Why not just shoot a compound!?

[arcoyflecha]

Please hear me out on this one.

It is a question that often provokes an angry response from recurve and longbow shooters, but it is really a fair question. Let me explain. I began traditional archery with a one piece recurve and aluminum arrows and was fascinated with the way the arrow would usually land within six or so inches from where I was looking. I loved how it seemed impossible to achieve that kind of accuracy without sights, but it still worked! Then, after missing or shooting a few deer poorly AND after lurking on this site for hours on end, I decided I needed a more accurate metal handled recurve, so I bought a Quinn Stallion. I was right; it was more accurate, probably due to its smoothness and physical weight. When I still shot poorly at times of crisis (shooting at big game), I decided I needed a sight on the bow, so my Dad and I made a sight similar to the SRF sight. I shot better and more confidently, but it still wasn't good enough. I then toyed with more or less stabilizer weight and adding weight to the lower portion of the riser. I considered such things as an elevated rest, clicker, and a more advanced tab. I noticed I often shot to the left when under stress, so I determined my release was a problem. Therefore, I began experimenting with a release aid. While using the release aid, I decided I would need a peep sight in the string. Can you see where this is going?

After all this tinkering with the goal of increased accuracy, I asked myself why I didn't just shoot my compound, which uses many of the accuracy aids mentioned above, plus has letoff and greater speed. I took it out of the box, dusted it off, and shot tiny groups with great ease. However, it just wasn't fun.

Then it occurred to me that what drew me to traditional archery was the simplicity and watching the arrow fly as if left my face. By trying all the gadgets (which I am not opposed to), I was complicating the process and gradually moving away from the passion of just focusing on the target and letting the arrow do its thing. I was moving back toward the complexity of the compound bow.

So back to the question: Why not just shoot a compound? Isn't your five pound WARF bow with all the gadgets almost a compound (don't hate me please)? What makes it that different. If increased accuracy is your goal, then picking up a compound will (very likely) increase your accuracy dramatically. Do you like being able to tinker more with your recurve or longbow, such as unstringing it without a bow press? Do you like being one of the few in your area that shoots a longbow or recurve? Do you like the looks of a recurve or longbow? Do you like the feel of the string on your fingers? Do you dislike the letoff of a compound bow? (Don't tell me you dislike all the technology and gadgets associated with compound bows, because traditional archery has its own set that are discussed on this site regularly.) What is your reason?

[deermaster]

because i dont have to or need to! lol

be prepared for some interesting responses

[bcoulter]

Oh boy here we go again.

[Bob Gordon]

I shoot a recurve well because I can and most can't...lol...warf

[bcoulter]

Please hear me out on this one.

It is a question that often provokes an angry response from recurve and longbow shooters, but it is really a fair question. Let me explain. I began traditional archery with a one piece recurve and aluminum arrows and was fascinated with the way the arrow would usually land within six or so inches from where I was looking. I loved how it seemed impossible to achieve that kind of accuracy without sights, but it still worked! Then, after missing or shooting a few deer poorly AND after lurking on this site for hours on end, I decided I needed a more accurate metal handled recurve, so I bought a Quinn Stallion. I was right; it was more accurate, probably due to its smoothness and physical weight. When I still shot poorly at times of crisis (shooting at big game), I decided I needed a sight on the bow, so my Dad and I made a sight similar to the SRF sight. I shot better and more confidently, but it still wasn't good enough. I then toyed with more or less stabilizer weight and adding weight to the lower portion of the riser. I considered such things as an elevated rest, clicker, and a more advanced tab. I noticed I often shot to the left when under stress, so I determined my release was a problem. Therefore, I began experimenting with a release aid. While using the release aid, I decided I would need a peep sight in the string. Can you see where this is going?




It sounds to me like you were trying to short-circuit the process. Accuracy with a barebow recurve or longbow can approach or equal that of a compound (as witnessed by some of the scores being posted in the 18m challenge) without all the bells and whistles of a compound. You wern't happy with your stickbow accuracy so you started adding accessories, kinda like a golfer trying to buy a game when what is REALLY needed is WORK and practice to build a strong foundation of fundamentals. Some don't want the work, dont enjoy the process, or have physical limitations; for them a compound probably is the best choice.


Then it occurred to me that what drew me to traditional archery was the simplicity and watching the arrow fly as if left my face. By trying all the gadgets (which I am not opposed to), I was complicating the process and gradually moving away from the passion of just focusing on the target and letting the arrow do its thing. I was moving back toward the complexity of the compound bow.



see above; if you really enjoy the recurve and its simplicity then you have to do the work, no way around it. You also have to be realistic of your progress and expectations, especially when it comes to hunting. Perhaps you should use a compound for hunting until your consistency and accuracy with the recurve improves.


Isn't your five pound WARF bow with all the gadgets almost a compound (don't hate me please)?

Nope. Define gadgets? A recurve with an elevated rest, a stabilizer, and perhaps a sight is still a far cry from a decked out modern compound.

Do you like the looks of a recurve or longbow?

yup

Do you like the feel of the string on your fingers?

yup

Do you dislike the letoff of a compound bow? (Don't tell me you dislike all the technology and gadgets associated with compound bows, because traditional archery has its own set that are discussed on this site regularly.)


Are you trying to start a fight? This comment sounds like you are.

What is your reason?

Because I Choose to, nothing else matters.

Free will is a great thing. You are free to agree or not.

[bcoulter]

http://www.tradtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2477&highlight=shoot+compound

[arcoyflecha]

bcoulter,

Thank you for answering my questions. No, I am not trying to start a fight. Three months ago, I would have been one of the greatest defenders of high tech trad. I still support it, but just have some doubts now.

You mentioned I need to practice more. I practiced barebow consistently for six years -- I really did. I read the books, bought the videos, and improved. I'm pretty good on the range or stumpshooting, but the target panic gets the best of me when hunting.

Although it hurts to read, perhaps I should stick with the compound for hunting and shoot the stickbow everywhere else. However, it's hard to get excited about shooting the recurve if I'm not going to hunt with it.

I really didn't want to start a fight. I just wanted to know why you shoot what you shoot.

[CarolinaBob]

"You mentioned I need to practice more. I practiced barebow consistently for six years -- I really did. I read the books, bought the videos, and improved. I'm pretty good on the range or stumpshooting, but the target panic gets the best of me when hunting." Archery is alot like golf in that you can't see what you are doing. You need to have someone who knows how to do it correctly observe and coach you. Maybe pay for these services, have them video you, etc.

[Seven Arrows]

....perhaps I should stick with the compound for hunting and shoot the stickbow everywhere else.

I think that's a good idea for you, in fact, why not just stick with the compound period? The recurve serves some folks better and the compound serves others better. It's your choice. On the other hand, the idea that tech leads to the compound just doesn't hold water. You're suffering buck fever. Some folks get it worse than others. You doubt yourself, that's the problem. To master the recurve requires committing to it. Hunting doesn't require pin point accuracy. All you need to do is to slip a reasonably sharp broadhead through the vitals. You don't need to shoot 10's or X's. I'm good enough with the recurve to take deer and elk out to 60 yards, my personal cut off. I'm not much better than that with the compound. Just so you understand me, if I have a clear shot at an elk at 50 yards, I'm confident that I can hit the vitals. If I wasn't, I wouldn't shoot. I suspect that you probably are rushing your hunting shots because of the pressure. The secret is not to care about getting the animal. Shoot it like it was a stump.

[bcoulter]

. I'm pretty good on the range or stumpshooting, but the target panic gets the best of me when hunting.



I remember well my first 3 or 4 years of bowhunting with a compound in the late 70's, the compounds we shot then performed similarly to a modern recurve, LOL. Although I considered myself a good shot with that compound I missed many, many times when trying to shoot a whitetail, funny thing is I could nail a rabbitt but missed deer at very close ranges.

It finally came together after several frustrating years. My practice finally led me to the point where accuracy, within my range, became automatic. Accuracy led to confidence and confidence to filled tags.

The modern compound is a different animal. Setup correctly 0-35 yards is pretty much a single sight pin on the center of the chest cavity and a dead deer. The variable of range estimation, a clean release, tuning, and even practice are less important with a compound approaching 300fps and all the gadgets.

A recurve brings all those things back into play. Practice, tuning, release, form, range estimation etc all become much more critical when the string is on your fingers and your shooting 170-200 fps.

I bowhunt with a recurve now. My effective (confident accuracy) range is currently 10-15 yards less than what it was with a compound.


The bottom line for me is confidence. Right now I wont shoot at a deer unless I'm confident I can make the shot. With a recurve that equates to 25 yards max, instead of the 40 I would shoot with a compound.

As my accuracy increases so will my confidence and then, and only then my range.

[2Ten]

The secret is not to care about getting the animal. Shoot it like it was a stump.


Thanks for saying that, Seven Arrows. I think I will find that very helpful.

[stantond]

It takes more skill to shoot a recurve accurately than a compound bow. Much like shooting a pistol versus a rifle. From my limited experience with a compound bow, it's much like shooting a crossbow.

I don't mean that as bad, because I own several crossbows. But, considering the mechanical release, sighting system, draw weight reduction, and 300+ fps arrow, I don't find much difference at 25 yards between a compound bow and a crossbow. The Virgina game and fishery commission see that similarity since crossbows have the same season as regular bows for hunting.

I attribute the predominant compound bow use to the adoption of crossbows because both take a similar amount of skill, imo. So, from that perspective why not just shoot a crossbow?


Stan

[wds]

shooting a recurve well is fine art in motion. beautiful to witness. wonderfull to perform. cold hard skill transformed into a coming together of the mind and body. shooting a compound is a job anyone can do in a very short time with very little invested. their is a joy in shooting a recurve well that compound shooters will never know. too bad.

[estacado]

You dont need our permission to go back to the compound. Just do it.
Your confidence has been obviously dashed by your lack of success while
hunting. I ve fighting the same thing with the stickbow for the last 6 years on the 3D courses I frequent. My TP is like the Buckfever you seem to be encountering. I think I ve got it licked finally. I never considered the compound, not for a minute. I m 62 and finally am getting back the confidence I had before my affliction. Considered quitting a bunch of times,
but the stickbow is such a beautiful thing when it is right. I know I could do
it because I could do it before.

Estacado

[Seven Arrows]

So back to the question: Why not just shoot a compound? Isn't your five pound WARF bow with all the gadgets almost a compound (don't hate me please)? What makes it that different. If increased accuracy is your goal, then picking up a compound will (very likely) increase your accuracy dramatically. Do you like being able to tinker more with your recurve or longbow, such as unstringing it without a bow press? Do you like being one of the few in your area that shoots a longbow or recurve? Do you like the looks of a recurve or longbow? Do you like the feel of the string on your fingers? Do you dislike the letoff of a compound bow? (Don't tell me you dislike all the technology and gadgets associated with compound bows, because traditional archery has its own set that are discussed on this site regularly.) What is your reason?

" Isn't your five pound WARF bow with all the gadgets almost a compound (don't hate me please)? "

Not even close.

"If increased accuracy is your goal, then picking up a compound will (very likely) increase your accuracy dramatically. "

That's silly. The goal isn't increased accuracy, accuracy is a by-product of form and tuning. The gadgets that the, "keep it simple" folks eschew, are just tuning tools. In the case of a typical wood handle/glass lam limbed bow, much of the tuning is done by the bowyer during construction and before completion, but then you're still left with matching the right arrows, brace, shelf height/sideplate adjustments, etc. to the bow and shooter. In many respects, the compound is a much simpler, more direct route to "enjoying the flight of the arrow," considering it will shoot a much wider range of arrow spine and weight quite well with little tinkering. Quite the opposite of stickbows. If it was so complicated, why is it that all those families across America are having such a good time fumbling with gadgets and parts falling off their bows? I'll tell you why, it's because none of that stuff is true. Sights, rests and bolted on parts don't have a habit of failing at the critical moment, that's BS. It's your choice whether to use finger release, mech release aid, or a bowsight, that's not a condition for either discipline. Just because most compound shooters use a bowsight doesn't mean that you have to.

I like to shoot both and don't make much of a distinction between them. The main difference for me is the way the release feels. I just love the way an arrow comes off of the string of a recurve. The older compounds were a lot more fun to shoot.

Shoot what you like and be happy about it.

[Allen]

Archery - it's all good. Shoot what you like. Nobody is critisizing you for wanting to be more accurate by using a compound. If that's what it takes to make an ethical shot within your capabilities, then by all means do it.

However, if you have buck (or doe) fever with a recurve, chances are it won't be any different with a compound. In fact it can be worse.

The question is what do you want to shoot and are you willing to commit the time and effort to become proficient at it?

[Arrow4Christ]

I'll tell you why, it's because none of that stuff is true. Sights, rests and bolted on parts don't have a habit of failing at the critical moment, that's BS.
:youdaman: Amen!

[van_fl]

The above reply’s are awesome.

Why do I shoot traditional?
I just never have gotten around shooting a compound as my recurve or longbow works out fine for me.

Ahh once –I could not break it over? :lol:

[K31Scout]

Hi Bruce,

I've been up and down over the many years I've been shooting recurves and understand the frustration. I hunt with my compound for deer and recurve for all the lesser critters. It does not give me a good feeling carrying the compound and I don't "like" shooting it but it gives me an advantage.

I have recently taken up FITA style Olympic, long range, anchor under the chin archery and love it. It can get techy but it's fun. The lighter poundage has helped improve my accuracy as well as a level 2 coach I see a few times a year who points out the bad things.

I think the collective goal of all of us is more accurate shooting. I'll bet you can find a coach down there in MO who could really help you iron out the form problems that are keeping you from being happy.

I hate to tell you to buy a new bow (I'd love to sell you one!) but get a really light one, like #30-35lbs and arrows to match. Get a good book...Rick McKinney's The Simple Art of Winning. Study the basic form and work on one thing at a time. You will get better and have fun again.


Take care Buddy.

Bill

[bcoulter]

Ahh once –I could not break it over? :lol:


It's funny you mention that Van. I took down a couple of my old compounds yesterday and gave them a pull. First time I reached the breakover point I thought, whoa I can't draw these anymore ! LOL After just a couple months of recurve only shooting the compound feels really weird to me. Second time I pulled through the breakover and was fine.

Totally different technique. I'm finding I REALLY prefer the recurve! :D

[Ringwood]

The more high-tech the bow- the more psychological distance there is in my mind between me and the game in front of me.

I've never killed with a gun or a compound so perhaps I have target panic but it is just a part of the experience. I don't know any better. I think that guns and sighted release aid compounds put a higher degree of psychological distance between me and the game in front of me. Perhaps pulling a trigger- whether on a release or a on a gun is easier than "just letting go" of a string. If the pin is where it should be than you just "click."

I realize this is way oversimplification and I have every respect for those marksmen out there that have mastered their craft.

I just think that holding tension on a string and having two eyes open puts more of me in the game- which is why I started hunting.

And if we were starving I'd damn sure be buying a gun and putting sights back on the compound that I do have.

Good food for thought.

[Bill Carlsen]

I've been shooting/hunting for 55+ years. I started before there were compounds and tried them for a while. I went back to the recurve because in the final analysis, the recurve was a more efficient hunting weapon. Easier to handle, much less maintenance, once it is tuned it is "locked in" and the only things I need to worry about is replacing a string now and then, which I make myself. Shooting at game is really a lot different, psychologically, than shooting at targets or stumps. I suspect that if you hunted with a compound the psychological component at the "moment of truth" would remain constant. I assume that your accuracy on game probably would not change as i believe the problem is in your head and not in your equipment. I know plenty of compound shooters that suffer the same affliction. One of the best cures, I have found, for dealing with killing animals is to kill animals. That is, in those years where I have spent time in the off season shooting woodchucks and other types of varmints my ability to deal with the shot at a deer or bear has been more natural and maintaining my composure easier. There is nothing wrong with wanting better accuracy and the more time you spend with your equipment and practice sessions the better. But I would advise just going out and get involved with some small game hunting.:)

[benzy]

"Why not just shoot a compound!?"

I do that too.

[Desert Archer]

I was reluctant to post on this one as I am one of those who doesn't just get offended at the question. When some neo-trad expert says that to me I get pissed off.

I don't shoot a compound for the same reason I don't shoot a crossbow, or for that matter a firearm anymore. I DON'T WANT TO!

What I want to do is shoot a recurve, holding the full weight of the bow on my fingers as archer's have done for something over 20,000 years. I also want to do it without sights, as was also the case for the vast majority of archery's history.

From your story you tried to buy accuracy and skill. I have worked at it for years and will continue to work at it as long as I can physically shoot A RECURVE.

Dave

[tuffshot]

Another perspective is that when one goes to a recurve from the compound realm it was a total transformation.

You have built your form shooting a vertically held bow, the sight and peep were the alignment tools. The thing is all else was not concidered, such as hand location, sight window, arrow location etc in relationship to the target.

To pick up a bare bow is intimidating and one can be at a total loss.
A solution to this can be as simple as removing the (compound tools) as you gain comfort and confidence. Put everything needed on your bow and then start removing components as your comfort level and confidence improves.
Once you get back to the bare bow you will be able to use it with more versitility.

I have witnessed many who do not look at anything except the tools that they are using on their compound and when they try and shoot a recurve or longbow they shoot high. They have never looked at anything except the sight and the first thing they do is try and look at the arrow from a canted bow. Once the alignment to the target is realized the up and down can be adjusted as well.

[Pinelander]

I'm going to echo what Tuffshot said.....

Transformation, Transformation, Transformation, Transformation, Transformation

Intimidating, Intimidating, Intimidating, Intimidating, Intimidating

[CarolinaBob]

Today's arrow launching devices aren't bows. The old ones were close but come on 85% let-off, chips in arrows to track game, laser sights, releases, 29 inches long so they can fit on the handlebars of an ATV. How is that a bow?

[steve morley]

You could take it another step and ask the question 'why shoot a Bow, why not just get a Gun'


I've shot Compound and there is nothing wrong with it but once you've set your bow, got your range estimation and tuning sorted youre on for pretty much pefect rounds in 3D and indoor, once you start shooting perfect scores where do you go from there?

I'm never gonna score a perfect round with a Longbow and I'm never gonna stop trying to shoot a perfect round. for me it's a bigger challenge and much more satisfying when I nail a target.

[Rainmaker]

I'm unsure why whenever a topic like this shows up some people take offense to it.

The man asked the question with sincerity. I personally didn't take offense.

It's too bad folks can't just answer the question without sarcasm and without being condesending.

A great number of these guys are old enough to be our fathers and grandfathers. It would be nice if folks just shot straight and had a nice mature discussion.

Some have and will, some didn't and won't.

I say shoot what you like, and what you are most proficient with in the field.

It is helpful to come to a place like this and just vent our frustrations. Our wives/girlfriends/and family are great, but noone can understand us like another bowhunter.

[Papabull]

I'm unsure why whenever a topic like this shows up some people take offense to it.

Rainmaker, it's because every time someone talks about an arrow rest or aiming or tuning or high performance limbs or a metal riser or target shooting or any of that kind of "techy stuff", some ninny tells him, "why don't you just shoot a compound". You see, according to some nitwits, if you care about any of that stuff or like any of that stuff, then you are using "crutches" and might as well go for what they consider the ultimate crutch with the compound. The reason that remark is taken as an insult so often is because it's dished out as an insult so often. It's usually a rhetorical barb... "Yeah? Why don't you just go getcherself a compound, dude", which translates roughly as "get the hell out of our stickbow community; you ain't one of us." That's not usually taken very well and a large dose of STFU usually follows.

Might as well ask a cop that pulled you over, "isn't it about time for you to go get a donut"?

[Desert Archer]

Might as well ask a cop that pulled you over, "isn't it about time for you to go get a donut"?

Hey PB, I didn't eat donuts even back when I wore a badge! (ROTFLMAO)

Dave

[arcoyflecha]

I apologize for launching a thread that was previously discussed.

Everyone's reponse was helpful and positive. I appreciate that. The best advice I read was to have someone watch my form and to pay for some coaching (thanks, Bill). The best attitude I picked up from the responses was that of understanding what I'm going through. I didn't gain much from those who appeared not to understand my original concern about unreliable stickbow accuracy. Many of the participants of this and other sites seem really proud and confident of their shooting skills with a barebow, but I know they must wound animals also if they hunt regularly. Are you only posting pics of your best groups? Many of the responders to this thread wrote as if they have achieved a level of accuracy in which they no longer have the problem of making poor shots on game. If you can kill cleanly and miss cleanly, there has to be something in between (a wounded animal). If they truly limit the distance of their shots, then I can more readily believe it. Hasn't this happened to you and likely many times?

I know what you are thinking and I'll beat you to it. Yes, you can wound with a compound bow and even a gun. It's been done many times.

Although this reply may sound cutting or abrasive, it is not my intent to start a fight.

Just for the record, I have taken a dozen or so big game animals with a recurve, so I know it can be done (even by me). However, during those kills the perfect shot through the lungs rarely occurred. It sure felt good when it did!

[arcoyflecha]

Rainmaker, it's because every time someone talks about an arrow rest or aiming or tuning or high performance limbs or a metal riser or target shooting or any of that kind of "techy stuff", some ninny tells him, "why don't you just shoot a compound". You see, according to some nitwits, if you care about any of that stuff or like any of that stuff, then you are using "crutches" and might as well go for what they consider the ultimate crutch with the compound.

The above was posted by Papabull.

Papabull, this nitwitted ninny believes the question is a legitimate one. If by attaching arrow rests or other "techy stuff" to your recurve you are hoping to increase your accuracy, then why don't you go the next step and use a compound? That is the logical next question for the thinking man who sees the pattern developing. What he is looking for is a good answer.

That is how the compound was invented, correct? Someone wanted to improve the accuracy and shootability of a traditional bow (that already had many bells and whistles designed to increase accuracy) and affixed wheels and cables. Guess what, it worked! It improved accuracy and shootability for most people -- just like an elevated rest, a stabilizer, a clicker, high dollar tabs, SRF sights, and all the other accuracy aids you can attach to or use in association with a wood or metal handled recurve or longbow. The question should not provoke anger for someone who has a good answer. That is what I was looking for. I received a good answer from many of the participants, and none of them but you called me a nitwitted ninny.

[Papabull]

Papabull, this nitwitted ninny believes the question is a legitimate one. If by attaching arrow rests or other "techy stuff" to your recurve you are hoping to increase your accuracy, then why don't you go the next step and use a compound? That is the logical next question for the thinking man who sees the pattern developing. What he is looking for is a good answer.


1st, since you asked this as a "legitimate question" rather than a rhetorical insult, you can't assume the title of "nitwitted ninny". That's for the people who toss it around like some kind of grade school insult instead of just a question. I was explaining to Rainmaker why people get sensitive about this. If I wanted to call you a nitwitted ninny, I would have been much more straightforward about it and just said, "archoyflecha, you are a nitwitted ninny". I didn't say that and I didn't say anything I intended for you to interpret that way. I don't think you fit that category even if you did jump to conclusions about it. But there are some nitwits (who also happen to be ninnies) that have been known to plop down that as a one liner in many, many discussions - mostly on other forums.

The question, itself, was already answered. Why not shoot a compound? There have been lots of good answers with "I like recurves and longbows" or "I don't want to shoot a compound" being top of the list.

There are people who have had the asinine notion that arrow rests are a "compound thing" or that "aiming" is a compound thing; or that shooting with good form is a "compound thing". Or that a metal riser turns a recurve into a compound. All these notions are born of ignorance.

Put an arrow rest and plunger on a recurve and it's still a recurve. Tune it for tens and it's still a recurve. Learn how to aim it and it's still a recurve. But then it's a recurve that you can shoot as well as you can shoot it.

Why would someone pay more for a bicycle than they would for a motorcycle? If they're going to tweak it for speed, aerodynamics, efficiency, etc., why not just buy a motorcyle? Simple - because if they wanted a motorcycle, that's what they'd get. Instead, they want to ride a bicycle. They just want to perform to the best of their ability and a yard-sale Schwinn ain't gonna get it. Nothing wrong with a yard sale Schwinn if that's all the serious you take biking as a sport. But there are people who take it more seriously.

One could also ask, if you want to keep things at their simplest, want to get really really close to animals, use your euqipment purely for hunting and want to experience the sport at it's most primitive, why don't you just use a spear?

And a very likely answer would be similar and expected "because I don't want to use a damned spear".

Hell, we could go on about this forever. Why use a fancy dancy split bamboo fly rod? Why not just get a really nice high end carbon rod instead? If you want to ride through the woods, why not ditch the horse and buy an ATV?

It's not that someone has to justify why they'd rather use a recurve tweaked for the best shooting instead of getting a compound tweaked for the best shooting. The question is "why is it anyone else's business?" and asking someone "why don't you just shoot a compound" is, literally, insulting their choice of equipment.

If you're asking whether there are any advantages to shooting recurves than compounds.... I think there are and that's been debated heavily, too. But who cares. None of us need to hunt for a living. None of us shoot our longbows with war arrows in battle. We shoot what we wish to shoot and in whatever way we wish to shoot because we can and that's a plenty good reason.

arcoyflecha, if you want to shoot a compound, please feel free to do so. I won't ask you why. If you choose to shoot a selfbow, I won't ask you why. If you choose to throw spears, I won't ask you why. If you choose to try FITA archery or try out for the Olympic team with a full blown target rig, I won't ask you why. It's your business and I would respect your decision to enjoy the sport as you see fit. I think it's fair to ask for that sort of respect for all our fellow archers.

[arcoyflecha]

No hard feelings, Papabull. I'll be sure not to ask such personal questions in the future.

[George D. Stout]

To infer that any recurve is like shooting a compound is ridiculous. The last time I looked none of those recurves had let-off or wheels.

Now.....these high-tech metal risers have been around for fifty+ years, as have stick-on rests and sights....and metal arrows. Sometimes a person needs to make the effort to study the subject before speaking to it as if they may know something. The only thing a recurve has with a compound is they both shoot arrows. That's it.

[phiba]

why don't you just use a spear?

Papabull: :youdaman: I was reading in Kroeber's book that California Indians were as likely to capture a deer by running it down or herding it over a cliff as shooting it with a bow. Now that would be something!

[steve morley]

Why would someone pay more for a bicycle than they would for a motorcycle? If they're going to tweak it for speed, aerodynamics, efficiency, etc., why not just buy a motorcyle? Simple - because if they wanted a motorcycle, that's what they'd get. Instead, they want to ride a bicycle. They just want to perform to the best of their ability and a yard-sale Schwinn ain't gonna get it. Nothing wrong with a yard sale Schwinn if that's all the serious you take biking as a sport. But there are people who take it more seriously.



nicely said :)

[CarolinaBob]

Schwin, they got Schwin in Britain? When I was stationed there I had a Holdsworth. I shot a compound then also but it was 52 inches, 33% let-off shoot wood arrows with fingers. No sight.

[Sam Dunham]

Because I like to shoot a recurve, and you can shoot a compound if you want to, and as Seinfeld says" Not that there is anything wrong with that". I just want to, because I like em. I don"t want to shoot a compound. If I wanted to, I would.

[Grizzly]

I like the recurve because it was what I grew up with and first started shooting. I can remember my Uncles longbow with no rest, shooting off the nuckles and not even a nocking point. I always figured, even at 8 or 9 that there had to be a better way to build and shoot a bow. I remember launching arrows straight up with that thing and running for cover. I remember Dad and all of us boys learning on a couple of used Bear recurves and then hunting together with them. I remember finding one in a supply room in Vietnam. Used to be able to hit bar coasters from the hip at about 15 yards with that fiberglass bow and arrows bought in Tokyo on R&R spined for who knows what. I remember spending a whole bow season hunting a valley in NJ while my broken knee healed and strengthened. Lets just say there are a few sentamental attatchments to these recurves. Tried and hunted with compounds for a while but they just dont satisfy something inside that the recurve does. As soon as I put one back in my hands that felt a little better than that 52" stacky Ben Pearson I bought in 69, it was a no brainer. There is just a much more fullfilling feeling to shooting a recurve.

Now add to it things like not having to buy a new sight every year, a new bow everytime you're convinced they made something better, or any of the new gadgets that are contsantly changing and being improved and creating an endless need if you are inclined that way, and you have another reason to shoot recurves.

Maybe having grown up with recurves gives us an advantage. We love them, and if we hunt, we have to learn to maximise our efficiency with them. If we shoot 3d and are at all competitive, we also have to improve our skills. Actually, if we did nothing other than shoot in our backyard, I think human nature would want us to get good at shooting the bow in addition to enjoying shooting it.

I think I made a big improvemnt in my shooting when I changed from enjoying flinging arrows to slowing down and focusing more on the mechanics of the shot. When this site started us shooting the 300 rounds and keeping score, that eliminated the ability to think we were shooting pretty good because we only remembered the occassional great shot. Now by keeping score, we had to work a lot harder at achieving and maintaining accuracy.

With deer, I found I could mess up equally with either style bow. Actually my efficiency has peaked with the recurve. If you dont want to wound or miss, you learn to keep your shots close and pass on the iffy ones. The compound and even when I first switched to a Warf and was able to shoot much more accurately at longer ranges than my wood bows, made me think I could take longer shots at deer. I found out pretty fast that I had to back off on my distances. Self control is essential. As we improve and master the different ranges, then we can incorporate that into our hunting. Not before.

I took no offense at your question. Based on how you equiped your Quinn, I can see how you would ask it. But, I havent gone down that road. I may put a sight on one of the Warfs, but it will only be as a temporary tuning tool. I just dont want one on my hunting bow. I think it distracts the shot while hunting. With practice and a bow set up geared for hunting or even 3d, you can achieve a high level of comfort, confidence and efficiency. You just have to want to. The more you want to, chances are, the better will be the results. There is alot of discussion on this sight about systems. find one that lessens the amount of gap you need up close. shoot it alot until it becomes natural for you. dont change arrow weights and poundages. Shoot your hunting set up until you feel totally comfortable with it. Strive for all 8's or even all 10's at 3d. But dont drive yourself nuts doing it. Find that mental state that allows you to shoot well while relaxed and focused. Trying too hard is a distraction. Trying to win is a distraction. Having to kill or get big antlers is a bad distraction.

I wish I'd found and used a coach. Just too dumb and cheap. But I do get to shoot quite often with some excellent archers. You should try to find them. If for no other reason than to see what is possible. they miss too, but not as often and there is alot to be learned from a good shooter. They have had to work at archery for quite a while to get that good, and if they feel like it can be off help to you. You'll know when you see one, they usually can whoop the local winners.

[BowDonkey]

I've never seen a post or poster ask for more abuse than this one. But out of my extreme benevolence I'll let it slide.:) I know it boys, I really should retire if this is all the reply I can muster.

[Sam Dunham]

Goe over to a compound site and ask the question in reverse.

[warbow]

Hey, if we just wanted to hit the target we'd walk all the way up to it and shoot it point blank. Archery is, in part, about doing something the hard way because of the challenge, and trad archery more so. Pretty much all hobbies are that way, doing something that you don't need to do because the experience and challenge is fun. That's why nobody can tell you whether you must enjoy any particular hobby. What hobbies you enjoy are up to you, and so compound/trad is also a choice that is up to you. Other's can say why they like trad but they can't tell you what to like.

[ahshoot]

For me, shooting a recurve is more fun. Let's face it, getting hunting ready accuracy with a compound is easy for most people. I did it in one summer when I was 14 years old. The same isn't true of a recurve, it is much more of a challenge, for me anyway.

[Larry Hatfield]

i work for a company that makes a lot of compound bows and even made the wood models for sand cast cougar and lynx models way back when.
the physical weight of compounds was what made me not ever shoot one.
even the old 69" target bow i used to shoot that had a dental mirror for visable draw check, a prism sight, etc. was much lighter to hold.
i really like the longbow i am shooting now, just over 1#.
maybe i'm just to lazy to shoot a compound.
larry

[Ted A. Young]

I shoot both but, there is always a but you know. The recurve is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more fun!

[SteveGabriel]

I drink my coffee black. A lot of my friends prefer coffee with milk and sugar.

I like my recurve. My friends Markus and Robert ask me when am I going to get a "real bow" (longbow). Fred and Craig say they like to "hit what their aiming at" (compounds, tricked out).

We all like to play, we just have our own preferences in toys.

[Steve Jo]

The recurve demands more of me.

It rewards more too

Plus, it is the better tool in woods

[Desert Archer]

I got hit with this last night at the league shoot. I had a pretty good night (for me) and with the handicap system they use (don't ask me to explain it) I actually won a couple ends over a compound shooter. He was both surprised by it and very nice about it.

Another compound shooter I've know for the two and a half years I've been shooting with them commented that if I would get a real bow (compound with stabilizer, scope sight, release, etc) imagine how good I could do!

I smiled at him and said that if I kept working on my form, and if my back and shoulder hold up, imagine how good I can be shooting Barebow Recurve!!

Dave

[Diamond Paul]

"Accuracy with a barebow recurve or longbow can approach or equal that of a compound (as witnessed by some of the scores being posted in the 18m challenge) without all the bells and whistles of a compound."

Well, let's not go too far, now! Unless you know someone with a barebow (or even a recurve with a sight) that can consistently shoot 2" groups at 40yds, that ain't so! Anyway, to the post at hand. Why not shoot a compound? No reason; I guess I just got sick of them, mainly because I was so far into shooting them at one time. I don't like the way the new breed draw and shoot, so that's one reason. If they still made the PSE Mach 5X, I might still be shooting one. I deal with them everyday, cause I make parts for them; in fact, the company I work for makes just about every cam and module, and many of the risers, for one of the biggest wheel companies out there. Kind of like sausages, if you like them, don't watch them being made! Anything that's your job, doesn't make a good hobby, so that's another reason. I link them to my competitive archery days, and them was some miserable days. If I missed an X indoors, or a 12 ring outdoors, I felt like a failure. I'm sure I am one reason many people around here quit shooting, because when you are struggling to shoot 290 indoors, and the guy next to you gets pissed because he missed a couple of X rings, you might feel pretty worthless yourself. That's another reason. Mainly, I just like the people I met who shot recurves and longbows, I like being able to live with shooting a 6" group at 30 yards, and I happen to think they have some advantages in real world hunting situations, like not taking 20 seconds to execute a good shot with my back tension release. I just bought a Dalaa, so I'm not opposed to technology, or continuing to work on my shooting, but I enjoy the challenge of the recurve and just have more fun shooting one. That's my reasons. Paul.

[Highlander]

If its ultimate accuracy – buy a gun or self guided missile
If its not shoot with what makes you content


Most people would benefit from taking the human factor out of shooting or limiting it or aiding it:
The people that look for it as an endless quest end up shooting compound at one time or another some stay with it.
Some people frown to be spoken of or its not the done thing in this circle or that and stay with recurve or Long/Flatbow, Horsebow etc.
Some people just like to shoot that way or this and find a quiet peaceful spot in there life, more comfortable whilst hitting the mark but not hitting does not promote a quest for technological assistance as above.

The short answer it’s not all about ultimate accuracy or no one would be shooting any type of bow currently made, possibly ever made!

An answer not giving the answer one wants to here is very seldom welcome on a deaf ear

H.

[Desert Archer]

Walked into the archery shop/shooting lanes Tuesday night for my league shoot. The manager looked up as I walked by, smiled and asked, "Aren't you frustrated enough to start shooting wheels yet?" This guy's always been friendly so I took it in fun and said, "I'll buy a compound as soon as I get Barebow Recurve down pat!" He just laughed.

As Highlander said, it isn't about ultimate accuracy. It's about being as accurate as you can with your bow of choice. For me that's a modern Barebow Recurve.

Dave

[longbowguy]

My reply to those folks is: 'Any fool can hit them with wheels, sights and a release; it takes an archer to do it the way I do.' - lbg

[estacado]

My reply is in similar vein, I dont want to shoot a compound, and they are ugly. Aesthetics is as pretty does, in a deer blind who wants to stare at an ugly compound until Mr. Big shows up? Life is too short to shoot ugly bows.
As to metal risered bows, my Dalaa takes a bunch of heat, I just tell the young punks Im not outshooting them and I dont care what they think. So any perceived advantage, which is really the crux of most such arguements, is moot. I struggle with all bows, but I choose to struggle with a stick bow.

Estacado

[thisbucks4u]

Although I havent the mood today to read the entire three pages of responses, Im positive that we got some "spirit of the wild", "artistry of archery", "Training wheels are for kids bikes" and some other BS answers.
Your absolutely right. gadgets are gadgets no matter what you strap them to. Personally, I find the biggest difference between the two to be the release aid I use with my compounds and let off.

But, why I do it mirrors your statement in the your original post.

However, it just wasn't fun.

Too many let this get stuff get in their head and rattle around--All to no avail. Just have fun with it, and you start to see the true beauty of simplicity in the bows we shoot.

[CheeseHead]

I shoot recurve because...
When I do, I feel more a part of the shot. When I shoot compound, I feel more like a witness to the shot.

[SteveGabriel]

I decided to go back to barebow recurve this week.
I'll use the SRF for form practice periodically.

I like my recurve because it's simple. I watch the good compound shooters. what kind of optics on the sight. New releases that cost as much
as a pair of carbon/wood limbs in the TT store. 3 year old bow is outdated and can't sell for too much as newer version is so-o-o much faster. Forget that NFAA and IBO says 280 fps max.Sport of kings.

My club had a 3D shoot a few weeks back. 2 recurvers and 3 compound shooters in our group. We shot the 30 for score and then shot a few extras on the way back to the clubhouse. Both ot the recurve archers had bows that were about 50 lbs at our draw length ( I'm a bit taller than PapaBull).
We were still shooting when the compounders complained about aching shoulders.

Conclusion: real men shoot stickbows!:jk:

[Greywolf]

Interesting responses. I make recurves and longbows(last count I have designed 7 stykbows) I enjoy shooting them, huinting with them and just generally carrying them.
I also have friends that shoot compound, I'll carry a compound for the day, of for a hunt I was invited to attend.

I have no problem shooting either one. I even go on a rifle deer hunt now and again. I still stalk up to see if I can pitch a rock at a deer. I seen no harm with that, I'm a well rounded person. Do I have a preference over a compound? For the most part yes, I do. I'd even hunt with a slingshot if it were legal here.

I've seen 51 summers this year, I'm not into one main thing. I'm into doing it all. I teach people how to build longbows and curves. I use to own a Archery Pro shop, one of the best times of my life. I've met the nicest people, compound shooters, stykbows, black powder shooters, like I said it really don't matter in the large scheme of things.

I go testify against anti firearms legislation, I own plenty of shooting irons, I pride myself on my small collection. I have 30-40 bows some are kids bows for shooting at the DNR day we have here.

For one person to be so against one or the other is beyond my thinking of "Hunting".

Guess I'll go and reload some 264 win mag rounds and finish putting the feathers on my new shafts for the 3-D shoot next weekend.

[Desert Archer]

For one person to be so against one or the other is beyond my thinking of "Hunting".

The title of the section is "The Philosophical Archer" not The Philosophical Hunter. I'm always surprised at bowhunters who just can't seem to see beyond their own narrow little world.

Dave

[Diamond Paul]

Dave, I think it's perfectly natural to see the bow as primarily a hunting weapon, as most people who shoot bows are primarily hunters. The people who only shoot targets with bows are few and far between. That doesn't make you any less correct, of course, but it's something to consider when statements like that anger you. Good shooting, Paul.

[Diamond Paul]

I would like to add one thing. I know many members here get upset when people say things like "aiming ain't trad," and "why not just shoot a compound" when they see the hi-tech metal bows come out. But, I also see many remarks here belittling compounds and referring to how "easy" it is to hit with one. "Easy" is a relative term. The people who downgrade you for your equipment choices and aiming systems say the same things about you because of these choices, discounting skill entirely. Don't make the same mistake; hitting may be easier with a compound, but it is not easier to do it well, because the standards of excellence are so much higher, just as the standards of excellence for Olympic archers are higher than those of the average trad 3D shoot. If the standards are high enough, the skill required to meet them is no less. Those of you who feel that you would never miss a half dollar at 20 yards or never have to use two hands to pull your arrows at 50 can cast the first stone. Just something to think about, because we don't want to become that which we despise. Paul.

[Desert Archer]

Paul, I didn't say I was angry I said I was "surprised" and I am. This gets to the often kicked about philosophical question (and there fore appropriate here) of whether you are an archer who hunts with a bow, or a bowhunter. I used to be the former although because of disabilities I can no longer hunt. I have absolutely nothing against hunting and in fact find discussions of the subject interesting and I follow some of them closely.

I don't bad mouth hunting or dismiss it as irrelevant. I am always surprised at the number of "bowhunters" who do dismiss any kind of target shooting and treat what paper shooters, or as they call them "spot shooters", say as being irrelevant.

Dave

[Diamond Paul]

I understand. I think people use the term "bowhunter" generally to refer to all of us; I don't think they consider that it excludes a whole group of archers who don't hunt. I know the field shooters at our club feel the same way about 3D, as if that were the only form of target shooting that exists. Paul.

[Greywolf]

The title of the section is "The Philosophical Archer" not The Philosophical Hunter. I'm always surprised at bowhunters who just can't seem to see beyond their own narrow little world.

Dave

Actually it pretty vast, sorry I don't fit your idea of a stykshooter.
My point was........ah never mind:sorry:

[Desert Archer]

Actually it pretty vast, sorry I don't fit your idea of a stykshooter.

Actually it's more of a case of me not fitting your idea of "traditional".

Dave

[rico]

Some archers set up and shoot the same as a compound /just short of wheels I don't see a big difference and no matter how good they shoot stickbows they could and would shoot better scores with compounds.
If your style is gap, poa or sight etc. there is a better way to improve your scores. Compound bows.
But if you choose to shoot truely instinctive IMO the stick bow unaided is the only way to shoot I even question if the compound with its abrupt letoff can be shot at all instinctively.
IMO the compound is better suited to any type of aiming system other than instinctive.

[Str8 Shooter]

I'm going to throw in my opinion on this one. Before I do let me give a little background and where I'm coming from. I'm a younger guy (26). I started back into archery at 19 with a recurve. I've never purchased a compound but I do have a lot of experience with them. I managed a very active archery shop for a few years. I've worked with thousands of archers with every different kind of archery equipment available.

The difference, as I see it, between a compound and a recurve is that a modern compound uses accessories to virtually eliminate human influence. Mechanical releases negate the effects of an archers release on the bow/string/ arrow. Drop away rest help negate effects torgue, poor tuning, shaking, etc. And, high letoff gives the mechanical advantage of holding less while providing high energy levels. This is why you can take a rank beginner and have them shooting groups at 40 most stick shooters can't achieve.

A recurve, even setup with all the bells and whistles, will always require much greater skill and discipline to achieve proficiency. The archer must pull the bow back with his fingers, hold the bow using the strength of his muscles, and execute the shot correctly while balancing all the variables that make an arrow go to the mark. Even a bow setup with "gadgets" cannot make up for a lack of skill or discipline.

The fundamental difference is the level of involvement required by the shooter. The compound is a machine geared for all out accuracy that only needs a shooter to aim and pull the trigger. That can't be said for even the most decked out recurve. It will always require more of the archer.

Thats why when a compound shooter misses its usually because a piece of equipment malfunctioned vs. a barebow shooter's miss being caused by a mistake on the shooters behalf.

[Desert Archer]

Very well said Str8, and very much to the point.

Dave

[bcoulter]

Thats why when a compound shooter misses its usually because a piece of equipment malfunctioned vs. a barebow shooter's miss being caused by a mistake on the shooters behalf.

Very good post, just one observation about the above.

I shot compounds for many years and can't ever remember a piece of equipment malfunctioning. That's probably because I tried to keep it as simple as possible, no fall away rests, simple sights etc.

I do however remember missing many times, all because of mistakes on my part. You can certainly torque a compound bow, just look at how small the grips have gotten to fight that. You can rush the shot, mis-judge yardage, have poor form..........and miss.

There is no question that a compound is easier to shoot accurately but they still miss, they don't shoot themselves.

It all comes down to personal preference.

Personally I prefer stick bows.

[Martin Farrent]

Some archers set up and shoot the same as a compound /just short of wheels I don't see a big difference and no matter how good they shoot stickbows they could and would shoot better scores with compounds.

Yes, some barebow archers do take their shooting as seriously as the compound guys or the Oly-style shooters, so you could be excused for seeing little difference on the dedication level. Personally, I think it's a very good and healthy thing, and I'm puzzled it's not more widespread. It's like racing cyclists being just as earnest as motor-bike racers. Kinda natural in sport, isn't it? You pick your equipment and try to excel with it. Or else you remain on a more recreational plane... also a good, healthy thing. Your choice, and no penalties to fear either way. :)

Best,

Martin

[Papabull]

Martin, nice to see you again. The adage that seems to apply is "If something is worth doing at all, it's worth doing well". This is the essence of sports, in my opinion.

[Martin Farrent]

The adage that seems to apply is "If something is worth doing at all, it's worth doing well". This is the essence of sports, in my opinion.

Robert,

I spent some of my time on skis, these past few months... and one thing I noticed, after exactly 30 years of not taking my skiing seriously: There's enjoyment to be gained from improvement from and to any level. Among other things, you increase your experience of freedom by being able to choose your goals more arbitrarily (slopes, target distances etc.) and to achieve them more frequently.

The flipside is subjecting yourself to the inevitable: someone will always be better, often with seemingly less effort.

And the synthesis requires some maturity, which I lacked in my younger days. Knowing that you won't be the best and often won't even be better than average, however hard you try, is a formidable and irking hurdle. But you overcome it for your own sake and not as a gracious gesture to others. The competitive/comparative element of sport sometimes masks its own reward, which is the knowledge of being 'more able' than you were yesterday, regardless of other people's superior or inferior abilities. And as you become more able, you maintain and increase your enjoyment.

The notion extends to equipment: What you could do with a compound only matters if a compound attracts you. If it doesn't, there's no point in doing it - because you simply don't enjoy it. For you, the compound's promise of improvement is a mirage, because improvement's foremost value in sport is maintaining enjoyment and facilitating even more enjoyment. Only a thing that makes emotional sense to you is a thing worth improving - both skill-wise and on an equipment level (the latter up to a point you define yourself). If shooting a barebow recurve appeals to you most, the enhanced performance supplied by a plunger may excite you, even though a sight or wheels may not. No big mystery there. At least: no big mystery for people who understand enjoyment.

And there's no big magic in supposedly radical simplicity either. However hard some people try to convince us of its superiority* - most essentially lack the extremism they advertise. When people wonder why I don't like wheels on my bow, I wonder why they don't prefer stones to selfbows. Or teeth and claws. 'Tis all much of a muchness. :)

Best,

Martin

* Often-heard remarks like: "I reserve the most respect for people who take a simple stick and string and... " Badly hidden self aggrandisement, in my opinion. People who respect others for apparently resembling themselves have a bit of an ego problem, I strongly suspect. I'd rather respect anyone for doing anything well, as long as it doesn't harm other people. I may understand some activities better than others, but that's a different issue. I also hopefully understand that I can't hope to understand all preferences... and have no business putting price tags on them.

[Pinelander]

.... If your style is gap, poa or sight etc. there is a better way to improve your scores. Compound bows.
Rico, if your style is instinctive and NOT shooting a compound.... what would be a way of improving your shooting accuracy? Let me guess.... move closer to the target?

[Desert Archer]

Martin,

Nice to have you back with us and nice to be reading your thoughtful and literate posts again. (smiley face goes here)

Dave

[Martin Farrent]

Thanks for the welcome back, Dave.

It's good to be here.

Best,

Martin

[thisbucks4u]

truely instinctive

Man.........that phrase is still gettin beat like a government mule. Least a feller could do, if he wanted to sound like he knew what was going on, would be to actually spell it correctly.

Anyone who says "if you want real accuracy, you should use a compound" spits in the face of all that "traditional" totes to be. What happened to doing it the hard way? Are we to adopt a "If its too hard, see option #2" clause in the bylaws??

[Martin Farrent]

Anyone who says "if you want real accuracy, you should use a compound" spits in the face...

Don't fret about it, Mike.

There's a curious school of thought that identifies 'excessive worship of accuracy' (in a shooting sport!) as a character flaw. Its adherents think compound shooters pretty misguided, but grant that they at least admit to their sins. By contrast, people with elevated rests and aiming systems for recurves are assumed to be in denial, or something...

What philosophers of the above persuasion fail to define is the measure of inaccuracy required to remain a decent and healthy trad archer. But watch some of them shoot, and you might get a rough idea. ;)

Best,

Martin

[Odie]

Why not just shoot a compound? Because.
Shooting barebow recurve is what I like doing, period. What's more to add?

As for the accuracy - imho that's because there is a group of people (some people, definitely not all...) who perceive shooting the recurve as a pleasant pastime - they just do not want / have time to put in the practice required to get any good...

Then they try to rationalize their lack of accuracy saying: Well, ya know, if I shot a compound / fita bow / metal riser / (insert whatever you want).. I would get really good and accurate. But since I am shooting a traditional bow I can not be expected to hit the broad side of a barn...
They just do not want to admit that it's them who does the shooting and not the equipment.

Nothing wrong with that approach, if they are at least honest and admit that they could not care less and they can shoot only once a week or so.

But most of them blame better shooters (except oly archers who are by definition EXPECTED to get good results) and somehow think that elevated rests / plungers / stabs / compounds is some kind of cheating (granted, good equipment does help some, but not as much as one might think). They fail to see the amount of time spent on the range, on form work, on perfecting your aiming system, on tuning the bow ...
If I am not concerned about shooting accurately, why go to the range at all? I might just as well sit at home and draw the bow without the arrow, or do flight shooting.

For me the joy is not in seeing the arrow in flight, but seeing the arrow fly TO THE TARGET (the closer to the center, the better). The more accurate I am (at my level), the better I feel and it motivates me to practice more not less.

[Martin Farrent]

Actually, Odie, perhaps some people should simply admit that they're not really engaged in the sport of archery. They just play around with bows and probably have lots of fun doing so. And before anyone faults me for narrowness, I'm going to add that there's absolutely nothing wrong with their attitude. I take a very similar one myself in other cases. For example, I'll whack a shuttlecock with my son on the lawn, without a net and without systematic scoring. Is that badminton? Most probably not. And am I a "badminton player"? No way.

Unlike badminton, archery belongs to the category of potentially non-competitive and fuzzily defined activities. If truth be known, just about anything with a bow and arrow goes. So any differentiation should take everyone's right to call themselves "an archer" into account. Bearing that in mind, I suggest we really do distinguish between archery per se and the sport of archery. That way, those that don't care about accuracy (an obvious competitive and sporting criteria, among other things) can still call themselves "archers" until the cows come home and be perfectly justified in doing so. But since they aren't really interested in archery as a shooting sport, perhaps they should refrain from making judgements about people who are, or about those people's choice of equipment... or, in fact, about numerous other aspects of archery as a sport. Some of them are probably as cut off from true appreciation of accuracy as I am from the desirability of scoring goals in soccer. That doesn't make them mental cripples, but merely means that their focus lies elsewhere. So, just as I don't presume to tell Manchester United how to change their strike tactics (or transfer their efforts to basketball) , wise casual archers won't issue silly advice about who ought to be shooting compounds. Even if such advice is actually only meant as an insult, it does nothing but betray its authors' out-of-touchness. Why do they betwit themselves so blatantly - and all for the sake of posturing in the wrong arena?

Luckily there are others, who care about accuracy even though they don't compete - accuracy being a very useful measure of improvement or adequacy (the latter in hunting, especially). They're engaged in a subtler form of comparison than formal competition and accept the standards of the sport , despite harbouring no ambition to measure themselves against others. And there are those with a less marked passion for accuracy, who nevertheless acknowledge that hitting what you aim at is somewhat quintessential to most people's concept of shooting. At the very least, they wouldn't contemplate the glorification of missing.

All in all, I'd say those that understand accuracy to be an integral part of archery are in a clear majority and perhaps need to make some allowances for the minority that doesn't - hard as that may sometimes be. You're probably aware that it's not even uncommon for the die-hard prophets of approximation to stoop to 'spirituality' as proof of their superiority. Arguing that the soul is where the bulls-eye ain't seems to convince a pretty fair number of people, even though the logic escapes me entirely and sometimes even irritates me a tad. If the universe were that absurd, shouldn't the Pope be determined in a pole-vaulting competition? Aaaah... who cares? If missing buys eternal life or a better kharma, while also freeing up boozing time, who am I to question the causality of it all? So the really important thing could be getting a bow that's most likely to miss, and making sure it stays that way. Tune it to your vibes, man, and not to holes in a piece of paper! Dismantle it, remove the wheels, the plunger, the rest, the sight, the string... yes, especially the string. ;)

Best,

Martin

[van_fl]

Martins back -I like it :lol:

[Desert Archer]

Martins back -I like it :lol:

Yea! I'd kind of forgotten how much fun reading his posts can be. (big smiley face goes here)

Dave

[Martin Farrent]

Hey Van and Dave,

I'm not only back, but have developed some highly promising ideas while in the mountains. They should make our sport a lot more attractive.

How about some new styles of archery biathlon? Long-distance accuracy freaks like yourselves might enjoy a shot at ski jumpers (from below), while novice field archers and juniors could at least take them out from behind. 3D-oriented gappers may prefer cross-country skiers as targets and from distances of 25+ yards, whereas the pointers can shoot at much closer range and at cross-country skiers who have fallen over (preferably in the exact same place twice). Instincters shoot at the mountain, of course.

I'd like to exempt real (downhill) skiers from target duty, because I'm liable to be one of them. Problem is getting that message across to the compound shooters, who - as we all know - lack any sense of ethics and fair play, shoot at anything and have not developed the noble art of missing. I think the solution may be to restrict compound archers to Switzerland, because everyone knows that all compound shooters are much too fat and unfit to climb the steep mountains they have there.

Esquire is currently drafting the rule books and we hope to have the new discipline established by the next Winter Olympics. Unfortunately, one Dr. A. seems to have friends in the IOC and is insisting on penetration points as part of the scoring scheme. In itself, this wouldn't be entirely unacceptable - except that he wants penetration points to be awarded even if the arrow misses.

(That bit's slightly tricky, as are demands by the usual culprits that scores be exclusively based on Total Dedication to Total Non-Concentration on Total Focus ("ZEN" for short, though no one seems able to explain the acronym's applicability - linguistically or otherwise). These people maintain that hits and misses are equally indicative of a sound attitude or unsound one, as the case may be. So scores would be determined by the athletes' perception of their own state of mind during the phase of oblivion other people call "shooting". It has been argued that a perfect ZEN athlete should have no recollection of his state of mind when his mind is in such a state. But apparently, these objections are appallingly naive and horrendously untrendy in today's era of Subconscious Doctorate Theses and Shooting in the Dark. I'm sorry to say that neither Esquire nor I feel equal to the task of hammering out a compromise with these guys. We can't really see why they insist on using arrows and how to prevent cheating when assessing one's own purity of non-thought. Of course, we're sure they wouldn't cheat sub-consciously. But what about their conscious minds? Don't we all know how feeble and corrupted that particular part of the brain is?)

Best, ;)

Martin

[Esquire]

Martins back -I like it :lol:

I like it too! Welcome back, Martin!!! I can't wait to hear more about this new discl...

Uh, wait a minute. My secretary tells me we're drafting some documents for you...

Oh yes, now I remember - they read a bit crazily but they work...

I have the first test page ready.

It should be very easy to read, we printed it in plain block letters...


http://yeinjee.com/discovery/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/optical-illusion-02.gif

[Martin Farrent]

That's common sense in a nutshell, Mike! Perfect!

There's not anyone here or even on the LW who could argue with that.


Best, ;)

Martin

[Papabull]

I think it's probably true, too. Thank goodness I don't have to find out!

[SteveGabriel]

I had to close my left eye to read it, just like when I shoot.
I guess it's just a matter of getting the point of the shaft
into the target... :rolleyes:

[Odie]

Sooo, bad eyes = bad archery.
Guess now I know how to improve my shooting...

Practicing archery gets bettter and better :)

[gr8whitehuntr]

to put it into perspective, if i turned up to a shoot with a compound that was a few years old with a basic arrow rest, no release aid and shooting barebow some fascist compound shooter will likely remark "why don't you just shoot a recurve". how would the fascist extreme traditionalists that say "why don't you just get a compound" like to be told "why don't you just shoot a longbow" or better yet "why don't you just throw rocks".

the sad fact is that there are fascists in every sport. and on both sides of our sport, trad or compound. it's really annoying how the stupidity and narrow mindedness of a few can damage the reputation of us who choose our particular archery method. their attitude and belief system is that "these are the (my own) rules, if you bend them then you doing it the wrong way, you are un-traditional, go away and buy a compound". it's a bit like staunch religious people telling me i'm going to burn in hell because i'm a heathen just because i don't attend church on sundays.

whatever accessories they may or may not have, compounds and recurves are entirely different bows. a recurve with a metal riser, flipper rest, sight, clicker, plunger, kisser button, stabilizer, peepsight and even a release aid is nothing like a compound. sure it may have some advantage over shooting barebow but it will never have let off. the longbow design has been around for probably 20,000 years. the basic recurve design dates back to the mongols who used it because it was shorter and the limbs curved outward meaning it could be shot from horseback. it could also be made from different types of wood to the longbows at a time when the quality wood required to make longbows was scarce in that area. the compound has been around since about 1970. after man walked on the moon, after the television, after the creation of supersonic jets and high tech light weight combat weapons such as the M16 and only a few years before basic computers and digital watches. the development of the compound bow has got to be the biggest technological advancement in the history of archery, since the crossbow. it completely changed the way a bow was drawn and gave the archer a huge mechanical advantage over traditional or modernised traditional equipment.

i have been told that trad shooters are a bunch of wankers by a fascist compound hunter. i responded with many rifle hunting nazis probably think you're a wanker. just because i do things differently to the majority of archers doesn't make me a wanker. i totally respect a compound shooters choice because it's great if their bow can work for them and suit their needs.

i have my reasons for choosing recurve. first is the fact that i use my bow primarily for hunting. 3d rounds where you only get one shot at each target are what i do for practise. i have no interest at flinging 200 arrows at a target 50 metres away all day so the let off thing isn't a big deal for me. my shoulder aint going to let go from shooting 30 arrows at a 3d round or from a few (if any) arrows on a hunt, as long as i'm always holding the draw weight properly. for 3d i choose to shoot carbons and for hunting i use high quality aluminium both fletched with feathers for less fletching contact and drag. the extra weight of the alloys gives better penetration at the cost of a little arrow speed. i also use an arrow rest, if people are going to mock me for being "untraditional" it doesn't really bother me. a hell of a lot of these so called tradtionalists use game cameras, atv's, rangefinders, gps's, 4x4's, scent killer, windicators etc. i never once saw william wallace using any of these devices in the movie braveheart. fred bear invented his own famous arrow rest for recurves about 50 years ago. are these so called "true traditionalists" going to call fred bear untraditional?

the term barebow is also so often misquoted by the traditionalist nazis. barebow means no sight or release aid. different competitions have different rules but that is what barebow means. it doesn't mean that you can't use a stabilizer or arrow rest or plunger. unfortunately as a society we have become results driven and impatient. it's easy to see why beginners would chose a compound with sights etc over barebow recurve. if people aren't getting the results they want within a few weeks of starting they become disheartened and will throw the bow back into the cupboard. that's why all of the club bows at my club have sights. when i started shooting a recurve my average 3d score was about 30. a few years on and i now average in the 50's - 60's which is about average for the traditional archers in my club. the really gifted ones are scoring 80+ which is giving the compound shooters a real run for their money.

i find that the recurve is lighter weight and much faster to aim and shoot compared to a compound with sights and a release aid. it's also generally shorter than the longbow and can also be canted which is important if i am taking a shot from an awkward position. sure accuracy is important when hunting but the kill zone on most medium to large game animals is generally much larger (considering the size of all their vital organs put together) than the bullseye of a target that would be at my hunting distance. and if i'm not confident that i can execute an accurate shot while hunting, i can always stalk in for a closer one. something which can't be done on the range.

i also like the fact that is more archer input to shooting traditional style. when i learnt to drive, i used a car with a manual gearbox. even though the automatic is easier, if i can drive a manual then an automatic is going to be easier again. hypothetically, if my car which is automatic broke down and someone offered to lend me a manual one i would still be able to drive it. a similar thing happened to a compound shooter i know. his pse compound limb broke and he got a lend of a samick recurve from a friend. he was able to get a respectable score in the 3d round because he had learnt the art of shooting instinctively with traditional equipment even though his personal choice was a compound. even though his recurve score didn't match his compound's, he was still accurate enough to execute clean kills if he were hunting from those particular distances.

when i'm lugging my bow for miles up and down hills of rugged terrain while stalking goats i want it to be as light as possible. i also find a have less trouble crawling through thick bushes on my hands and knees if i have fewer parts attached to my bow ie. sights, long stabilizers, cams, quivers etc. that's also the reason why i only use a cat quiver instead of a bow mounted one (i use a hip quiver for 3d).

i also need to bring along fewer tools and spare parts to a shoot or hunt. i only take a spare string, arrow rest, bowstringer and allen key set and of course a few extra arrows, points, inserts, broadheads and glue just in case. this fact added to the fact that i can take down my recurve means i have more storage space in the car for other stuff if needed. it also means that my archery gear doesn't take up as much space at home which keeps my wife happy. lower maintenance and virtually no aging means less money spent in the long run, a good thing if you're in my financial situation. a recurve may cost the same or more than a compound but i'm not going to be upgrading it all the time just like with our pc's and our cars. most of us buy a digital watch and when the battery dies we throw it out because it wouldn't cost much more to buy a newer and better one. i believe society has become obssessed with getting all the latest gear only to be thrown into landfill when something better comes out. one might call it the society for disposible technology. did any veterans of our sport start throwing out their elvis records when cd's came on the market? i refuse to buy a plasma or lcd tv because of the price and because none of them are proven to last for many years. my tube tv is still only 8 years old but i've never had a problem with it aside from replacing batteries in the remote. on the other hand i've had many friends and collegues spend thousands of dollars on plasma's to watch them fry themselves or become outdated in 12 months. i have seen many recurves from the 50's and 60's still going strong but have not once seen anybody shooting a 70's or 80's compound. in fact i haven't seen many people, if any, with a 90's compound.

when i'm bowfishing i don't want salt water exposure destroying the expensive moving parts of a high tech compound. that's why i have a cheaper dual purpose fibreglass and aluminium recurve for fishing. it's got a heavy duty corrosion resistant roller arrow rest specifically for fishing and can take a beating lying on the damp floor of a boat in the very hot and humid conditions of the australian summer without anything failing and costing me a fortune to fix. it's getting a basic hunting sight and silencers very soon so i can use it as my back up hunting bow if needed.

that's about it. that's all the reasons i can think of why i don't shoot a compound. if a compound is your choice and that works for you than i am happy for you. if you like shooting a "modernised" recurve with the aid of sights, release etc then that's great too. if you prefer shooting off the shelf with a recurve or longbow and are happy with that then that is awesome. if i were strictly a target archer my choice would likely be a compound or at least a very modernised recurve but that simply isn't the case.

:2cents:

[Bowlim]

The reality in a lot of activities is just that we have a highly segmented consumer culture. I remember a time when people would not wear a T-shirt with a logo on it. I still mostly don't. But the world has changed and people define their image by the stuff they buy. Once a particular niche gets overcrowded it splits off into a new one, ever more segmented. Punks with nose rings, and no tatoo; punks with nose rings and tatto; etc... I'm trying to stake out the metalic tech stick bow with release and drop away rest or shoot through rest segment. Nobody is doing it and I am going to have some solid fun develping the possibilities.

[StickNString]

I shoot traditional because it's in my blood. Picked up a compound at first and shot it a few times and it just didn't make me feel as good as when I first picked up a stick and a string and flung the arrow with my fingers being the only release. I also love the beauty of a carefully crafted piece of wood. I don't see that beauty in any cold metal compound. Bottom line, it's more fun, more of a challenge, and I feel like it's more an extension of me than a handheld machine with an arrow release button and that is why "I" choose to shoot traditional.

[3blades]

I find using the traditional stuff more fun. I mean you can make it all yourself or not. I also love to just shoot arrows as much and if not more then hunting. Also for me it is not about the stuff as it is about the skill and ability.And I like to think I am in a small league of hunters that are able to take game with the most basic of equipment. I have an old bear white tail hunter and got my first deer with it last year ground hunting. This year I rescued my fathers old bear cub and brought it back to life and also purchased a modest Samik stingray. I love the feel and shot them both pretty close to as good as I did with my old compound. I got a great feeling of accomplishment to be able to do that for me. Also being in a small group of shooters is cool too as I have said before. :)
I have nothing against guys and there compounds but only to the ignorant ones who look down their noses at me. Archery is a great sport and no one type is better then the other. :cheers:

[downsouth]

Gotta like Seinfeld! I have a fast and accurate compound,(High Country Iron Mace, 64lbs@28.5", with a Spot Hogg Sight with one pin, and a QAD drop away rest), and a damb fine longbow,(Cari-Bow Peregrine, 50lbs@28"). I shoot the same arrows and broad head's with them both,(Easton camo FMJ's), though for the longbow I use 500's at 595 grains total, and for the compound I use 400's at 440 grains total, both with 125 grain G5 Montec's up front. When I'm sitting up in a tree stand making 30 yard shots, I take the compound. If I'm on a walkabout and want to use a natural ground blind to get deer to come within 15 yards from me, which is my limit for consistent accuracy with a longbow right now, the longbow is the weapon of choice :) They're both fun to shoot and I find the confidence I get from being able to easily pick off bulls eye after bulls eye with my compound translates psychologically over to my longbow shooting. The bottom line in my humble opinion :) is: be discerning and shoot what YOU like while being tolerant and friendly towards others who think differently! Discernment is deciding whats right for you! Judgment is deciding whats right for others! The world could use a healthy dose of discernment right now :)

[thehairlessone!]

I can just speak for myself. I have shot compound for about 12 yrs. non stop.A few years ago I toyed around with a recurve and really liked it. The last year or two I was really getting burned out so I decided this year I was really going to give the traditional path a try.

Shoot whatever makes you happy.

rick

[bobdawson]

i use longbows and find them pretty more comfortable than compound. you can't bet on individuals comfort level and preferences.

[DanaC]

My old compounds, with 50% let-off, allowed me to shoot 60 pounds, but hold 30 at anchor. Doubt I could have managed 50-55 like I do with recurves. But that doesn't just happen. It takes time and effort.

A LOT of compound shooters I know easily draw THROUGH 70 pounds, but they hold 10-15. Hand them a 50 pound recurve and ask them to draw and hold it at anchor. Then settle down and release smoothly. A lot of them don't have the muscle strength/stability you get from shooting recurves for years. (And a lot of trad newbies don't have it either.)

[martin-hunter]

I like the total picture. The simplicity, the instinct, the look of trad bows, the light weight, and the challenges specific to trad bows.

[backquiver]

For target shooting - I think it depends on your goal. To be competitive when equipment makes a difference, you need to shoot a rig similar to that used by those you shoot against. To shoot at a high level takes a lot of time, no matter the rig.

For hunting - I think you need to shoot what allows you to be responsible for your own style of hunting and the amount of practice you have time for in life.

Bit if you are shooting for yourself - I think you need to shoot what ever feeds your soul.

If that means shooting a compound, fancy high tech recurve, simple recurve, longbow, selfbow… Then that is what you shoot.

[pondscum2]

why not just drop archery altogether & shoot nothing but a .308 bolt action with a set trigger & 4x12 scope ? they are MUCH more accurate, quicker on the second shot(or 3rd) & it takes a LOT less practice to remain proficient at AVERAGE shot/hunting ranges. plus, you can pay someone else to reload your ammo instead of making your own arrows, fletching them, knapping heads, etc infinitum so forth & so on...leaves you with more time to watch the slo-mo impact hunting videos on tv, too. scummer

[raisins]

Why not shoot a compound? It would be kinda cool to shoot a long compound (do they still make those?) with fingers and no sights. I hate to say it though, but getting reasonably accurate with a compound bow with sights, release, and other gadgets is so easy, it's trivial. Of course, you can always keep pushing yardage and tighter groups with this set-up. Still, even though I can shoot my compound as well at 40 yards as I can my recurve at 20 yards, I feel a recurve at 20 yards is more humane than a compound at 40 yards. That's because no compound shoots twice as fast as my recurve (to grossly generalize the mathematics), so the influence of yardage and animal movement is not as great. Besides, no compound is half as quiet as I can make my recurve, so the animal has more reason to move after a compound is shot at 40 yards than a stick bow at 20 (again abusing the math because I don't want to do any right now). So, the ratio of my maximum accuracy yardage of compound to recurve is greater than the ratio of humane yardage. Further, for the average archer, a compounds power makes them more apt to take marginal shots. As a teenager, I knew my 65 lbs compound could penetrate a lot (hit a hole in a 3d once and shot through front of my dad's shed with a broadhead, penetrated some drywall buckets nested in each, and then went out the back of the shed into the dirt) , so I sometimes took extreme quartering away shot. I was lucky in that I didn't lose an animal this way, but I shutter at how small the margin of error was and perhaps how lucky I was as well.

[tuffshot]

How fast is your recurve, raisins?
If under 200fps, then there are compounds shooting twice as fast as your recurve.

[raisins]

How fast is your recurve, raisins?
If under 200fps, then there are compounds shooting twice as fast as your recurve.

It's around 200 fps. 47 lbs draw, 29" draw length, carbon foam samick limbs, lightest carbon arrow I can find (CT cheetah), clean release (if I say so myself). I was more speaking within usual bounds, which my recurve is. A compound at 400 fps?? Gotta be 90 lbs draw and a 350 grain arrow!! Which would scare me to even shoot and i'm thinking would sound like a .22 short! I will say though, the most impressive achievement of current archery tech on the compound side is noise reduction. It used to be that an ibo ready bow was SO loud. Now, I'm amazed at how relatively quiet they are at the range, especially if they have off-string silencing, which I bet will become a mainstay in the 'high tech' trad scene in the future. The disadvantage is that it makes your bow look 'weird'.

[tuffshot]

It's around 200 fps. 47 lbs draw, 29" draw length, carbon foam samick limbs, lightest carbon arrow I can find (CT cheetah), clean release (if I say so myself). I was more speaking within usual bounds, which my recurve is. A compound at 400 fps?? Gotta be 90 lbs draw and a 350 grain arrow!! Which would scare me to even shoot and i'm thinking would sound like a .22 short! I will say though, the most impressive achievement of current archery tech on the compound side is noise reduction. It used to be that an ibo ready bow was SO loud. Now, I'm amazed at how relatively quiet they are at the range, especially if they have off-string silencing, which I bet will become a mainstay in the 'high tech' trad scene in the future. The disadvantage is that it makes your bow look 'weird'.

Right now 400 fps is being accomplished with 80#'s soon to be down to 70#'s
405 fps with an xbow is already out on the market.

[backquiver]

There are several manufacturers with production compounds that are over 360 fps off the shelf, in standard draw weights - which is getting really close to being twice your bow...

[NDT]

Why not shoot both?

In addition to my recurves I shoot compound sights/release and compound barebow/fingers. I also shoot & hunt rifles, handgun, modern muzzleloader,
and shotgun. I build arrows and develop my own handloads. I use fixed blade broadheads and replaceables.

I love shooting & hunting in all it's forms. Each type of weapon has it's own pros & cons.

Life is too short to limit myself to any one weapon and/or any one type of game. I enjoy them all...

[DanaC]

""Why not shoot both? ""

This is just me, but I find that I can only hold and maintain so many skills. I know 'how' to do a lot of things, but without periodic practice and use, my skills deteriorate. I know 'how' to tie flies, but if I sat at the tying bench I'd turn out a lot of crap before one good size 18 parachute. I know 'how' to shoot 8-ball, but danged if I'd play for beers!

Rust never sleeps, and I don't have time to clean and oil all those skills. I like shooting/plinking with guns, but I'd need to flush the cobwebs before pulling the trigger on my 22.

Time is no longer my friend...

[gurn]

Arcoy
If ya think ya want ta shoot ah compound then go for it and dont look back.
If ya think your too high tec.... ya might just be for your chosin. I can understand. When I retire I want at build my own selfbow arras and stone points. Again thats just me.

If your just trollin yer ah master at it. :youdaman:

Just look at the nest ya done stired up.

Look at this pic ah my boy in the Adrondack Mountians then look at any modern arra flinger recurve longbow compound or X Bow. Everything ya see different than what hes shootin in the pic is some kinda modern tec stuff ta gain speed vs draw weight, shootability, or consistancy. Even with equal dedication and pratice with er with out. All this moderen stuff does help in that way er we wouldnt be botherin with it. We all are victims ah bein human and we draw our own personal little lines where somethin starts and where it ends usin our own little mind and reason ta justify our choice. I'm one ah the worst at it. Recon thats what makes these little talks interestin.


http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg28/stoutgurnie/092.jpg

[DeadeyeJ]

I have killed deer with a rifle, pistol, shotgun, blackpowder, compound bow. Now I pursue the long bow. I say do it all. The more I hunt the more I want try it different. Eventually I'll get it down to doing like the Indians. Home made bow and arrow. 5 yard shots. I don't categorize myself as wheel bow shooter or a recurve shooter. I am only a hunter trying to put meat on my plate.

[Ray Brown]

Hi Everyone-

I really enjoy this forum and after 40 more years have passed here I am back into archery and yes I went out and bought a low level compound bow. That is to say it cost less than three hundred dollars along with the cheap goodies. Boy am I impressed even a 71 year old critter can shoot one of these things scoring 72-77 out of 100 at 20 yards even with some wind. I am sure I could become fairly proficient with this apparatus, but then why would I spend a big gob of money on a takedown recurve similar to the Bear Grizzly I shot in the mid 70's (minus the 50lb pull but now starting with 35lb limbs)?
Darn good question and here is my simply answer, I shot a rather small forked horn Black Tail deer in Northern California during the mid 70’s as he was running slow in the sage brush. The first shot went through his neck, (bad Shot) the second I buried in his shoulder 10”and he ran for about one mile before he died and we found that he had somehow pulled the arrow out about 25 yards from where we found him.
From that limited experience I did realize that I certainly needed to shoot better and also that good tracking found this deer not me. If I had been alone I would still be looking.
The big difference for me is trying to load an arrow with all the gadgets in a compound bow. While I got off two shots at a slow running deer with the simple recurve and while they were both not great hits, they were hits. Perhaps the more experienced compound bow hunters are fast, but I doubt I could ever get off more than one shot.
I will let everyone know how I fare with the new recurve and yes I will not give up shooting the compound, but both bows seem to have their strong points and weaknesses, for walking and hunting I am sure that the recurve will better serve my purposes for now.

[DanaC]

Gurn, equipment issues aside, the lad shows *perfect* alignment there. Must'a had a decent teacher.

I know a lot of compound shooters, and yes, it's a very accurate weapon, but you'd be surprised at how few shooters can shoot one to it's full potential. Like a good rifle. Might be capable of 1 inch groups off a bench, but how many shooters could pick it up and shoot close to that in a real-world scenario?

We recently concluded our winter indoor archery league. Out of all the archers shooting the Monday 'spot' league only 3 managed to shoot a perfect 300 round. Just one did it repeatedly.* With compounds at twenty yards. It ain't just the equipment, whichever discipline you choose.

*And I kinda hope he never takes up recurves, I'd never have a chance. The guy's a machine. ;-)/2

[dmm]

I put my compound bow down 25 years ago, and recently decided to pick it up again. I figured after such a long time, I should replace the string and cable, bit being such an old bow, that was not an off the shelf process, and I didn't have the skills an experience to maintain/repair the compound myself.

So I bought a longbow, attracted to the simplicity.
Then I started on ILF risers, arrow rests etc. I think to an extent in an attempt to 'buy' better shots, and I'd say it has.

Where I intend to stop is a bow that I can maintain myself, and unless the ILF limbs are no longer available, I cant see any reason why my current bow couldn't be fully functional 25 years from now.

One last point, I shoot the recurve barebow, whereas the compound had sights. While the sight made me more accurate at a known range, I much prefer the understanding of arrow trajectory the recurve has taught me. On the compound, if my sights slipped, I'd happily fire an arrow right over the target. With my recurve, I'd rarely miss by such a large margin, because it just wouldn't look right as a sight picture.

[gurn]

Gurn, equipment issues aside, the lad shows *perfect* alignment there. Must'a had a decent teacher.

I dont know bout decent teacher since all he had was me. But he is ah real good kid / man. He shoots Xbow compound and longbow. I think he likes the longbow best cause he shoots it most. He was hikin and campin in the Adirondack mountains. Got the urge ta shoot so he hooked himself up. Said it shot pretty good. :)

[George D. Stout]

Every thing the author of this thread mentioned was in use before compound bows were here. It's like the boneheads who say shooting a metal riser is the same as shooting a compound, yet metal riser takedowns were available in the 1940's (Par-X), and they were in vogue in the late 60's. Some folks should just Google-up some archery history and shed that burden of ignorance. By the way, I don't see any wheels and letoff on even the most modern looking recurve or longbow. A far cry from a compound device.

[ptschantz]

very interesting thread, I enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts!

Thanks guys

Pete

[TradArcher]

I don't shoot a compound bow mostly because I actually did learn how to shoot well a recurve at a young age. There is a guy who shoots a barebow compound who's name is I believe Pete Wells. He made a great video called "Lethal Flight", best barebow shooting/bowhunting I've ever seen! No widgets, gizmos or whatever on his compound... just the let off. When I get too old to pull my curve, I'm gonna do just as ol Wells is doing.

Tom

[DanaC]

One of my original mentors used a recurve for many years. When his shoulders couldn't take the strain, he bought a compound. Still shot by string-walking, no sights or release; managed to take his 50th deer with that bow.

I figure that when I can't draw a legal-weight hunting recurve, I'll 'retire' to gun hunting and only target shooting with the bow. But the shoulders feel okay at 57 years young, so...

[JoeFish]

As a recent, born again archer, I won't delve into the pro's and cons of one bow or another as you are all so much more knowledgeable than I. However, I went through something similar with mountain bikes, buying lighter bikes with better suspension forks and went faster. So an even lighter, more boingy bike has to be more fun? Eventually I realised one day, riding a state-of-the-art dual suspension bike that I may as well have been riding a road. Instead of just aiding me, the technology had somehow got in the way of my enjoyment and that one terrifically exciting and individual trail felt just as boring and mundane as any other.
How much is what we use in our everyday life driven not by what we need but by what we are told we need by the advertising industry.

I now ride rigid bikes and love my riding again. What creates the enjoyment in what you do, what will you be shooting in 5 or 10 years time?

[aroadik]

Welcome JoeFish, I think you are right in what you say, for me, older and ailing, i use technology to assist my love of the single string but I will not hesitate to go compound to keep on shooting !

[DanaC]

I don't believe that the compound is more accurate than a recurve. I do believe that a recurve with sights, quality rest and a good release aid would surprise many shooters of either type.

Put it this way - take a top compound shooter and hand him a compound set up without sights, set up for tab or glove, and let's see how well he shoots. I suspect he'd do well, if only because he actually does have form and discipline, but I wouldn't expect him to perform miracles.

The 'compound' as used today is a complex system, which to our eyes seems over-engineered. But it gains pure accuracy at the cost of simplicity and reliability. Too many sub-systems that can fail.

And of course much depends on your goals. You wouldn't take a full-blown Olympic rig into the deer woods (or at least I wouldn't!) But the prejudice against target archery makes no sense to me.

I view target shooting the way car enthusiasts view racing - sooner or later some of that will trickle down. What can I learn, and what can I apply? And what should I forego? I left sights and cams behind years ago. Not sure I want to dabble with a release aid, never used one back in my compound days. Whisker biscuits? Not likely! Elevated rests, yes, simple and durable (and fairly cheap!) Clickers? I shoot with guys who swear by 'em. And sometimes at 'em.