I've given this 'instinctive'/arm-pointing business some more thought.
Hank says this: Point your arm at the target and as you move out, the angle will change to automatically accommodate for arrow drop. (For some reason, the changes coincide at both ends.)
At one stage, he also said this: Point your arrow at the target, and as you move out… ditto.
The principle is the same, but the latter variant may be more palatable to most people who either gap or shoot point of aim via the arrow tip. It's important to note, however, that you must look at the arrow in a different way when 'pointing'. You must see, as Elkdreamer once put it, a 'laser beam' going through the entire arrow (or arm) into the bull's-eye.
It's also important to stress that, according to those who practice it, you must tune your nocking point and/or anchor for the method to work with a particular bow (elevation-wise).
Yet, still the method seems to contradict the laws of physics. "Surely", a gapper will object, "an arrow shot from a slow bow will drop more at any given distance than one from a fast bow. So how can you treat both the same way?"
Answer (I think): You do. And you don't.
You do treat slow and fast arrows the same: because arrow drop follows the same pattern regardless of speed. At any given range, the arrow will have dropped about four times as much as at half that range. (Try this with a ballistic calculator, using various viable arrow speeds and configurations.) All archers adjust to this drop by increasing the objective angle of the arrow correspondingly. The arrow is always raised relative to the target and raised more with increasing distance - though point-of-aim shooting and target-end gapping may obscure this fact for optical reasons.
You don't treat slow and fast arrows the same: because the tuning effectively sets an equipment-specific 'base' arrow angle at the tuning distance. All angles adjusted for range are governed by it. Thus, the actual angle of the arrow relative to the target (as opposed to the angle you see) is always going to be steeper with slow equipment, flatter with a faster set-up.
What the 'pointers' are essentially maintaining is that the necessary angle changes on a tuned set up coincide with the adjustments you make automatically when you look at the arrow (arm) in a certain way. In the light of the above, that is no longer too hard to believe. I lack the knowledge to substantiate or disprove it. But given the fairly universal pattern of arrow drop over distance, it is at least feasible.
Pointers also say that the method only works out to a certain distance - generally, but not always given as the spot-on range of any particular constellation (spot-on, that is, if the archer were aiming conventionally, i.e. with the arrow point). The faster the bow, the further away the limit. In theory, however, there's no reason for this to be the case.
I think it may have to do with the 'base' angle mentioned above being flatter on a faster bow. Of course, this objective arrow angle must in some way interact with the perceived one. The flatter the latter, on the other hand, the easier the 'laser beam' is to see - even at extended ranges. I think the spot-on limit is probably only approximate and depends on a person's ability to judge adjustment at longer ranges. But it's easier with a faster bow, so the spot-on barrier may be about right for the average person.
Another possiblity is this: Any irregularities (and there are some) in the 'factor 4 principle' mentioned above will be more consequential for a slower arrow - because the total drop is much bigger. This phenomenon will increase with distance.
Best,
Martin
Hank says this: Point your arm at the target and as you move out, the angle will change to automatically accommodate for arrow drop. (For some reason, the changes coincide at both ends.)
At one stage, he also said this: Point your arrow at the target, and as you move out… ditto.
The principle is the same, but the latter variant may be more palatable to most people who either gap or shoot point of aim via the arrow tip. It's important to note, however, that you must look at the arrow in a different way when 'pointing'. You must see, as Elkdreamer once put it, a 'laser beam' going through the entire arrow (or arm) into the bull's-eye.
It's also important to stress that, according to those who practice it, you must tune your nocking point and/or anchor for the method to work with a particular bow (elevation-wise).
Yet, still the method seems to contradict the laws of physics. "Surely", a gapper will object, "an arrow shot from a slow bow will drop more at any given distance than one from a fast bow. So how can you treat both the same way?"
Answer (I think): You do. And you don't.
You do treat slow and fast arrows the same: because arrow drop follows the same pattern regardless of speed. At any given range, the arrow will have dropped about four times as much as at half that range. (Try this with a ballistic calculator, using various viable arrow speeds and configurations.) All archers adjust to this drop by increasing the objective angle of the arrow correspondingly. The arrow is always raised relative to the target and raised more with increasing distance - though point-of-aim shooting and target-end gapping may obscure this fact for optical reasons.
You don't treat slow and fast arrows the same: because the tuning effectively sets an equipment-specific 'base' arrow angle at the tuning distance. All angles adjusted for range are governed by it. Thus, the actual angle of the arrow relative to the target (as opposed to the angle you see) is always going to be steeper with slow equipment, flatter with a faster set-up.
What the 'pointers' are essentially maintaining is that the necessary angle changes on a tuned set up coincide with the adjustments you make automatically when you look at the arrow (arm) in a certain way. In the light of the above, that is no longer too hard to believe. I lack the knowledge to substantiate or disprove it. But given the fairly universal pattern of arrow drop over distance, it is at least feasible.
Pointers also say that the method only works out to a certain distance - generally, but not always given as the spot-on range of any particular constellation (spot-on, that is, if the archer were aiming conventionally, i.e. with the arrow point). The faster the bow, the further away the limit. In theory, however, there's no reason for this to be the case.
I think it may have to do with the 'base' angle mentioned above being flatter on a faster bow. Of course, this objective arrow angle must in some way interact with the perceived one. The flatter the latter, on the other hand, the easier the 'laser beam' is to see - even at extended ranges. I think the spot-on limit is probably only approximate and depends on a person's ability to judge adjustment at longer ranges. But it's easier with a faster bow, so the spot-on barrier may be about right for the average person.
Another possiblity is this: Any irregularities (and there are some) in the 'factor 4 principle' mentioned above will be more consequential for a slower arrow - because the total drop is much bigger. This phenomenon will increase with distance.
Best,
Martin