' to impress people, some of them may indeed pay attention, but some of those will think you're nuts.

If you do it for self-esteem, you ought to wonder why self-esteem doesn't come more naturally to you.

If you do it for enjoyment - fine. But in that case, you're probably not doing it 'the hard way' anyway. Just the way you like best.

I started barebow shooting for mistaken reasons. I was sick of fiddling around with sights on air pistols and thought doing without them on a bow would make things simple. I wanted the easy way, not the hard way. It proved the most enjoyable way, though not the easiest. Not the hardest either. Just the way it happened. Mind you, I got more than enough worries in return for dumping those fiddly sights. :)

Best,

Martin

[rusty craine]

I do things the easy way!! I just put the arrow point where I want to hit. Ah well then I try to figure out why I didn't hit the spot but that is a different story.

I can't figure out why every one in the world is not a stringwalker????? :) As compared to instinctive shooting ya only have to practice 1/2 as much to be twice as good :2cents:

rusty

[SteveGabriel]

June of 2006 I went into a shop and asked what I would need to get myself and my soon to be 11 year old started. I hadn't shot a bow in 30 years.
I was told I'd have to try several compounds to see what size wheel would accomodate my long draw. Then I would have to go for several sessions to get the sight aligned for my shooting style. Find out what kind of peep sight worked best for me. Finally, I'd have to decide on what type of "trigger" to use. All before I shot my first arrow!
I asked what happened to the "2 sticks and a string" that archery used to be. I was told no one did that anymore.
2 months later I bought a pair of cheap fiberglass recurves and some inexpensive arrows. I figured that compounds were just complicated and I decided to keep things simple. Simple doesn't always mean easy but simple is what I preferred. It meant I'd have to practice a lot more than a compound shooter might so I just used that as an excuse to shoot more often!

Simple!:)

[Free Range]

The Hard Way? I wonder if some here are not unlike those they rail against so hard. Those that almost get physically sick at the mention of a compound, KE, or shots over 17.2 yards? I wonder if because The Hard Way is almost a rallying cry for the Traditionalist, if that sticks in the craw of some just because of that fact?

The Hard Way does have it’s own satisfaction, like Capstick wrote, and I’m paraphrasing, “shooting zoo raised Jaguar that have been dumped out and treed isn’t done in polite hunting circles”. Why, it is after all, still killing a Jaguar, and isn’t that the end goal? Rather he, preferred to call them in at night, in the jungle where it is so pitch black at night you can’t see your hand in front of your face. By waiting until you can hear the big cat breathing before you switch on the light, and try to shoot the cat before it can reach you in the split second it takes it to make one big leap into your greatest nightmare.

So it is with hunting with stick and string. One could after all still be out in the woods with a gun, and still enjoy the great wonder of nature, couldn’t he? One could kill more easily with a compound and still marvel at what God has provided for us, couldn’t he? But for me, it’s knowing that I have to work harder, that I have to be a better woodsman, that I have to know what those little butterfly wisp of wind are doing, at all times, that I have to be more closely aware of my prey and its habits. That is what drives me, that is having to do it the hard way. Are there gun hunters that do and know all these things? Yes, there is, same with compound hunters, there are those that are just as knowledgeable, or more so, that work just as hard, or more so. But do they really have to? Do they have to put in that much effort to fill their tags every year? No, does the stickbow shooter? Yes?

Doing it The Hard Way? You bet.

[Desert Archer]

FR,

In general I agree with your post but there is one part I have a very serious problem with. Maybe you didn't mean it the way I'm reading it, so I'm asking (politely) for a clarification.

You said, "...it is after all, still killing a Jaguar, and isn’t that the end goal?" When I was still hunting that was never the "end goal". The goal was the entire hunting experience. I've heard many hunters say they had a good day when they didn't even get a shot. Having a dead carcus is the end result, not the end goal. At least that's how I always looked at it.

Dave

[Free Range]

DA, I agree partly and understand your point. I always feel gratified when hunting, no matter the end result. But make no mistake when I take to the field with weapon in hand the goal is to come back with meat for the table. Otherwise I’m just out for a hike and would be better off toting a camera. I know this sounds like I might feel unsuccessful if no game is brought to bag, and nothing could be farther from the truth. Anytime I get to hunt, it’s a successful day, but the goal of hunting is to kill something, or it’s not hunting.

Which I know is somewhat of a contradiction to my doing it The Hard Way, if the ultimate goal is to kill something, then wouldn’t it be wise to use a gun or other method that will make realizing that goal more attainable? Well in a strict sense yes, but a person can have more then one goal. Take the example of Capstick I mentioned, the man he was talking about had only one goal, to kill a Jaguar, Capstick had two goals, to kill a Jaguar and to do it in what to him was considered a sporting manner. Another example from Capstick, in his early years of Safari, he wanted to get the Big Five in a single trip, a couple months long but one trip none the less. He had all but the Lion and towards the end of his Safari he came upon two big males that had just finished eating a large kill they had made. The lions were laying in the shade of a tree and he could have pretty much walked up to them and killed either one, but decided not to because it was not sporting for him to do so. Doing it the hard way for him is stalking Lions and if he was lucky having them charge, then he would feel he pitted his skill against theirs in the grandest fashion.

[Papabull]

In a sense, I suppose hunting with a stickbow instead of a rifle is like hiking up a mountain instead of driving up in the truck on the logging road. Neither one is right or wrong but they're certainly different experiences with different rewards. :)

[Larry Hatfield]

after re-reading this thread i think i see a major difference in my mindset when i hunt, and most other people. i am in the mountains a lot even now and grew up riding for cattle and living rough for half the year, so hunting is just a change of focus. the weapon in my hand makes no difference to me when i go to kill something. i also have no emotion at all about killing an animal i want to eat. i don't think about repect, reverence, or any of the other things people write about. just, "there she/he is", and shoot it. looking back, i see no difference in the change from a gun to a bow since even with a gun my kills were very close. thats just the way i've always hunted. so, i guess i will never think about hunting with a bow as the "hard way". just another way to get meat.

[Free Range]

Larry I’ve known people like you, those that have little or no emotional connection to hunting. They hunt to get meat and it’s all matter of factly done. However I can’t say I have ever met anyone that is a bowhunter with this mentality. It kind of, excuses me for being a bit thick here, but it just doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would you hunt with a bow then? If it is only about killing meat in your case, why bother with using a bow?

[Viper]

FR -

Perhaps hunting for some people is just about putting food on the table, others the love of the outdoors or rather just "being" in the outdoors and for others the need to prove something to themselves or others or by proclaiming they "did it the hard way".

Please take that the way it was meant.

:2cents:

Viper out.

[Martin Farrent]

Larry I’ve known people like you, those that have little or no emotional connection to hunting. They hunt to get meat and it’s all matter of factly done. However I can’t say I have ever met anyone that is a bowhunter with this mentality. It kind of, excuses me for being a bit thick here, but it just doesn’t make any sense to me. Why would you hunt with a bow then? If it is only about killing meat in your case, why bother with using a bow?

If I could bowhunt without fear of the law here in Germany, I would certainly do so. I would hunt with a bow, because that's what I have and feel comfortable with. I own bows, because I like target archery.

Why go through the hassle of getting a rifle and a license, if you can hit a rabbit with an arrow at the range you will normally encounter one?

I would hunt for enjoyment, but that would be secondary. Mostly, I would hunt for ethical reasons!!! I am very unhappy with the way most of the meat I can purchase in a supermarket has been 'farmed' (factoried) - especially pork and chicken. But I am also unwilling to give up eating meat almost daily. I would much prefer to eat the flesh of animals that had led as decent a life as nature held in store for them - until the day I shot them.

Not Larry's answer, but mine - and possibly an unusual one. But it goes to show the diversity of possible motives.

Best,

Martin

[Free Range]

Viper, I believe I understand what you are saying. I have known a couple of guys, like you mention, those that get into the Traditional “movement” because they think it’s cool, or macho, or whatever, but for the most part they are rare IMO or don’t last very long because they find out it’s to hard for them, and these types usually don’t have staying power, if you know what I mean.

Matin, I really enjoy you perspective on Archery, it’s hard for me to understand what it would be like living in a country where you can’t hunt. Having grown up hunting in some form or another since I was five or six, living in a country where there is no hunting allowed would be like living on the moon to me. And yes to me eating pure wild meat is the best part about hunting, and fishing.

Here in the States it, so far, still is not much of a hassle to get a rifle, and the hunting license for a gun is the same as for a bow, no separate license needed to carry a gun, and in most cases it’s cheaper to buy a gun then a bow. So I still don’t see why a person, here, would choose a bow over a gun, if there is no “fulfilling” reason for hunting other then to bring home meat. The reason I hunt with a bow over a gun is the sense of accomplishment I get from pitting my skills with a bow against the natural survival instincts of a wild beast. To me a gun is just too easy and not as rewarding as using a bow. If it was only about killing meat as in Larry’s case I would use a gun, it is much more effective.

[Martin Farrent]

Having grown up hunting in some form or another since I was five or six, living in a country where there is no hunting allowed would be like living on the moon to me. And yes to me eating pure wild meat is the best part about hunting, and fishing.

Just to clarify, FR: Gun hunting is legal here - but the only other variety allowed by law is with falcons! You can't even use an air rifle. You also need a license (in the sense of a driving license, not just a local permit), which is a costly project. And then you need somewhere to hunt - not easy to find.

(To amuse everyone: Hunting with falcons requires all of the above - i.e. long training and a license for firearm hunting - plus an extra certificate.)

That said, the closest roe deer come to my house is also where I see them most: about 25 yards. The closest I see a rabbit is also about the furthest: 15 to 20 yards, due to the terrain. I'd be pretty sure of hitting both targets with a bow. If I could do so legally for meat, I wouldn't need a gun.

Best,

Martin

[Larry Hatfield]

fr, i use a bow because it's silent. i hunt sagebrush at the fringe of an area that has a lot of hunting pressure, and while there aren't many animals available, i can hunt without having someone else disrupting things. i normally get in and out without anybody knowing i was there. if a rifleshot was heard in there, 10-30 people would be there within 1 hour.
larry

[Joe -->]

Doing it the "hard way" can affect the quality and intensity of the hunt, but not always. There are those in all camps that do it for the bragging rights. Using a "stick and string" guarantees nothing by itself. However, if you truly love the feel of "instinctive" shooting, if its really ingrained in your nervous system nothing else will do. I know many that truly love their firearms and nothing else will do for them. I just have no patience for braggarts and cheaters, and pity anyone that feels success results only when you can impress some else. Like I said in my post at the start of this, Pope nailed it for me.

[Beagle]

If you're doing it "the hard way" to impress other people, then IMHO, you're doing it for the wrong reasons and the wrong rewards. Wrong for me, but maybe right for you, its your life. Apparently I don't go hunting to bring meat home every time, with gun, bow, what have you. I know we have all let sure thing shots walk right by time after time, even though we were perfectly capable of getting the meat. For me its just a mental decision at that moment; do I want this animal now? I get great rewards from just being able to be there, and doing it, and seeing it. Sometimes I'm mainly looking for a nice-racked buck and just watch the doe and scrubs, other times, it may not be a good time to be doe in front of me. I don't know why I'm that way, I just am.If I go out in the yard and put 5 or 6 arrows in a pie plate at 20 and that makes me feel good, then I don't care if it impresses someone else or not. When I was younger I played alot of league basketball and I think I was pretty good and was told I was, but I couldn't play like Michael Jordon, but for some reason, that never bothered me. I was happy with my level of play but still tried to improve, and you know what? I still can't play like Michael Jordon. I think some people get into stickbow because it gives them more of a "grass roots" feeling. How many times have you watched something done a primitive and difficult way and heard comments like; "now those were 'real' men". Is that what we're after? I don't know, I'm just a man that likes doing it the "real" way.BTW--I still gun hunt too--John Wayne was a "real" man wasn't he? :lol: Everyone has their reasons, their goals, their rewards, their purpose, etc... and they're not always the same. That's what keeps us from boring each other into insanity IMO.:2cents:

[Dsturgisjr]

Fred Eichler closes his part in MBB 2 with the statement that trad gear is better in most hunting situations. He says something like "don't choose trad gear for extra challenge - choose it because it is the best choice.

Heck, I think it a lot easier to pack around a longbow or recurve than a tricked out Cbow, range finder etc. I shoot longbows because that is where the passion is for me.

I agree with Viper that shooting trad gear is no excuse for being a lousy shot.

My own shooting has improved since meeting and videoing the shooters for MBB. Traditional is getting easier all the time!!

[Viper]

Denny -

I keep hearing that statement from trad guys all the time.

It just doesn't hold water.

The term "tricked out" is also over used, a simple "CBow" sight and release is about as easy as it gets and even the older ones are pretty bomb proof. Unless someone is into cirucs shots at running game or shooting on the fly, they are much "better" at bringing home game, because it does take a fair amount of the "shooting" out of the equation.

There are certainly plenty of people who do go into the lighted or mechanical sights, string dampeners, range finders, releases that have more moving parts than some old cars (another cliche'), but fact is that stuff isn't necessary, or IMHO best for a new shooter/hunter.

The release aid, even the simplest ones negate 90% of shooter error. A release aid plus a good instructor close to 100%. (Remember, I use a release to teach intermediate stickbow shooters what a good finger release should feel like!)

We use stickbows for our own reasons, but "better" and "harder" are, IMHO both part of the hype. An accurate shooter does not guarantee a successful hunter, but it's one factor I rank pretty high. Knowing I can get a Cbow guy on target at hunting distances in a hour or two and that takes a big chunk of time out of the equation.

I've never owned a compound and have no intention of, but after a while I think we have to call a spade a spade.

Viper out.

[Papabull]

Denny, I agree with Fred Eichler. Once you learn how to realiably put an arrow in the kill zone at a range of 20 or 25 yards (or less), the advantes of the stickbow start making themselves apparent. It's lighter and easier to pack and carry. Nocking and shooting an arrow is much quicker with fingers than a release. Sights are problematic in rainy or very dim conditions. Longbows or recurves can be very, very quiet. 2nd shots (and yes, 2nd shots do happen) are faster with a recurve/longbow.

In my opinion, if you can shoot a trad bow accurately at your hunting range, a compound doesn't provide any advantages at all.

Now, if someone is planning on long-range shooting (over 25-30 yards) or shooting very small targets that require pinpoint accuracy to kill, the compound can be very advantageous. Most deer hunting and even most small game hunting doesn't really require that, though.

I hunted with a compound for a few years and returned to the stickbow because all the deer I took with a compound, I could have shot just as easily with my recurve - and I ended up losing opportunities that I could have taken had I been using a recurve instead of a compound.

The hunting part - setting up, finding game, trailing game, scouting, stalking, etc. etc. are all easier with a recurve/longbow, in my opinion. Actually making the shot is something we should have high confidence in with either type of bow before we loose the string.

At least that's opinion. For my style of hunting, I don't feel the recurve is doing it the hard way at all - at least compared to using any other type of bow.

[ratgunner]

Viper,if you never owned a compound how do you know they are so easy to shoot ?:sbrug: Everyone is different ,even Fred Bear could'nt shoot a compound or longbow.Thats why he used a recurve.Metal risered recurves no less.And about the releases,how about the Chinese and Mongols thumbrings ?Learning to shoot a recurve
'instinctively" is not something everyone can or should do.I know you didnt say that,just making a point.Personally I feel the game and the sport would be better off if the "hard way" guys would just buy rifles.:shooting:

[DAS]

Like PB, I shot recurves for years before ever trying a compound. I used a compound for several years and I did take game with it. Overall though, my efficiency as a hunter went DOWN, not up. The only advantage the Cbow offered was the ability to extend my range a bit (past 40 yards). Within 40 yards it didn't buy me squat. I was perfectly capable of making 40 yard shots with a stick. Here's the way it shook out for me:

The compound did offer better accuracy at ranges beyond 40 yards, but the truth is, shots that far were rarely needed anyway. In other words, there were very few times when having the Cbow made the difference.

On the flip side, there were many times when I jumped animals or had to take quick shots at closer ranges where the Cbow was a complete liability. For every time the Cbow proved to be an advantage, there were two or 3 opportunities totally lost because the cbow was so damn slow to shoot. Quick shots at small game? forget it.

That's why I came back to recurves, along with the lighter weight and all the rest. If I really felt the Cbow was an advantage though, I'd still be shooting one.

I don't think my experiences are all that unusual among people who have actually done this stuff. I agree with Fred, Robert, and others completely. It's easy to sit back and imagine how something might be, but actually doing it is a different story. I think a lot of people who came up after Cbows got established, were sold a bill of goods about how superior they are. I've said it many times, but if the portable treestand hadn't come along about the same time as the Cbow, they never would have gotten traction. The treestand allows you to see deer coming, predraw if needed, and usually avoid being seen. On the ground it's a whole nuther game.

David

[Dsturgisjr]

Tony, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.

I can't think of a more qualified archer than Fred Eichler to make that statement. As host to Easton's archery show, he hunts with both recurve and compound. While he makes the statement in MBB 2, we cut away to an elk shot that Fred swears he never would have got off with the compound.

Along with the fact Fred is a hell of a shot and just recently completed taking every species in North America with his recurve makes me think his opinion holds plenty of water.

[Viper]

Rat -

I don't own a compound, but that doesn't mean I've never shot one. Also, just by sheer numbers, I teach more compound shooters than stickbow shooters - there are just more of them around. Some are a little skeptical at frist, but given the fact that except for the serious compound target guys (and possibly a very few others) I can outshoot most compound types with a FITA bow, and that after trying a few of my suggestions, their groups start tightening, they start listening.

Denny, Robert, DAS, et al -

Going to have to disagree. Despite what Fred says or thinks, I'd be willing to bet that per capita, compound shooters have higher success rates than stuckbow shooters today. The fact that an intermediate compound shooter can take 40 yds shoots at game when most advanced stickbow guys can't even think about that also speaks volumes. I see what I would consider mediocre compound guys shooting 4 and 5" group with their hunting bows at that distance. Now, if a stickbow guy is considered good with a 6" group at 20 yds and capable of taking game at that distance, then why on earth shouldn't a guy shooting 4" groups at 40 yds have the same chance?

I'm going by sheer numbers, not "Fred's" or anyones else opinion and certainly not on a specific shit that most people wouldn't take. That's reality. You guys can believe whatever you like. Kinda like saying "Howard Hill favored a longbow and that all there is to it" and forget everything that happened since.

Lastly, and this may be where the confusion comes in. IF a guy has the same accuracy potental (meaning he can keep his arrows in the vitals of his choosen game animal) equally with a compound as will a strickbow, then there's no advantage to the compound. Again, reality sets in. In the real world, that's very, VERY RARELY the case.

BTW - if shots over 40 yds really don't exist, then there are a lot of riflemen out there, who use the same forests as the bowhunters, who seem to think and prove otherwise. Starting to wonder who's selling the bill of goods.

Viper out.

[Papabull]

OK. Then we disagree. :)

I think of it as similar to a screwdriver and a powerful cordless drill driver. Which is "easier to use" really depends on what you're going to do. If you're hanging drywall with drywall screws, you want a drill driver. If, on the other hand, you're adjusting screws, installing electrical wiring, opening a can of paint, etc., you want a screwdriver. A good hunter will set up so he can take advantage of the characteristics of his equipment and that's what I do so....

Like I said.... I disagree. But that's just from my experience hunting with both. Your experiences maybe different, or as they say... your mileage may vary. Or different strokes for different folks.... or whatever works for you.

I'm not sure it's all cut and dry black and white. But I digress.

[Viper]

Papabull -

Disagreeing is fine.

No one ever learned anything from someone they completely agreed with.

Just as with your screw-driver analogy, a good one, btw; you have to define the job at hand, or the bowhunters' definition of "hunting".

Viper out.

[ratgunner]

Sounds good to me.We can put this one to bed.:cheers:

[Pinelander]

Situations when hunting are not solely dependent on how well you shoot a bow. Yes, being able to hit what you're aiming at is important, but there are so many other factors involved in bowhunting. Just because most compound shooters can shoot rings around most traditional shooters.... doesn't mean that the compound bow is ALWAYS the most effective tool when bowhunting. I've made shots on deer that I don't believe a compound shooter could make. And of course, in those situations... it wasn't about doing it the hard way, it was simply about being able to DO IT.

Here is an example. If you don't care to read narrative hunting stories, then don't read it and just skip down to the last paragraph....

Some years ago I heard a buck grunting, moving through a field at sunrise. He was moving quickly and out of my sight, but wasn't very far away. I started grunting, thinking he might veer over and come check it out. Well, he made a turn into a lane in the woods that led to my position. He was in a hurry, and he not only came trotting in to my position, but then came to a stop directly under my stand. So there I stood, looking down through the stand at the top of his head.... he was looking this way and looking that way, then abruptly moved to the left in the woods about 40 yards away from me, with no shot. He then stopped abruptly again and started sniffing around on the ground. I thought I had lost the opportunity completely. I grunted a few more times, but he didn't react and just kept sniffing around in the spot where he had stopped. Then all of sudden (abruptly) he came back to my position again (very quickly I might add). There was no moseying around, a very quick and deliberate movement from point A to point B, then wham.... stopped again about 12 yds. away, but behind a thick bush. There he was again, looking out towards the lane he had intially came trotting down. With him looking in that direction, it was obvious that was the direction he would go when he decided to take off again. From watching him come in the first time, stop, then leave quickly, then stop again, and then come back quickly.... I knew that when he decided to go again.... it was going to be another one of his "get going" starts. So I all I could really do was have string in hand, ready to draw and shoot. Sure enough.... when he decided to go, he didn't take a simple fews step away from the bush. Oh no, he started off quickly again. And to make things worse, the direction he was taking off was to my left, and the trunk of the tree I was standing in was to my LEFT! So you know what that means.... very little time and shooting area before the tree is in the way. I had to lean out away from the tree and got an arrow in him right before the interference of the tree wouldn't allow me to shoot.

I believe there is no way that a typical compound shooter could have made that shot. Regardless if bow was already drawn and anchored, the fact that most compound shooters use sights and shoot vertically... it would have been a futile attempt. Using sights are great for targets that are standing still, but rather useless for those that are moving.

[ROD JENKINS]

I'll have to disagree, as well.

I was successful in both hunting and target during my compound shooting days, but quickly reverted back to a recurve, when hunting my favorite southern thickets...reason being I was at a disadvantage with the latest and greatest compound.
I remember sitting up in one of my favored "honey holes" with a new model compound, that the manufacters I was sponsered by wanted some kill pics to go along with the planned introducion of the bow in the spring...and realizing just how big a disadvantage I was at, with a compound in my stand choice, which was very thick( buck habitat) and with only a small shooting lane and I would have been lucky to get "hooked up", let alone get drawn and found a sight pin....for the afternnon hunt, I borrowed my buddys backup recurve!

Some things seem very good in theory...but the practical aplication sucks:lol:

[rhust]

I think the compound has its place in hunting, and so does the recurve and longbow. For me (living out west) there have been times that I could of killed some pretty nice elk and deer if I had a compound in my hands. There have also been times when I could have taken some nice deer and elk if I had a recurve in my hands. I can not shoot my recurves and longbows nearly as well at distances over 40 yard as I can a compound. I can not shoot a compound nearly as quickly as I can my recurves. Out to 40 yards I am accurate enough with my recurves to kill a big game animal, but beyond 40 yards I belive the compound has the advantage. It is all a tradoff.

[DAS]

If you look at the archery community in general, it may be that the "average" archer is better off with a compound. That's only because the sport has been dumbed down to the point that it has. If the emphasis ever gets back onto mastery of the equipment, the numbers will support what we are saying. I saw a report recently about hunter success in Oregon for deer and elk. It wasn't split out between trad and compound, but the average kill range of succesful hunters was under 30 yards. In any case, all I know for sure is what I've personally experienced, so I'll sign on for the dissagree column.

David

[Viper]

Piney, et al -

Here's where we disagree, and some of it may well be cultural. When I hunted, it was because I enjoyed it, not solely to put meat on the table or to prove a could kill something in what might be referred to a combat situation. Most of the guys I hunted with felt the same way.

The entire idea that you NEED to take shots crouched under a branch, lying on your back or at running or even walking game (under certain circumstances, such as the game passing behind an obstruction) was not even considered by anyone but the most rank amatures.

Today it seems to be the rallying cry of some people. The "trad" (did I mention ...) bow rules because you can take a fast shot from an unorthodox shooting position, like hanging from a rope by your foot, or bounching an arrow off a tree stump and getting it the "boiler room". I haven't "hunted" as much as you guys, but when I did, all of my shoots were deliberate, and IMHO, at the time they were all "gimme shots" (easy by my standards). Olympic shooting posture? No, but proper shoulder geometry and a clear light of sight were maintained.

Disagree if you like, but IMHO, this type of type of thinking is what makes the "trad" bowhunter a laughing stock outside of his own little circle of friends.

Again, if you don't like the sound of that, just look at the numbers.

David -

If you think it's "dumbed down", you're absolutely right. but dumbed down and accurate still beats dumbed down and lousey shooting complicated by "the force" giving these guys success on a low probability shot.

Don't get me wrong guys, I understand that "trad" bowhunting is a big industry filled with a lot of Howard Hill and Fred Bear wannabes, but speaking from a couple of years in the game and having nothing to sell, I'm going to call them as I see them.

Viper out.

[DAS]

Viper:" Don't get me wrong guys, I understand that "trad" bowhunting is a big industry filled with a lot of Howard Hill and Fred Bear wannabes, but speaking from a couple of years in the game and having nothing to sell, I'm going to call them as I see them."




Are you suggesting that anyone is being untruthful because they are in the business? If so, that's a pretty cheap shot.

David

[Viper]

David -

I think there's a lot of "trad" hype going on, I've said that before. I honestly don't know what's worse: people feeding the hype or actually beleiving that sport hunting, which is what we are doing, is some sort of combat scenario where you have to crawl through brush, hang from trees and take the most bizzare shots possible.

I'd much rather walk through the woods and enjoy my time there, than try to make like Rambo.

Cheap shot or accurate representation?

Viper out.

[DAS]

Viper,
For me it has more to do with the time to execute the shot. Even when I shot barebow/fingers, the compound was slower. We all have a little different experiences depending on where we hunt. I'd prefer to just stroll through the woods too, but I've had many occasions to take shots from unusual positions. That's why I prefer shorter bows for hunting. If all my shots were standing and clear I'd shoot a 64 or 66" bow.

I would hope that we could RESPECTFULLY dissagree about this. I'm not trying to convince you or anybody. I don't see anyone hyping anything, just sharing experiences. I also don't think the responses would be any different if nobody here was involved in the business. My opinion was formed long before that. Otherwise, I'd still be shooting a compound.

David

[tuffshot]

Personally from reading most of this thread, it seems that there are too many preconcieved notions to the point of profiling.:sbrug:

[Papabull]

Is a stickbow lighter and easier to walk with? YES
Is a stickbow easier to shoot with in low light? YES
Can you get a shot off quicker with a stickbow? YES
Does a stickbow require less equipment to shoot? YES

What's the one thing that makes a stickbow "harder"? Not being able to reliably make a kill shot. That's it. That's the whole top and bottom and everything in between. And that big "disadvantage" goes away as soon as someone learns how to shoot a stickbow well.

It isn't harder to find game when you are using a stickbow. It isn't harder to track game when you are using a stickbow. It isn't more difficult to ste up a tree stand when you're using a stickbow. Stickbows don't spook animals more than compounds.

I defy anyone to point out the "big disadavantage" of hunting with a stickbow in the hands of anyone that can reliably make a kill shot at 25 yards or less and hunts 25 yards or less. (or 30 yards) or whatever the bowhunter's effective range is.

Hype? I think there's more misunderstanding due to inexperience than hype going on in this thread. Let's call a spade a spade. If you don't have experience hunting with both and can't shoot well enough to effectively hunt with both, then any assumptions being made are just that; assumptions.

[Pinelander]

The entire idea that you NEED to take shots crouched under a branch.... <ridiculus stuff omittted> or even walking game (under certain circumstances, such as the game passing behind an obstruction) was not even considered by anyone but the most rank amatures.
So they wouldn't do it that way based on the thought that it couldn't be done, or because they never discovered that it could be done? I'm a bit confused as to which is which, when it comes to rank amateurs regarding bowhunting.

Lying on their back... ridiculous.
Shooting at running game... ridiculus.
Hanging from a rope by your foot... ridiculus.
Bounching an arrow off a tree stump... ridiculus.

Do you really think that some bowhunters are rank amateurs because they kill deer while the deer is walking and/or because they shoot from unorthodox shooting positions? Bowhunters do not NEED to do either of those things if they don't want to, but there are some that do it... because they can.

[Viper]

Robert -

The "light weight" thing IMHO, is a part of the hype. I'd take a heavy barrelled varment rifle over one of the ultra lights any day of the week - and have. Is one better or more "accurate" than the other? Over the long haul, definately, for a one shot deal at close range, doubtful. Do I feel steadier with a heavy gun (or bow) - yes. Am i strong enough to carry one, yes. You could make the same arguement for a 60" "longbow" vs a DAS. But the DAS IS HEAVIER and shoots better, right?

Low light. Humm... Never understood that one. A lot of the compound sights use fiber optics. Not sure exactly how they work in low light conditions, but I'm sure some folks take it as a plus. If you hunt at dawn, OK. Never understood the other half though - hunting at dusk. If the light is failing, seems to reason that it'll be dark relatively soon and you still have some tracking, recovery and field dressing to do. That's always fun in the dark. I'm missing something here, right???

Quicker - Sure. But not a concern, IMHO. Been through that one.

BTW - about the size thing. I've spent a little time in the field with my old Hills. All 70". But, then again, I never climbed a tree either ...

Less equipment - not sure I agree there either. A compound is self contained. A guy who actually knows what he's doing isn't going for every possible gadget on the market, neither on the bow or on his person. When I hunted I had to get to the hunting area, put my bow together, string it, attach a bow quiver etc. A compound guy opens his case takes the bow out straps on his release and is ready to shoot.

You said:

What's the one thing that makes a stickbow "harder"? Not being able to reliably make a kill shot. That's it.

That IMHO trumps everything else.

Piney -

but there are some that do it... because they can.

Yes, you are corrent. There are some that can. Reality is that most can't. That's the hype part. "Amateurs" go out and buy these videos, see some guys doing this stuff and think that's the norm. Meaning that with a STICKBOW they can do it too. Some immediately start practicing what I would consider "trick shots", BEFORE they can reliably hit a stationary target under optimal conditions. Sorry buddy, I see these morons every week at our range. The guys who walk in and complain how BORING it is to shoot at 20 yds. These are the same guys who snap shoot and demonstrate a very "respectable" TWO FOOT group - because it's sooo boring.

Now, if these guys in the videos showing these shots have either some innate ability or have worked on the techiques for years and years, that's great, but maybe they should include a "Professional driver, closed course" warning. Not that a lot of people would listen.

How about seeing the "Pros" start stressing proper shooting form and and accuracy First??? Give the noobs something real to work on AND telling them that you don't become a " TRAD BOWHUNTER" over night. That is does take time and that it might be a good a idea to learn to shoot first then worry about speeding it up or modifying for less-than orthodox positions. But that wouldn't sell videos would it??? There might be some videos like that out there, but I haven't seen them. More common are the guys demonstrating that a instinctive shooter can hit a deer at 40 yds while falling on your back. (No, I didn't make that one up...we've probably all seen it too.) I gotta tell ya, if I slip on a wet leaf and fall backwords, the LAST thing on my mind is going to be getting a shot off, unless of course I'm being charged by a heavily armed bear ... Didn't Sly Stallone do that in a movie once.

I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind here. but it does make for lively conversation, no?

Viper out.

[Papabull]

Sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing now, Viper. Once you can make a kill shot reliably with the recurve, what's left to make it "harder?"? Like you said, that trumps everything and for good reason. You can't kill what you can't hit. But you're ignoring the fact that a kill shot at 25 yards or less just isn't a hard shot to make if you're proficient and have paid your dues. Lightweight no biggie? After hiking in a mile or more it makes a difference. How big a difference? It doesn't have to be a lot easier to still be easier, no? Quick shot, no biggie? It is if your first shot hits a branch you didn't see and you need to get another off. It's also important when you've got a buck hot after a doe and need to make the shot quick or lose the opportunity.

If you can't understand what I'm saying, I can chalk it up to lack of hunting experience on your part, but I think it's all pretty self. A stickbow isn't automatically harder to hunt with than a compound. Frankly, the reason I went back to a stickbow was because for whitetail hunting in the Eastern woods, it's easier - at last for me. Maybe not for you. But for me, making a kill shot at Eastern Whitetails isn't a problem with a stickbow. And when that's not a problem, there's nothing that makes a compound "easier" that I can think of and, in fact.... well, it's got it's problems. Trust me. I've actually hunted with both.

Let's just put it this way. I shoot very well with a compound. But when it's low light, had some rain, I'm tired and a little stiff, I'm sitting in my tree stand with a bow across my lap and a buck just flat out materializes out of nowhere at 25 yards and moving in quickly toward my best shot window. I'd rather have my recurve than a compound. I can nock it, draw it, shoot it and make that fleeting 20 yard shot opportunity count while I'm still trying to get my compound setup to shoot. I call that an advantage. It might be "harder for you", but it's mighty presumptuous to try to tell me what's easier for me. I've been hunting long enough to know for myself, thankyouverymuch. :D

[Viper]

Robert -

We could play point / counter point all day. If you want to discuss the second shot theory, that fine, but I'd still rather have the advantage of a first shot kill. Sitting a stand or blind for hours (again BORING for me), with an an arrow nocked on a compound and the release on thew string, that first shot can be pretty quick - as always, if the guy knows what he's doing. Sure the second shot takes more time, but with the sight, release and stops built into the bow, THE ODDS are he shouldn't need one. If you're freezing, soaked, motionless and groggy for a few hours - good luck on that first shot. Kinda like arguing the benefits of a semi-automatic rifle vs a bolt action, great at face value, but when you look deeper the second shot thing comes at a heavy price, but I'm digressing.

Sure, you're right. I haven't hunted in decades, but I deal with bowhunters, both recurve and compound, every time I shoot. Not hard to draw conclusions. When was the last time you were out hunting or shooting???

BTW - I'm not telling you what's easier or better for you or anyone in particular, just going by the numbers.

LOL. Sounds like you're arguing for the sake of arguing now, Viper. We both know that's the first thing someone says when they're running out of answers. :D

Viper out.

[Papabull]

Robert -

If you want to discuss the second shot theory, that fine, but I'd still rather have the advantage of a first shot kill.

Nevermind. I see the problem now. You assume that everyone sucks so bad with a stickbow that it's impossible for them to reliably make a quick, clean, easy shot with one - or you assume that sights, release, compound speed, etc., somehow make it impossible to nick or hit a branch. No argument can stand in a debate when assumptions mean more than facts. Your lack of hunting experience has led you to a logical fallacy.

You are assuming that the most inherently accurate weapon is the easiest weapon to hunt with. Hint #1: a turkey gun is not necessarily "easier" to hunt doves with than an improved cylinder side-by-side. Hint#2: A bolt action .270 with an 8x scope is not necessarily easier to hunt deer with than a lever-action 30-30. Hint#3. You sit your butt in a tree with a compound and all the goodies. I'll sit my butt up in a tree with my favorite recurve. We've both got our bows haning on the E-Z hanger enjoying the experience (that's what it's all about, right?). We both have a buck trotting across the trail and have less than 10 seconds to get our bow down, nock an arrow and make the shot before the deer hits a thicket that we can't shoot through. Which one of us do you think is going to tag the deer?

Percentages, odds... hey.. when we're talking "easiest", it's an individual thing, not an objective thing that you can dictate to the world, Viper. When I told you that I hunt with a stickbow not because it's "the hard way" but because it's easier for me to hunt with the way I hunt, I'm not pulling your leg. I'm not hyping anything. I'm telling you how it is for me. I think it's funny as hell that you would argue with me about what I think is easiest for me. ;). If you told me you can't shoot well enough to make a stickbow very easy to hunt with, I certainly wouldn't argue with you about it.

:lol:

[Viper]

Robert -

Nevermind. I see the problem now. You assume that everyone sucks so bad with a stickbow that it's impossible for them to reliably make a quick, clean, easy shot with one.

Well, actually, not all, but most. That's based on what I've seen. Most can't get two contolled shots off in a row. If they can get that quick shot off accurately, for a few it's skill. more often, dumb luck.

- or you assume that sights, release, compound speed, etc., somehow make it impossible to nick or hit a branch.

Nope, but the samething can happen with a stickbow, with either a fast or slow shot. Sorry, that one's a wash.


No argument can stand in a debate when assumptions mean more than facts. Your lack of hunting experience has led you to a logical fallacy.

Right back at ya buddy.

You are assuming that the most inherently accurate weapon is the easiest weapon to hunt with.

I didn't say that, I said that it's a pretty big plus. The guy who can place the shot, arrow or bullet where he wants it usally wins. See the first response above.

I'll take to 270 over the 30-30. (But make mine a 308 heavy barrel, bolt action, thank you). Why? Higher probability of a clean kill at longer ranges, THAT my friend, is an advantage. Same accuracy, better balance for quick tracking shots at close range too and if your hunting area permits. Second shots? I can operate a bolt as fast and with more precision that most folks can work the lever. Had a lot of practice doing that. But then again, missing the first shot and emptying the magazine into the woods doesn't do it for me either. See Rambo reference, previous post.

We both have a buck trotting across the trail and have less than 10 seconds to get our bow down, nock an arrow and make the shot before the deer hits a thicket that we can't shoot through. Which one of us do you think is going to tag the deer?

Me personally or a guy with a compound. I probably wouldn't bother. Some compound guys (again those who know what they are doing and have the arrow nocked and the release in place) might, some wouldn't. some in either camp shouldn't.

Robert, we choose what we do, buy and are for a bunch of reasons, the least of which is logic. I don't own a compound, doubt if I ever will. I like shooting a stick and string with several variants. That's the "experience" that floats my boat. I'm just not blind to what's really going out there, if not for you, for most people. If I HAD TO hunt to put meat on the table, that 308 would be my first choice. Highest probability - that's all. If I'm there to get my rocks off or prove something - different story.

It's not a right or wrong thing, just understanding why we do things and what's really going on. That's why I call it hype.

Take a 100 compound and 100 stick shooters of varying levels of skill. The best in each camp will always fill their freezers. As the skill levels start dropping more compound types will have meat compared to the "equally skilled" stickbow guys.

The purpose of this discussion, really wasn't to bash stickbow shooters, but to get some past the hype of "the lure of the stickbow" and to get them down to the basics of learning how to shoot and not believing that a stickbow is the end all of hunting weapons because of the magical quick shot.

Simply, for every guy who says that "he couldn't have made that shot with a compound" there are probably hundreds or thousands, if not more, who could say "I couldn't have made that shot with a stickbow". Please take that statement in the context of this entire post.

Viper out.

[Papabull]

OK, as long as you can agree it's not a right or wrong, black and white, cut and dried thing, we're probably on the same page. It's not that simple and "what's easiest to shoot most accurately" doesn't necessarily mean "easiest to hunt with", although sometimes it can.

I just didn't see any flexibility or conditional consideration in your remarks that a stickbow just flat isn't easier to hunt with and your statement that saying such a thing has to be hype.

Stickbow easiest for me? Most times yes. Sometimes no. Easiest for you? Who knows. That's your call. So you can have your opinion and I can have mine. I didn't say you were wrong. I was saying that you were arguing from a very myopic perspective and had lost sight of the forest for the trees on this one.

By the way.... did you know that, depending on what you're fishing for and where the fish are, it can be easier to fish with a cane pole than a spinning rod?

[Viper]

Robert -

Very few things are black and white and cut and dry. Anyone here can come up with a scenario where one type of bow will have advantages over another. The trick is not to find the exception (we all know a guy famous for that), but the commonality.

I just didn't see any flexibility or conditional consideration in your remarks that a stickbow just flat isn't easier to hunt with and your statement that saying such a thing has to be hype.

Actually, I thought I was pretty clear with the "most cases" and "in general" type statements. Hype exists on bothsides, I'm sure if we tried the same discussion on some of the compound boards we get the same arguements, just in the opposite direction.

By the way.... did you know that, depending on what you're fishing for and where the fish are, it can be easier to fish with a cane pole than a spinning rod?

Sorry, doubt if I know the difference between a cane pole and spinning rod.

:geek:

Viper out.

[Papabull]

You didn't sound so clear on "most cases" and "most cases" would have to mean "most individuals" because as I've said a few times here, "most cases" for me, I've found the recurve to be just the ticket. We can't confuse the "most accurate shooting bow for most people" with "the best hunting bow for everyone". Besides "most accurate" and "easiest" aren't synonymous. An automatic transmission could certainly be argued to be "easiest", but that doesn't mean it would be the best transmission for NASCAR racing.

Next topic... why carbon arrows are better than aluminum for bowhunting. :D

[bcoulter]

I guess I'll weigh in. I shoot both recurve and compound. I have taken deer, javelinas, and small game with each.

Most people believe that thier way is the best in any subject, debate won't usually change either side.

I have experienced and can agree with many points on both sides. I've shot deer from a tree stand with both, I've shot javelina's and small game from the ground with both. Heck I even drilled a javelina on a dead run at 15 yards with a recurve, Luck? Maybe, but I would have never made, or tried to make, that shot with a compound.

90% of my hunting is from a tree stand, the other 10% from the ground. I choose to hunt with a compound because I want to be able to shoot out to 35 yards or so. For ME, at my skill level, a compound is the only ethical choice for that range. I've gotten seconds shots numerous times with a compound, we'll not discuss why a second shot was necessary LOL.

At this point I'm confident with my recurve out to 20 yards. Once my buck tag is filled I'll take to the field with my recurve and a self-imposed 20 yard limit and try to take a doe. Why? because I get more personal satisfaction shooting the recurve, just like I'd rather catch a fish with fly tackle than a spinning rod. For the pure joy of shooting (target) I'll choose the recurve every time.

I don't care to use a gun for deer hunting, though I have many friends who do. Is a bow harder? Well I guess some may say so but I fill my tags every year, my gun hunting friends can't all say that.

I understand Roberts points; for him, in the conditions he hunts, he finds the recurve easier. I can't argue with that. It's different for me, and probably the majority of the bowhunting public. Many of you guys here are the elite of traditional archery (I AM experienced at sucking up, LOL).

Bottom line I guess is choose what works ethically for you and enjoy.

And Robert, there diffently are times when a cane pole is the best choice!

[Viper]

Robert -

An automatic transmission could certainly be argued to be "easiest", but that doesn't mean it would be the best transmission for NASCAR racing.

And don't try to out run a modified automatic (manual valve body, high stall converter, etc.) on a 1/4 mile with a stick ...

Been there, done that.

Agian, we'er arguing specific events. Kinda like saying a black powder is a more efficient rifle than a centerfire smokeless. That would only be true if you were in black powder only season.

Viper out.

[Papabull]

Viper,

Agian, we'er arguing specific events.

Of course we're arguing specific events. Like hunting is a specific event. Target shooting is a specific event. Hunting deer from a treestand is a specific event. Shooting at varmints at 80 yards is a specific event. Shooting a 300 round is a specific event.

But you still overlooked the point. The point wasn't whether NASCAR was a specific event or not. The point is that "easier", "better" and "more efficient" are three different things. The point is that you've erroneously used them all interchangeably.

The only way a stickbow could be harder to hunt with than a compound was if you can't shoot the stickbow well enough to make the hunting shots. Unless there's some other thing I don't know about a compound that causses it to make hunting easier, putting arrows through animals, aside. Can you straddle it and ride it into the woods? Will it haul your game out for you? Does it have a deer detector built in? Do you hold it like a dowsing rod and have it point to your downed animal? Does it set your treestand up for you or do your scouting for you?

Nope. The only way a compound affects your hunt differently from a stickbow is in the shooting and it seems to me you are assuming no one can shoot well enough with a stickbow to be truly effective with. That's a bad assumption.

Your remark = "compounds are easier to hunt with".

Reality = "compounds are more effective to hunt with if you need to make shots beyond your effective range with a stickbow.

Too complicated for a simple generalization? Yep. But that's OK, because we know that all generalizations are false anyway, right? :lol:

[Viper]

Robert -

Give it a rest. Sorry that you and several other stickbow guys have to cling to this non-sense. That's the hype part.

Just go to a compound forum and make the same arguement. You'd be laughed off so fast your head would spin. But of course, they don't know what they're doing right?

Here's the generalization:

For the majority of "hunters"

Gun (smokeless) beats compound
Compound vs crossbow - though call. Not enough x-bow guys to make a call.
Compound beats stickbow.
Laminated bow beats selfbow.
Braodhead beats suction cup.

Prove me wrong by real numbers, not specific instances or exceptions to the rule. If you want to stack the deck to disadvantage a compound shooter, that's fine, I'm talking about the real world where people have choices. Whitetail hunting in my neck of the wood is realatively close range, strangely enough the compound guys seem to do better, as a generalization of course.

Viper out.

[Papabull]

Robert -

Give it a rest. Sorry that you and several other stickbow guys have to cling to this non-sense. That's the hype part.

Just go to a compound forum and make the same arguement. You'd be laughed off so fast your head would spin. But of course, they don't know what they're doing right?

Here's the generalization:

For the majority of "hunters"

Gun (smokeless) beats compound
Compound vs crossbow - though call. Not enough x-bow guys to make a call.
Compound beats stickbow.
Laminated bow beats selfbow.
Braodhead beats suction cup.

Prove me wrong by real numbers, not specific instances or exceptions to the rule. If you want to stack the deck to disadvantage a compound shooter, that's fine, I'm talking about the real world where people have choices. Whitetail hunting in my neck of the wood is realatively close range, strangely enough the compound guys seem to do better, as a generalization of course.

Viper out.

I haven't figured out whether you don't get it or don't want to get it but either way, it's clear that you're not going to get it and this has become an exercise in futility, so you're right about one thing, anyway. Time to give it a rest. Heck, I'll even throw in a "sure, you're right" on my way out of this fruitless discussion if it makes you feel better. :D

By the way, you're still confusing "easier" with "more accurate" but I digress.

:crawfish:

[Free Range]

Hey can I play too? I have to agree with Viper on this, with everything considered, and considering the pool of bowhunters, I believe the compound is easier then a stick bow. And here is my reasoning for making that statement. I believe just about anybody will increase their hunting range with a compound and sights by at least five yards, and as much as 30 or 40 yards, this gives you a much larger range then the average stickbow shooter. Second, and probably the biggest advantage is the holding weight of a compound, with 80% or more let off a person shooting a 50 lb bow will only be holding 10 lbs or so allowing them to draw and hold at anchor way before the animal is within range allowing them to spoke less animals during the draw. That is just the actual hunting differences, I also believe it takes a lot less time to learn to shoot a compound effectively and much, much less time practicing to maintain a proficient level of accuracy.

I know there are situations where a stickbow is better, and I’m sure there are plenty of examples of, shooting in odd positions, running/flying game, lobbing an arrow over an obstruction, or what have you, but as a whole I just can’t see how a case could be made that the stickbow is easier, over all, then a compound.

I know G. Fred, and Fred E say in their opinion it is better, but you have to consider the type of hunting they do. I would bet that both of them spend a lot more time on their feet still hunting and spot and stalk hunting, then on their butts in a tree stand. Even at that I think I would have to disagree with them, I have spent plenty of time on the ground myself, and I don’t know how many times I have said, “if I was a compound man that animal would have been down”. But I really can’t remember more then one or two times that I have said, “boy you would have never seen a compound shooter make that shot”.

[Viper]

FR -
Hey, HEY, HEY Can't you see this is a private discussion !!! :p

Just kidding :D

Excuse me...

Huh??? ... wait a minute .... Wadda ya mean this wasn't the PM section ??????

:mistake:

Viper out.

[Free Range]

After reading my last post,,, then reading all of PB’s post I need to make a small adjustment to my statement. Let me say I believe the compound has more advantages then the stickbow in hunting situations. I guess there could be a case made that it isn’t any easier to kill a deer with one then the other, after all, an arrow through the lungs will do the same no matter what weapon it is fired from.

[Pinelander]

The compound might make it easier for the operator to shoot more accurately at longer distances, but when it comes to hunting situations, sometimes a compound (or it's attributes intermingled with operator error) can be a disdavantage. Like the time a fella forgot to unlock his pendulum sight, the time a fella used the wrong pin, the time a fella got busted trying to make the breakover too quick, the time a fella left his release in the truck and lost a good morning's start, the time a fella didn't notice his drop-away rest was loose and had shifted, the time a fella couldn't see his pin thru the peep in low light, and the time a fella couldn't get drawn, anchored, and sight pin lined-up on the chest.... before the deer was gone.

You think compound shooters don't shoot over the back of deer, like trad guys do? Or wound them also? Think again.... one of the fellas in our group (shooting a basic compound with 2 pins), shot right over a nice buck this last weekend. Last year there were 2 wounded deer from the compound guys in our group. Like I said before, it might be easier for them shoot longer distances accurately at stationary targets.... but they have no advantage over a trad bow at common hunting distances, and especially when the deer is not stationary. It's basically a wash, IMO. There are some years that I've killed more deer than my compound counterparts, and vice-versa. I think when it comes right down to it.... it's more the hunter, than it is the equipment. Numbers can be deceiving, but everyone knows that compounders outnumber trad guys easily 20:1. I don't think the success ratio based on shots vs. killed deer is as lopsided between compound and trad, as some might think.

[Free Range]

Pinelander, All good points, and I totally agree with everything you said, I just disagree with your conclusion. But hey I do leave room for being wrong, in this, after all it is just one mans opinion against another’s. And I guess there is no real way to determine which is right, but I still think there is a big advantage to the compound, over all, then the stickbow.

[Papabull]

Compounds do have distinct advantages in a lot of situations. To me, it all comes down to how you hunt and how proficient you are with a stickbow as to which will be most effective. And to reiterate a very important point, "most effective" and "easiest" aren't necessarily the same thing. Fishing with a cane pole is always the easiest kind of fishing (in my opinion), but it's not always - or even often - the most effective way to fish, although it can be if you plan to maximize it's potential.

Either way, what's "easiest" is always a subjective opinion. If someone says "walking backwards" is easier than walking forwards, we can disagree all we want, but it's not our call to make. What's easier for someone else is their call entirely and you can't rationally argue that it's "b.s." because that's not your opinion.

"Ease" isn't something that's easily or even appropriately quantified, so it will always remain in the realm of opinion. To me, typing is much easier than handwriting. I imagine there are plenty of people who would disagree and cite handwriting as much easier. :2cents:

[Desert Archer]

He who asks the question gets to determine the answer!

Could it be that it is "easier" to hunt with a stickbow...and it is "easier" to hit with a compound?

Dave

[Papabull]

Could it be that it is "easier" to hunt with a stickbow...and it is "easier" to hit with a compound?

:whathesaid:

[Highlander]

A bit of a Scottish take on the matter of doing it the hard way!

Well its been said all over this thread, doing it the hard way, is just a perception of doing something, with a style and equipment type in a variety of surroundings, by individuals who probably don’t excel with the criteria under scrutiny!

Mention of efficiency, what WE put in and get out, now whether this includes mechanical apparatus and how exactly this can be related to directly putting in and getting out directly I just don’t know, yes there is a different technique to it but it doesn’t fit the bill in my book! Crossbows were there long before compounds and its just a matter of time before the modernists find ways of bending the rules to imitate the most accurate and mechanical way of doing things within the rules of archery.

Shooting a bow is only complicated under tuition and replication of ideas, to a given end, take all that away and ask someone to choose from the different types of bow out there and just shoot an arrow in the air, ask them to take the easiest option, will they choose the compound? So is this not yet another indication of the easiest way?

It transpires the modernists (the compound and gadgetry army) always look at ways to get back the other side and probably vice versa, we were here first etc…. but does it really matter in the light of the hard way, what’s wrong with a self pat on the back doing it whichever way! We are really getting lost again in the basic war of the sport what’s best what was here first, what is the more accurate under given circumstances.

Well there are a few purists out there and if god came down one night and granted you a day of shooting like Howard Hill would you not to really become a wanabee, be truthful now! Of course you would and there is nothing wrong with that, every individual has a god given talent for activities and certain degrees of aptitude but the fact is we all cant be good at everything and what we are not good at is the hard way!

Poor or good shooting in any style is relative and tending to one method or other is a means to its own end, the real point of this thread is Accuracy, Consistent Accuracy and what is the easiest way of obtaining it!

Well guys and dolls I have news for you it is Individual, you wont find the answer in doing comparisons! As for which it is totally unfair!

An old farm tractor and a drag car have their place and cannot be directly compared so keep the thread on technique rather than the age-old fight of equipment or it will never be concluded. Or maybe that is the point?

Definition

A Bow: A curved piece of resilient wood with taut cord to propel arrows!

Let the slugging re-commence

[Sam Dunham]

I use recurves because I like the system. I started out shooting compounds and took a lot of game with them, only thing is I spent a lot of time keeping them tuned and operational. Cables in time, is my rest coming loose etc. I was hunting in Colorado with a guy in front of me walking in to the area we planned to hunt, and had some elk jump in front of us and stop. The guy starting backing up to me, and I thought whats he doing when he whispered get my release out of my back pack. He had forgot to put it on his wrist and caused both of us to miss the shot. I find it much easier and more fun to do it the easier way with recurves.

[jdupre']

I'm way late getting into this but I'll just add a personal opinion. A person's choice of hunting equipment doesn't HAVE to be the best or the easiest or the most accurate or any superlative you can think of. For goodness sake, what a person chooses to hunt with should be of no concern to anyone but himself. If he can't take a shot at dusk, or can't make a quick running shot, or can't lean the bow way over to shoot under a limb , so what?! If you feel you have to be able to shoot in all situations in the hunting woods, archery might not be your sport. Shoot the weapon of your choice and accept any shortcomings it might have.

[DAS]

The more control you have over the environment, the more the scale tips to the compound. It's a snipers weapon as far as I'm concerned. From an enclosed blind, or a treestand where you have the benefit of time to prepare for the shot, they rule. The minute you lace up boots and put yourself on even footing with your game, a stickbow will improve your odds IMO, assuming you can shoot it. Hunting is a dance and a crap shoot. You never know what you will be handed or when. It's not like shooting ducks on a chain. There's little doubt that a newbie could pick up a compound and have a little better chance, simply because of the learning curve with stickbows, but that is hardly a rational for claiming they are better. If could take shots out 75 or 100 yards with one, that would be a different story, but giving up all the advantages of a stickbow for maybe 10 or 20 yards of extended range? Nope, not for me.

David

[rtpcat]

Hey I have 2 cents also.
The guys I hunt with rarely shoot 30 yds, most have 1 pin at 20yds on the compound. My hunting buddy has a 5yd and 20 yd pin. Our deer in AL are not big compared to other states but they are scared of thier shadow and will duck under most 30yd shots.
The big advantage the compound in hunting here is:
1) ability to draw while deer is obsucured and wait for the shot
(as DAS says control over the environment)
2) they have such penetrating power quartering on shots are just a slam
thru the shoulder and into the ground, deer included.

Those 2 things down here give a lot more shots.

[Viper]

David -

The hunter is always in control of his environment, because the first and most important decision he has to make is shoot/no shoot. That's the part I have a problem with concerning the trad hype. The mystique of the quick shot at moving game or whatever. If that's what someone is into, great, but not for me. I never quite understood the combat (or is tactical the correct word these days?) mentality of sport hunting. It's not a kill or be killed scenario, really. My biggest problem with the trad hype is that there are a number of books, magazines and videos that promote exactly that.

"It's (compound bow) a snipers weapon as far as I'm concerned."

So, does that make a stickbow an assault rifle or a shotgin???

I agree, but so is any weapon, if used correctly. People bow hunt from treestands, blinds or still hunt. Still hunting is by definition using stealth to get within range of your target. Hum, sounds like snipping to me.

A number of people have mentioned that "if the skill (with either bow) is equal, then the advantage is a wash". I can agree with that too. But with most of today's "trad" guys, it ain't. What's often forgotten and the part that may offend some of us is the reality that most stickbow guys need to train for months or years to get proficient enough to go afield after game. Most compound bowhunters take their bows out about one month before season, "sight in" and practice a few times and are ready to go. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, just reality.

Can a stickbow guy get a shot off faster than compound? Sure. Will it reach it's mark? For a select few, yes; for most, in my experience, no. I always took the deliberate, controlled "snipers" shot. Like I said, I'm lazy.

Viper out.

[CarolinaBob]

Is it the hard way? Most who post here appear to have been around for awhile and remember archery in the old days and/or field archery. Some of the new trad police sure are dumb. I just got slammed at the LW because some of our new trad police have never seen a good barebow recurve shooter verus a good barebow compound shooter. The part that they really don't understand is that a good FITA/Field recurve with sights is pretty close to a ccompound with sights. At really long distances I will take the FITA guy.

[Papabull]

Gents -

I usually don't post in this section, so bear with me...

The "doing it the hard way" thing we keep hearing about has always been a little bit of a problem for me. Walk into your boss's ofice one day and tell him you've found a harder, more time-consuming (less efficient) way of doing your job and would like to start on it immediately. See if you still have a job that afternoon, or if you like the fit of the straight jacket.

We all get satisfaction from doing things ourselves, with our own hands, as it were. I just get to a point were I like a fair amount of efficiency when I do something. Put another way way, when I put X amount of effort into something, I expect "X" amount of return.

Once we define the parameters of what we are attempting to accomplish, it seems to make sense to do it the most efficient way possible.

Thoughts?

Viper out.

According to your line of reasoning....

* We should hunt with what's most efficient and easiest.
* Compound bows are easier and more efficient than stickbows for hunting.
* Therefore, we should all be hunting with compound bows instead of stickbows.

I'm really glad the fish and game department doesn't see it that way.

[Viper]

Robert -

To answer your question, you'll need to define "hunting".

If the purpose is to fill the freezer, then your statements are absolutely right (but in that case, I'd still use a rifle).

If there's some other, possibly emotional or spiritual thing to what's being called "hunting", then it's irrelevant. What we choose is, well, our choice, for our reasons. It only becomes problematic when we try to justify those reasons anecdotally.

As for the fish and game dept. Humm, there's already been one thread here where the guy in charge of park land flat out said - compounds only. Being from the same area where the statement was made, I'd have to concur. Sorry, but I know a lot of the stickbow hunters around my neck of the woods. I'm not comfortable with many of them on a range, much less in the field.

There are a number of very proficient stick bow hunters and a number of real slobs (accuracy / shooting wise). The same can be said for the compound guys. Fortunately, the compound guys do have an easier time of it and so can make better shots, more often. That part is a fact.

My estimation is that most bowhunters don't crawl through brush to get running shots under 10 yds. A 25/30 yd shot is questionable for most "trad" bowhunters these days; for most, even new compound guys, it's a cake walk. That's an advantage.

Viper out.

[Papabull]

When I deer hunt, it is to fill the freezer. And I don't use a rifle because it's not legal to use a rifle during the bow season, which starts in September here. I use a recurve setup for precision shooting and I use that instead of a compound because I feel a compound actually puts me at a disadvantage and I feel that way from experience. Like I said before, one of us has hunted with both and is going from personal experience on the subject. There's nothing problematic about justifying my choice for two reasons. The first reason is that neither my choice nor anyone else's needs justified and the second is because a recurve really IS an advantage to me. I know you just can't figure that out but that's because you won't think outside the box. The last buck I shot, I wouldn't have been able to take with a compound. I wouldn't have had enough time.

Using a compound, I've had friggin' arrows drop off the damned string when I let down, clattering on the rock under my stand and spooking the deer. I've had arrows fall off the rest while drawing. I've had peeps that didn't turn all the way. I've had dim light obscure the deer through the peep sight. I've dropped my release out of my stand. When I blew a chance on a beautiful P&Y buck because I couldn't get the damned shot off in time, that was it for me. I went back to the recurve, shooting barebow and never looked back and never regretted that choice.

It's not justification for "doing it the hard way" at all. I am shooting what works best for me. Sure, I have to pay my dues and shoot a lot. But I've had more than a few compound shooters I've shot 3D with tell me that they'd be hunting with a recurve if they could shoot one like I do, too. My response to them is that they can.. they just have to pay their dues. Carolina Bob's response was actually right on target. If you think a stickbow is a disadvantage when hunting (for me within 30 yards), then you either don't know much about bowhunting or you don't know how to shoot your bow well enough to understand just how effective it is.

Is it best for everyone? I'd say not because I know a lot of people don't shoot all that well with one, but then again... if you're a good hunter, you really don't have to be all that much of a hotshot to score regularly. We've got one guy I shoot with that shoots a 46" Korean FRP bow. I beat him every time he shows up for a shoot but he regularly scores over 200, anyway and that guy takes a half a dozen deer or more a year.

I know all this puzzles you and I know you still think that anyone who says they hunt with a stickbow because it's easier for them to hunt with must be completely mad but I've tried every way to explain to you why a stickbow CAN be an advantage but it's clear that you can't understand that or accept that.

[Papabull]

By the way, I will add this....

If I really was interested in hunting "the hard way", I would be using a selfbow and the heaviest arrows my bow could launch, shooting off a shelf. Instead, I set up a recurve with a plunger and flipper and tune it for tens, shooting with relatively light arrows that give me around 200 fps for reasonably flat shooting. To me, it doesn't get any better than that. :D

[SteveGabriel]

A member of my club shoots a compound barebow. No release, no sight.
Gets several deer every season. He says he uses the compound barebow because he can use a 60 lb bow and take his time aiming, he can perform a quick shot and the bow is short enough to use in a treestand.
I don't hunt, but the purpose of this thread seemed to be why we choose to shoot "the hard way". I maintain that most of us do this because we enjoy it. I think being comfortable with your weapon will make you a more efficient hunter.
When I was a hardcore surfcaster, I could cast 450' feet plus with a 11.5' tournament rod without a problem, but for actual fishing I was more comfortable with a 10' stick. I'm 6'4", 295 lbs and I've bench pressed 385 so physically handling the big rig was no problem. Still, I fished better with the smaller outfit. My buddy was the opposite of me (5'7", 170) and preferred a longer, heavier outfit. He scored as well or better than I did.
My point is we're all individuals and we choose what gives us the most enjoyment.
:2cents:

[Desert Archer]

Does it matter any, in this seemingly endless re-arranging of the deck chairs, that the original use of the term "the hard way" was about bow hunting vs gun hunting? (or did someone already say that...I can't remember now - lol)

Dave

[Viper]

Robert -

Actually, you'd be shooting of you knuckle ...

Viper out.

[Martin Farrent]

Okay, Dave's here and Tony's here, so it's time for another non-hunter to butt in. :)

How about just consigning the "ease" aspect to the learning process and talking of "convenience" in the actual doing?

For example: Skiing is not easy to learn, but more convenient than walking down a snowy slope once you've learnt it.

Best,

Martin

[Ifish]

How about if everyone just did it the "Quit looking for external validation way" and be done with it?

[Esquire]

Martin,

How about slipping across the pond next season and we'll bloody some of your fletchings together?

We'll do it the easiest way I know how, given fair chase conditions and using our very traditional gear. :)

Mike

[DAS]

For me it has nothing to do with "the hard way", or any rambo scenario. just years of experience with both types of weapons and what I've learned from it. It seems like we keep going back to the inexperienced hunter/shooter for justification for the compound. There's really no argument there. If you aren't willing to put anything into it, then of course a compound is better. If you aren't willing to learn to ride a bike, then a tricycle is always a better choice. Maybe where I differ from many is that I don't buy all these inherent limitations to shooting a stickbow. I was around long before the limitations were "common knowledge" and I know better. Viper, just a few days ago you posted an excellent article about hunting stats from the 60's. That's where I'm coming from. People can't shoot stickbows well today because nobody expects them to, with plague level deer herds few people have to, and people refuse to accept the techniques and equipment that will get them there.

The only exception that I can point to is Tim Wells. Tim is an awesome hunter and if anyone hasn't seen his videos, they should. That is hunting to me. That's how shots happen in the field, and he is extraordinary in the things he does. He actually does shoot a compund, but guess what? It's a low poundage, round wheel, low let-off compound. He shoots fingers and barebow. In other words as close to a stickbow as he could get. That's how he makes those shots.

The comments about a sniper weapon were because the compound is very accurate but not intended for fast reactions. I'm not talking about running shots either. I won't take a running shot at anything bigger than a rabbit. The fact is though, there are many times when you get a walking shot oportunity that only lasts a couple seconds, or a standing shot that is just as quick. You get one glance and a tail twitch before the animal starts to turn. That's where a stickbow rules. You can call it anecdotal all you want, but that's how things happen in real life. The perfect, still, clear, broadside shot in a park-like setting with the sun warm on your back is something that rarely happens. If you are happy to pass on everything other than that, then you'd better get used to store bought meat.

As far as the whole bow / rifle thing, yes, for me a bow is less likely to result in meat. The reason I like bows is because the hunting experience is different. I like the quiet, and I like the reduced hunter pressure. I also like the fact that I'm a lot less likely to be shot dead. The challenge part of it is pretty far down the list really, because I don't like eating tag soup. I'll take any advantage I can get happily. What I'd really like is a bow that has compound performance and stickbow handling. That's MY dream bow. I'm not wrapped up in any of this trad dogma, I just like good stuff, and stuff that works for me.

David

[Pinelander]

.... there are many times when you get a walking shot oportunity that only lasts a couple seconds, or a standing shot that is just as quick. You get one glance and a tail twitch before the animal starts to turn. That's where a stickbow rules. You can call it anecdotal all you want, but that's how things happen in real life.
Thank you very much for sharing that viewpoint.... and that is the reason I hunt with stickbows. They can call me unethical for killing deer when they are walking and they can call me unethical for killing deer with 40 lb bows.... but they are still dead, butchered, and in my freezer all the same.

[Viper]

David -

I really think "archers" were considerably better percapita 30+ years ago than today. I've said as much here and elsewhere. Back then, very few people took running or even walking shots. We even went so far as to advise against them in hunter safety courses. I know, I taught them. When we set up moving targets for training purposes, very few people connected. Sure, there were a few "names" who pulled off those shots, but not many and we really never knew their hit ratio. And yes, there are a number of exercises you can do for practice, but few of us found it necessary.

I can't believe that's it so common and successful with stickbows today. Certainly none on the people I've seen shoot can do it consistently enough to make it a legit shot at live game; most can't hit a stationary target consistently. Maybe things are different where you live, but that's the way it is around here.

I'd certainly like it to be the way it was in the 70's, archery wise (and I'd be back in my 20's), but they are not, nor am I. For todays' "archer" the compound is they way to go for a hunting weapon, because it can be and IS treated like a rifle, taken out a few weeks before season, sighted in and ready to go. We may not like it that way (I don't), but that's the way it is. It's easier and more effective for the typical bowhunter of the 21st century , so far. People can kick and scream about it, but it ain't gonna change - because it doesn't have to. That's why more compounds are sold per day just about ANYWHERE than stickbows, why there are more compound bow hunters and why they, I believe, have a higher success rates.

There are several problem with compounds, none of which have been mentioned here, but most of them belong in another thread.

I agree with you last paragraph 100%.

BTW - Remember, when hunting compounds first came out, they were little more than recurves with wheels. Some were literally wooden recurves with their limb tips sawed off and pulleys screwed on. Even todays' compounds can be simplified and "lightened" to make them fairly quick in the hand. Too bad too few "bow hunters" would be interested. There would need to be retaining both mentally and physically to make it happen, but it could. Think about that.

Viper out.

[George D. Stout]

Lately, as in later in my life, I rather enjoy using the right side of my brain more than the left side. I don't want to think about setting aperatures or adjusting buttons, I just want to watch the feathers hit the target from a simple bow. It really has nothing to do with easy or hard; dull or sharp; stupid or smart, or whatever else comes to mind during discussions such as these.

That being said, I care enough about how I shoot that I'm not satisfied with mediocrity....hitting pie plates at 17.3 yards. It's important for me to utilize that simple bow effectually; whether it's just to see my arrows fly, or to put an arrow in that black dot at sixty yards. Being simple doesn't always mean being awful. It does mean placing more demand on yourself to perform well with a minimum of accouterments.

[bcoulter]

Lately, as in later in my life, I rather enjoy using the right side of my brain more than the left side. I don't want to think about setting aperatures or adjusting buttons, I just want to watch the feathers hit the target from a simple bow. It really has nothing to do with easy or hard; dull or sharp; stupid or smart, or whatever else comes to mind during discussions such as these.

That being said, I care enough about how I shoot that I'm not satisfied with mediocrity....hitting pie plates at 17.3 yards. It's important for me to utilize that simple bow effectually; whether it's just to see my arrows fly, or to put an arrow in that black dot at sixty yards. Being simple doesn't always mean being awful. It does mean placing more demand on yourself to perform well with a minimum of accouterments.

Great post George! :youdaman:

[Pinelander]

I can't believe that's it so common and successful with stickbows today. Certainly none on the people I've seen shoot can do it consistently enough to make it a legit shot at live game....
Sorry Viper, but I think you are somewhat disconnected from the reality of today's bowhunting with recurve or longbow. I for one, have made it a "legit" shot for over 20 years, and no amount of slapping it down on your part will turn it into a fairytale.... at least in the minds of those that do it on a regular basis.

[Desert Archer]

I got a question for you hunters (fully admitting I'm no longer one of you). I have read many times on the "trad" boards that shots beyond 25 or 30 yards are un-ethical because even the calm animal may take a step, i.e. move. At the same time is seems a number of you are saying snap shots from awkward positions at fleeing animals are OK and even the norm.

Somebody want to explain that one to me again! The grazing or bedded animal at 30 yards "may" take a step or get up. The startled animal behind you is taking a bunch of steps, quickly.

I'm not picking on anyone or trying to start a fight, but as Tony said earlier when most trad bowhunters can't reliably hit a stationary target at 15-20 yards unless it is the size of a pie plate (and not all can do that) where does the skill to hit that fleeing deer while bent over, not at anchor and short drawing come from?????

Dave

[Pinelander]

DA, I am not talking about running deer at ANY distance (shouldn't be shooting at running animals at all). I am talking about deer that are walking (whether it be very slowly or rather quickly), which are no further than approx. 15 yards away. Where does the skill come from? It comes from being able to point the bow and hit quite accurately within that pie plate-sized kill zone from that distance. At 15 yards or less, it is not difficult to do, regardless of body positioning. Anchoring agaist the face is important (for obvious reasons), but at that distance.... draw length is not as critical. If one is not practiced in shooting from different positions, one will not have the ability to do it afield.

[Viper]

Piney -

On the contrary my dear Watson, perhaps you may need to get out more. I see plenty of people who believe they can make those shots, but the operative word is "believe". If you can, that's great - most "trads" can't. And I know a good number of compound types who can take the shot you described.

David -

One other point, I fialed to mention. Several people have mentioned arrows falling of the rest or problems with releases. I find that one quite odd, you can't blame operator error on the equipment. More importantly, the new compound shooters at my local shop are steered to a Whisker Biscuit rest and a very simple caliper release. If someone can get a arrow to fall off that rest they are more talented than I am. (Brand new stickbow guys have more trouble keeping the arrow on the rest. With a simple caliper release, it really takes very little time to get used to it. "Buck fever" affects new and some old compound and stickbow shooters, so that part is a wash.

Your snipper comment still bothers me a little, because that was always my take with a stickbow. Perhaps now that the compound wins in that department, the stickbow guys need some new avenue to accell, hence the hype of the fast shot.

Viper out.

[DAS]

Viper,
I respectly ask you to quit calling my opinion "hype". I've been hunting for 40 years, and 35 have been with a bow. If you don't agree fine. Insinuating that I and others are making things up is wearing real thin.

David

[Viper]

David -

Sorry, but I don't buy into to snap shooting, running shot type of archery/bowhunting for MOST people. If that's what you're describing, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Some of this stuff is wearing real thin here too.

Viper out.

[Papabull]

Viper, everyone's stating opinions. This stuff is "opinion" and not "fact". Let's not all argue that our opinion about what's easiest is the smartest, bestest and rightest opinion of all opinions. Arguments like that can't be won. What's better? A sports car or an SUV? What's better, football or baseball? What's easier, Golf or sporting clays? I'm not sure there's too much new ground we can cover here and I won't blame anyone for "hyping" compounds if no one accuses me of "hyping" stickbows. I think we're all smart enough to be permitted to have our own opinions on this.

[Viper]

Robert -

I thought I was stating an opinion, mine, and nothing more. We state our opinions, back them up as best we can and then let folks come to their own conclusions.

Viper out.

[Papabull]

If it's your opinion that people who disagreed with you on this are merely "hyping", that's your prerogative. But the topic is "what's easier to hunt with"; not "what's your opinion about people who disagree with you".

Like I said, you can't win this and neither can anyone else because this is a purely subjective discussion. You can be as right as you want to be on this in your own head, but that's as far as goes.

For what it's worth, If someone asked me what they should get to go bowhunting and they were more interested in the bowhunting than the archery, I'd recommend a compound. It's definitely easier to learn and become proficient and to do it pretty quickly. But it's not easier for me because I've paid my dues and become very proficient with a recurve and the hunting is just pretty easy and simple because of that.

Opinions, opinions, opinions. It's OK to have them. It's OK to respect the opinions of others, too. It can be a "no-fault" discussion where somebody doesn't have to be wrong so someone else can be right.

[ratgunner]

:thread:

[Viper]

Robert -

Nowhere did I say it was easier or better for you, or anyone else in particular, but certainly seems to be the case for most people these days for the reasons that have been discussed ad infinitum.

For what it's worth, If someone asked me what they should get to go bowhunting and they were more interested in the bowhunting than the archery, I'd recommend a compound.

So would I, and that was the point I was trying to make.

Now, for the next debate, if they actually wanted to learn to shoot, my suggestions would be very different.

Viper out.

[scotty]

...

[Highlander]

"Viper, everyone's stating opinions. This stuff is "opinion" and not "fact". Let's not all argue that our opinion about what's easiest is the smartest, bestest and rightest opinion of all opinions. Arguments like that can't be won. What's better? A sports car or an SUV? What's better, football or baseball? What's easier, Golf or sporting clays? I'm not sure there's too much new ground we can cover here and I won't blame anyone for "hyping" compounds if no one accuses me of "hyping" stickbows. I think we're all smart enough to be permitted to have our own opinions on this."


Hoorah!

Eloquently put PapaBull and a good bit shorter than my attempt!

The question or statement Doing IT the hard way is leading every body of in tangents which has the makings of very interesting reading material, but not very good for following the point of Doing (?) the hard way, I think clarification on the (IT) point is required from the thread starter?

You can not fairly compare the mechanical army to the stick shooters and each has its place, with given benefits in given situations following different styles, even the odd Indian would have had to take shots from horseback, or he and family may have starved.

So unless we can agree on common ground for the (IT) we will be getting nowhere!

As much as I dislike saying it, if its Accuracy and only consistant accuracy and forget all else then the one that comes out on top is the machine! I don’t like it but we could go an arguing for eternity.


When the computer guided arrow comes along, it wont matter what you shoot it with for accuracy, only then the justification will be on distance and we know what is going to come out on top! ah well along will come the self propellded arrow and we will just launch it by hand! I think not! styles of archery will be here for eternity and they will have there army of followers!

We the stick bows can only lay claim to doing it the way of choice and the simple way!



The reasons behind reason are reason enough!

[Desert Archer]

The reasons behind reason are reason enough!

That's good. Can I borrow it?

Dave

[Highlander]

Borrow away Dave!

[Papabull]

This is what I think of when I think of hunting the hard way....

http://www.argentinesafari.com/fotos_caza/boar_with_dogs.jpg

[Pinelander]

Now that is about as barbarious as it gets.

Or how about that Rambo thing where he drops straight down out of tree, thrusting a knife-sharpened wooden spear into a feral pig. But then again, that was easy for Rambo. :D

[Lambow]

Damn right! that's doin it the hard way.

A friend of mine has a video tape of himself jugin a long blade dagger in the heart of a big boar, while the dogs got em by the ears.

Forget about the bows boys. It's childs play compared to "doin it with knives"

I'm gettin all fire up about this.... where's my spear & atlatl darts?

[Pinelander]

Well, here is a buck my buddy shot Sunday evening with his ultra-accurate compound. Perfect standing still presentation and SPINED him at 20 yards broadside. I guess hunting scenarios can sometimes take the edge off "easier". And no, I don't need to get out more.... I'm in the thick of it and have seen plenty to tell me that at average hunting distances, there really isn't much difference between a stickbow and a compound. I see it every year and could tally up plenty of misses and wounded deer by the ultra-accurate equipment guys. What a brute that deer was... dressed out at 226 lbs!

[Highlander]

Great pictures of an individuals hunting the hard way!!!!

Lets get back to the issue.

Lets take the (IT) to be archery!

Doing Archery the hard way…

Lets now say all bows are tuned
Lets ignore maintenance issues
Lets ignore add-ons
Lets ignore styles
Lets ignore the range
Lets ignore the habitat
Lets ignore differing poundage’s
Lets ignore bow cross sections…

Where is this going?

The age-old argument the Stick versus the Machine, now wait a minute I here all the Machine army saying this is just not right.

Well here’s my take on it

A Machine (Compound) - A mechanical device that modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks!

What you put in is not what you get out!

A bow!

Well we have that one before!

A Bow: A curved piece of resilient wood with taut cord to propel arrows!

Doing “X” with either, which is the hard way? The common factor is the human interface the result is “Y”

How we get to that result is individual – so take that away because as most people are now in agreement of we cannot compare fairly

What are we left with?

Man and Tool “A bow” what is put in is given out! Versus Man and Machine “Compound”

Now as we all must agree Machines are invented to make tasks for humans (Mainly) easier!

So doing it the hard way in keeping with the age-old argument….

Is with the stick bow!

Ignore individual circumstances now!!!!

You know it to be true!

like it or not, on top of this basis we just try to make the easy or hard way easier!

[Lambow]

Well said, Highlander.

Dave, that's a big bodied buck, man. Bucks 226#'s dressed, are few & far between. down here.

You're right on, about the accuracy thing, and i've witnessed it first hand myself in just in the last few weeks, of how accurate these cpound bows are supposed to be in the field, on deer.
A friend of mine i hunt with fairly often, hunts with a c-bow and can shoot it well enough. I've seen him shoot horn worms off tomatoes, without hitting the fruit. I've seen him hit bellpeppers at 35 yds. with every shot. He's killed more chipmonks than anybody i know with a bow. But he's wounded 6 straight deer without finding a one of them here recently. All but one of the shots were under 20 yds.

I don't believe i'll ever be convinced, that the c-bow makes for a better hunting weapon.... for deer.

[DanaC]

Hunting with a bow versus with a gun is choosing the 'hard way.' Hunting with a recurve vs. a compound, not so clear in my mind. Sure, harder to learn, but less to go wrong in the 'moment of truth.'

How many times do you see a recurve or longbow shooter miss and say, 'I screwed up that shot' ? Plenty. How many times do you see a compound shooter miss and say the same thing? Seldom. Usually they start fiddling with sights, rest, release, etc., pull out a set of allen wrenches and start tweaking. It's always the equipment that went out of whack.

Give me my recurve and a good set of arrows, and when I miss, it was me. Not the bow.

The upside is, when I hit well, it was, likewise, me. Not the bow.

[Pinelander]

... a recurve or longbow shooter miss and say, 'I screwed up that shot' ? Plenty. How many times do you see a compound shooter miss and say the same thing? Seldom.
Actually for me and the fellas I hunt around (compound shooters).... it's hardly seldom and more like plenty. They are honest with themselves, they know their limitations and still aren't always perfect, no different than the rest of us. When they screw up, they usually say the same thing I say "Don't know what happened, but it didn't happen". They don't dwell on perceived equipment issues, because they don't have any. They know their equipment in and out just as I know mine. They are modest men and enjoy the hunt as much as I do. They work hard at getting the right setups and hunting smart.... no different than me. Maybe I'm just fortunate in having such a great group of guys that share my passion for bowhunting deer, and make no excuses when they simply "screw up a shot".

[Martin Farrent]

What one chooses to shoot is usually based on emotional preference. You take your pick stylewise, simply because it appeals to you. Then you pay the price in $ and flipsides, and reap the benefits in enjoyment and perhaps a few objective advantages. But emphasising the latter and building rationalisations based on them is misleading. The choice of basic style is not rational. There is no real "why?" that can be put in words.

Take eaters in a restaurant. They choose something with lime sauce, thereby forgoing the tomatoes. Do they start rationalising and explaining why tomatoes just wouldn't do the job?

Best,

Martin

[Larry Hatfield]

theres obviously no hope for me! i put kalamansi juice on my tomatoes when i eat them.
(kalimansi is a small lime from the phillipines.)

[DanaC]

Pinelander, I don't mean all compounders, just a lot compared to stick shooters. In my experience. Of course there are a lot of guys who "know their equipment" but I see a lot who run to the pro shop every time they miss the ten ring, too. Too many gadgets to deal with.

Remember when any shade-tree mechanic could do a tune-up on a car? Plugs, points, condenser, done deal. Nowadays? You need a scientist! Modern bows? same deal. That's why I walked away from compounds; I didn't want to become a technician, or dependent on one. Not my idea of recreation.

dana

[Papabull]

I did all the work on my own bows even when I was competing with compounds. You don't have to be a scientist to work on a bow. Even on the most complex compound setups, it's not really that complex. It's the same principles that apply no matter what you're tuning. You want to get the tiller or timing right. You want to get the nock point right. You want to get the arrow spine right. You want to get the rest position right. And if you've got sights, you have to set the sights right, but other than that, it's the same things you're dealing with whether you're shooting a longbow off the shelf or a compound with a trapdoor rest.

I don't know of any good shooters that rely on their "pro shop" to do all their bow work for them. I know I wouldn't trust a pro shop to tune a bow. They specialize in selling stuff, not tuning.

[Pinelander]

I don't think DanaC is off base about the pro-shop thing. Most compound users that simply bowhunt and maybe shoot some 3-D here and there... don't have their own bow press, don't know how to adjust the timing, and don't know how to install the string/cable assembly. Essentially, the compound bow is a machine that requires considerable more knowledge to maintain than a basic bow with a string. There wouldn't be nearly as many compounds in use today if there weren't pro-shops out there to provide service to archers whose only objective is to shoot the bow, not understand how it works or how to fix it.

That specific part of the difference between compound and traditional gear isn't a stereotype... it simply is what it is. The problem I see on too many occasions, is the stereotyping of bowhunters based on the equipment they use. How the equipment is maintained and works is one thing... but how the bowhunter hunts and the decisions he makes afield, are quite another. You can't simply mix the PERSON with the EQUIPMENT, and make a sound judgement as to what type of person or bowhunter he might be. Also, it is very easy to forget that compound usage in bowhunting easily outnumbers traditional bow usage by the hundreds or even thousands to ONE. It's much easier to find a handful of idiots out of a thousand, than it is to find out of a few dozen.

[Steve]

It's much easier to find a handful of idiots out of a thousand, than it is to find out of a few dozen.


But still very, very possible:D

Steve

[van_fl]

Whats with hunting the hard way?
In all the years that I have been hunting the Rifle shots were not that much longer then my bow shots. I really believe that the over 40 yards with a gun were few.

For me a bow is the easy way. No big bangs to scare every thing into the next county.

One year when I was going hunting with a friend in Wyoming was informed that any shot was going to be over 200 yards. So I spent a great deal of time finding the best load for my 06.
First day in camp started up the trail about 50 yards from camp. I had al Elk jump out of the brush about 10 yards from me. Nothing but heir in the 4x scope. Bang done hunting.

[Papabull]

If you shoot accurately and consistently, bowhunting isn't hard at all. At least bowhunting for whitetails has been pretty straightforward stuff. Scout and pattern the deer just like you would hunting with anything else. Set up a stand. Wait till you get a shot opportunity and then put an arrow through them. Give 'em 30 minutes and then get ready to field dress them.

But if you don't have the shooting part down pat, it can, indeed be very hard. Hard to hit them. Hard to make a clean kill. Hard to track them with muscle shots and gut shots. Hard to do grid searches. Hard to get deer to get close enough for a shot that's high percentage for you. Hard to keep yourself loaded up with sharp broadheads because those shots into dirt just trash the blades. It can be very hard, indeed, for anyone who feels the big challenge in bowhunting is making a good shot.

[Bowlim]

"My point, on the other hand, was about the guys who enjoy patting themselves on their backs for being "purists" or put another way, "doing it the hard way" and in effect putting down the other guys for taking a "short cut". The phrase I normally use is "they stink and are damn proud of it"."

That's insecurity showing through. People do stuff for their own reasons. I am very motivated by challenge. I don't by any means live up to that test all the time, but it is what gets the buzz going. If I go into a sport for the presumed higher challenge, that is my motivation, and I am not doing it for some other reason or to please some other person. In fact where I live, not mentioning that I am a bowhunter is the only successful strategy. I haven't anyone to show off in front of.

While it really doesn't mater if someone else devalues my challenge sport my reducing the perception of challenge to the lowest level, it does irk me. Once I was actually talking to some non-hunters, and I was defending compounds to a degree. Anyway I later heard they didn't buy a word of it because they thought I was talking about x-bows. At the time I had done a lot of work on all the similarities of shooting styles and was taking about that. They thought I was saying that hunting with an x-bow was the same as their Robin Hood longbow image. So occasionally all the crap out there rubs off.

But the thing is people have different motivations. One of the things that I think of is what motivates handgun hunters. To hear them talk they are doing it (as well as love of handguns) because of the challenge. From my perspective a scoped pistol shot off a rest with a range of 200 yds isn't all that challenging. But I think the real reason is they are an aggregate of the challenge motivation, and the power motivation that has been identified with about 30 percent of hunters as primary. One thing you don't always get with a bow is that power feeling that comes from dropping the animal as though hit with a ton of bricks. A pistol integrates that with challenge.

I don't think we would be honest if we said we don't slightly like our own reasons, but there is a big difference between that and only caring what effect one's own choices have when viewed by others.