Why not just shoot a compound!?

[van_fl]

Martins back -I like it

[Desert Archer]

Originally Posted by van_fl

Martins back -I like it

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]

Originally Posted by van_fl

Martins back -I like it

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...

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.