A response to the criticism of using sights on bows, and a discussion on barebow aiming techniques. === Follow me on Facebook: / nusensei Twitter: / nu_sensei
*READ BEFORE COMMENTING* *tl;dr:* Sights are just a reference point. If you remove sights, we’ll use something else to aim with. All archers, to some extent, “sight” the target. Using a precision tool for a precision sport is not cheating. Of course, if you prefer to shoot instinctively because it feels more traditional and natural, you are right to do so. But choosing to go to work on a bicycle doesn’t mean going to work by car is cheating. *Addendum:* People have the impression that Olympic archery (which uses sights and other accessories) is the only form of modern archery. This is incorrect. The open recurve classification is the most competitive class, but there are other divisions which don’t use sights. In fact, if you look at all the archery organisations and rules (including WA, IFAA, etc.), there are numerous classifications that cover every part of the spectrum of “aiming”. The rules directly or indirectly allow specific aiming methods (e.g. a rule set might require the split-finger draw, which prevents stringwalking). This “schism” appeared in the 20th century as archers developed more unconventional aiming methods to be more accurate, which traditional archers considered to be “cheating”. This is the same argument that we’re having now - except that today’s archers are no longer competing in the same format and division, so using sights no longer creates an uneven playing field. Those who want to shoot more natural methods can do so without being bullied by modern aiming methods. *Main Talking Points:* Sights are just an extension of aiming methods that archers already use, and are a natural development of modern archery. Sights are not automated high-tech devices. They are actually low-tech manually configured tools, not unlike an iron sight on a rifle, as compared to a modern scope. The skill in using a sight lies in the hours of practice to prefect shooting form, and spending hours to become familiar with your equipment to understand your shot enough to make correct sight recordings and adjustments, like a modern marksman dialing in their scope. Saying that a sight removes skill is like saying that a sniper using a scoped rifle has no skill. Other aiming methods, such as stringwalking, facewalking and gap shooting, are effectively the same as using the sight, requiring the same process to determine reference points, but recording them differently. Instinctive shooting is based on memorising the visual sight picture rather than cross-checking with a static point. *Frequently asked questions / comments:* *“If sights are the same as shooting without, why use them?”* Sights are the most precise reference point. There is still variation depending on your sight picture and shot execution (same as a gun). Other sighting methods are more vague and prone to greater errors. *“Sights makes shooting easier.”* Shot placement is a combination of aim and execution. Knowing where to aim is relatively simple: either you know where to aim or you don’t. Once you figure it out, it comes down to your shot execution, which is far more difficult to master. This is where a skilled archer shines: their technique is honed and consistent, allowing them to adapt and adjust their aim without concern over their shot execution, whereas a novice archer cannot tell whether it was their aim or their form. *“Historical archers didn’t use sights and shot instinctively.”* Not totally true. Some archery styles were primarily instinctive, but many documented styles go into detail about aiming methods, including Ming Archery, Arab Archery and English Archery. Historical archers had ways to aim. It would be ridiculous to think that feats of accuracy were accomplished without any method of sighting the target. Good archers don’t rely on flukes. *“I shoot well without sights.”* Back this up with evidence. The most objective evidence is a scorecard from an official round. Barring that, recording yourself shooting at a set distance and target size is also proof. For the record, the national records between sighted shooters and modern barebow shooters are hundreds of points apart; and the gap between modern barebow and instinctive is just as wide. No one has achieved an Olympic qualifying score with barebow, let alone instinctive. This isn’t to say that barebow and instinctive shooting suck. They’re reasonable accurate at closer distances, and good enough for what most instinctive shooters want. But you need to compete or compare using the same metrics to validate any claim of proficiency. *“Instinctive shooting is more impressive.”* I won’t disagree - it’s beautiful to watch someone shoot naturally and confidently. As someone who shoots both sighted and unsighted traditional, I can appreciate when a traditional instinctive shooter exhibits displays of proficiency. However, in comparing modern sighted archery, one wonders why we are captivated by people who choose to use a less accurate method to achieve less accurate or less repeatable results. *“You’re jealous.”* Wouldn’t it make more sense that the shooters who achieve less accurate results are jealous of shooters who attain better results? If we’re competing at 70m, why would I be jealous of someone who uses a technique that misses the target half the time? If anything, calling modern archers “cheaters” is a typical cry from people who can’t achieve that level with or without the equipment - and that argument has been going on for a hundred years. As long as the playing field is level and archers are competing against each other with the same rules, there is no cheating, and nothing to be jealous of.
I'm happy, as a longbow non-sight gap shooter, to agree with you. I have taught a good many people to shoot, and usually their first question is 'how do you aim', and then gradually they realise that a bow is not like a gun - aiming is not the main skill. You can aim as accurately as you like, but if the shot is not made consistently, with steady bow arm, smooth loose, consistent draw putting the same energy into the arrow each time, you still won't hit much. In fact I suspect that Olympic style shooting expects greater accuracy to such an extent that it encourages the maximum development of those more important and basic skills, rather than demanding less skill.
Very well said. I'd also wonder if, from a non-archer's perspective, it makes practicing cross-discipline a worthwhile skill. Non-sight shooters might gain a lot from highlighting their form flaws with sights, and sight shooters might be able to relax and focus less on placing the sigh on the target and more on whatever needs working on?
It's not really fundamentally different for a firearm _"- aiming is not the main skill."_ _(functionally different yes)_ Rifles weigh quite a lot, many competitions don't permit rests. But mainly - *_like every competition_* - the situation is intentionally set up to be very challenging for the very best and talented, of the most dedicated people on the planet. Perhaps a time limit, or tighter grouping, or greater distance. For example, I've been in rifle matches that were close _(only 100 yards)_ where the inner color _(similar to this video target's gold area)_ included rings 8, 9, 10 & x _(huge scoring difference!)_ this entire color area *_was less than 1/2 the width of my front sight post._*
@@Dr.JustIsWrong I'm sure you're right, I shouldn't really have compared with guns when I have little experience or knowledge of them. I suppose I mean it's not like what people who haven't shot guns but just seen them on films or TV think guns are like, all about aiming.
This talk brings back so many memories, I compare a bow sight to a shotgun bead sight. You have to keep things aligned properly to shoot accurately. Or at least hit hit a proper target. The bead is just a reference to aim with and there is no rear sight so form matters. When I took up archery I got the sense, aiming a bow reminded me of shotgun bead aiming. My analogy might be off a little but I think this is a great video, awesome work!
If someone tried to tell me "real" shooters dont have a bead sight on their shotgun... You know who else have arbitrary rules? Beauty contests for dogs and cats. You don't want to know what I think about that.
I was unsure about putting a sight on my and my daughters recurve, I Am now going to put one on both after watching this video! Keep up the good work and your videos are much appreciated!
How much of this video is because of archers that can't actually shoot well, can't accept that others shoot well through practiced skill, and are hating on anyone showing skill with or without sights
Great video! I'm so tired of all the negativity on the web forums about instinctive vs sighting methods vs sighted versions of archery trying to validate one form of archery over another. It's one thing to discuss the different forms of archery and appreciate the nuances of the different forms that exist but there is way too many that choose to put down one form of archery because it differs from their own. I truly appreciate your approach and your thoughtful explanation in your video. Keep up the good work!
I get asked regularly if thumb draw is better? I laugh and answer no! just a different way to throw sticks. It makes me smile. No form of archery is "better" than another. The reality is what makes you smile the most. Cheers
Very nicely explained.... Some of the best content among ur rest of uploads. Though it's long but u will admire after patiently hearing him what he is trying to explain.
My form has issues. A sight would not make the slightest difference in my shooting. If you think you can grab an Olympic setup and shoot 9s and 10s without serious work - nah.
@Chris C Barebow means a set of skills and produces a precision. If you use sights you tighten that precision and find out that small adjustments that were of not much effect with barebow precision become significant. Suddenly you need to compute and take into account new parameters or new skills. That is why stabilisers, swinging and other gimmicks are useful only after using a sight. In barebow the precision is not enough to make any use of those improvements.
To be even more cheeky, if the competition isn't being video recorded, then you can use an infrared laser for your robot arrows to chase, because our naked eyes can't see infrared light, but many cameras can. Try pointing your smartphone camera at a Wii sensor-bar, or at the front of a TV remote when you press it's buttons. ...That's the first time I ever used "cheeky" in a sentence. I don't even know if I used it right. I'm a US American.
This is very accurate ... I'm using traditional archery and support this educational to all archers both modern and traditional ... thanks ...you are the best...
I must be looking at it backwards. I got into archery so I could go deer hunting with my dad. He taught me the importance of always making a good shot so the animal doesn't suffer. He started out on a 55# Bear recurve bow. When it came available he installed a pin sight and peep. Accuracy was improved and oddly none of his friends accused him of " cheating". Good video as usual. Glad I found your channel. Thanks
From only shooting rifles/pistols; you have given me such an appreciation to archery and I’m seriously considering taking this as a hobby. Thank you! Recurve hunting bow seems to be my style 😊
I totally agree with you. I chose to do traditional but I know it’s less accurate than a modern method with sights or counter weights. I chose this method, I’m jealous at the very tight groupings that can normally occur with modern sights. I just like the feel of a more traditional bow, it’s more of a relaxing experience for me, I’m not looking for competitive archery or hunting, just range or field archery is pleasant. I get modern archers looking at me when I get a good grouping at 45-50 yards saying good job, I usually say that seeing their groupings make me want to practice more. No cheating just more shooting. Take the ego stuff someplace else not at the range, we’re all just archers.
indeed. it's only 'cheating' if someone explictly tries to make it seem like they are being traditional archers and try to sneak modern inovations. even then, unless they are puting it online, they are only cheating themselves.
Hey man thx for the vid!! I hope you read this cause I wanna say thank you so much for all the advice!! Yesterday I got my first bow and due to your advice I’m hitting red and gold already which I couldn’t do without all your advice!! So then you so much 😁
Ask yourself, if you had to go to war with a bow, would you want one with an aiming device as accurate as possible....or not? Same when going hunting, it is ethical to use what provides for an ethical kill at the distance of you will hunt from. Now if you can hunt without a sight, great but I would still use a sight of some sort for ethical purposes, not to show off my archery skills at the risk of an unethical shot. Not to mention, there is enough challenge in hunting well outside of the shot itself that using or not using a sight is really not the challenging part of the hunt.
Exactly. With firearms, you want the most accurate shot possible. People who want to devote themselves to shooting from the hip are showboating - skillful, but if they were in a real situation, they would be criticised for not using the most effective methods. Only in archery do we see the perception of "worse is better" in the general perception.
I have a friend who did that cowboy action shooting thing for a while. Fast draw hip firing a revolver at bottles and plates or whatever. They use reference points for aiming as well. Anchoring the elbow against their hip or ribs, and the placement of their muzzle beneath the target (Gap, anyone?) Even then, they shoot ammunition designed to fragment and spread, like a miniature shotgun. This looks amazing in real time, and takes quite a bit of practice, but it's still not "precision" in comparison to taking aimed shots.
Chris C ummm...No! First, there are plenty of reasons one HAS to use a bow and arrow. In hunting for example, you have certain seasons for only a bow. You also have certain jurisdictions that only allow bow and arrow hunting. In counties I am in, bow and arrow are only allowed for deer and hog. So your assumption that you would upgrade to a rifle fails and tells me you are not a hunter, at least not a well informed one. One of the biggest reasons I got into archery was having great access to public hunting lands due to using a bow and arrow. Also, where I hunt, the average shot distance, due to trees, vegetation, and terrain, is 20-40 yrds, well within a bow and arrow range. A rifle adds very little to the ability to take the animal, but can cause safety issues as the round will travel out of my sight, making for an unsafe shot. Also, one missed shot with a rifle and the hunt is over due to noise. I can miss with an arrow and have a chance to continue the hunt. BTW, a firearm is very loud. A bow and arrow, not near as much. So yet another reason to use a bow and arrow over a firearm in either situation. It would also seem you are not well informed history of rebellion. It is not like you have a wide selection of arms at the “Let’s Revolt R Us” store. “Let’s see...do I want the bow and arrow, mace, spear, or 50 cal machine gun? What to do? What to do.” In fact many uprisings, such as eastern block countries during the Cold War, had NO ARMS at all because they were a disarmed citizenry. People stood in front of tanks daring them to run over them as part of their efforts. So your argument about “getting a firearm” doesn’t pass the history test. Not to mention you don’t seem to follow his entire video on how all methods of aiming use some sort of sighting method. The only difference is the different expectation of accuracy and precision. As your sighting system increases in precision, the expectation of your grouping should get smaller as well. The standard of precision changes with the change in sight system. Your overall point would be similar to comparing a law enforcement officer carrying a side arm with front and rear sights and 4-5 in barrel which is accurate at 3-10 yrds...maybe 25 yrds but accuracy in that case means hitting a man size target at 3-10 yrds. However a sniper would carry a precision rifle, scope, maybe night sights, and is expected to hit a 3-4 inch spot on a person at hundreds of yards out. Is the sniper cheating because of his better sight system? He also goes into all the aspects of how form does more to impact your accuracy/precision than a sight does, which again is true as well. Having a sight doesn’t impact your release, draw, stance, back tension, or steadiness of your arm, all which impact your accuracy and precision long before your sight does. I suggest you re-watch the video.
Or choosing a bow for the physicality, the aesthetic, the appeal. And if think there's no challenge in a modern recurve, borrow one and go to a competition. Show us all what we've been mistaken about for fifty years. Be the first one in the world to provide the groundbreaking demonstration showing us how much the Olympians actually suck.
Chris C You can’t argue with that logic! Just in case you don’t know, this is sarcastic response. Otherwise, I would have to go into the Matrix like logic of 1) using a sight on a recurve is supposedly cheating, but... 2) using a rifled scope to shoot more accurately somehow discounts an archers skills regardless of the type of bow, but then... 3) using a compound bow, which commonly uses sights, would be a similar argument in favor of using a sight on a bow, but then... Wait, are you arguing in favor of a sight on a bow or against? Lost in the logic, which again gets to my first point...”You can’t argue with that logic!l Troll alert!
To take it one step further, iron sights have two points of reference down the line of sight. Iron sights relative to a bow, you would need to add a peep to the configuration of the bow along with a sight. The sight alone is nothing but, just like you said, a point of reference. Some may even consider it a distraction and not an aid, like i do, at least within 20 yards. It's like a bug on the windshield. Cheers NuSensei! You Rock!
Great video and a discussion that needs to happen. Very few shooters use compound bows without sights in the modern era. You can gap using parts of the bow, eg back surface of cable guard, arrow rest and bracket with arrow point to get centre. As discussed, a reference diagram is made in notes and practice keeps them in memory. The technique is comparable to string walking. No incantations, no chickens blood, no "Being one with the arrow", its your own integrated sight system. Legally you havent altered or marked your bow, you are merely shooting with a specific overall sight picture at a particular yardage.
Can you do a video about straight, off set and helical arrow fletching? I saw a video about this but your vids are always better. Greetings from Germany
hahaa it's only cheating if it's only available to some and not others? dont worry NUSensei, amongst the traditional there's also face/string walking also considered cheating. Some even consider 3-under or having any form of reflex/deflex as cheating. Due to this we now have way too many categories which makes it really confusing for anyone starting out.
As someone who practices olympic freestyle form but does not use a sight. Aiming is the least important part of the shot process. If you cannot consistently hit where you are aiming at, then aiming is useless, by whatever mechanism you use to aim.
This post is fantastic. I struggle with this topic every time i pick up a bow (every few years for a couple of months). I forget a lot. In my words and thoughts after watching this, people should stop using the term "traditional" and instead use "instinctive" and add qualifiers and realize the reality of a continuum like "primitive" instinctive or gap instinctive or bow mark instinctive, to basic pin site to adjustable ring site, all the way to who knows what. I feel that one big point missed in the very first lesson is the conversation that the shooter should not set their elevation by the arrow tip (way too high at short distances). In fact they should have a piece of 1" wide orange tape at the aprox level for 10m as a training wheel, and learn to partially ignore the tape if they want to be more instinctive, or focus on it for 1 sec if they want to advance to pin sites, but work on consistency and build muscle memory etc from their for many hours before moving on.
Thank you for covering the assertion that all historical archers shot instinctively - it's something that I've heard go unchallenged in a number of discussions about aiming methods and its always sounded to me like a claim that would not only be impossible to verify, but also seems pretty unlikely.
It's strange to point out, but yes, the general viewer typically doesn't realise that shooting without sights doesn't necessarily mean you are shooting instinctively. Most historical texts on archery provide very clear methods of aiming.
I shoot flat bow and Olympic recurve and sights are just a base reference point , or the tip of my arrow (flat bow) for a basic reference point when gap shooting. I've got notebooks for my recurve and my flatbow with weather conditions and rough temperatures noted as well as wind direction etc, in fact the books look like a wizard's big book of spells . Hours and hours of practice both in and outdoor .
The scope analogy still fits, with a bare bow, the instinctive sighting technique is analogous to iron sights, where the scope is added to the weapon to increase accuracy at distance, just like the bow sight.
I agree on all points, and you explained it well. But one thing I would not underestimate is the power of your subconscious mind. There are millions of calculations done in your subconscious, wheres you can concisely focus on only 3 or 4 simultaneously. Your body will give you the consistency needed, once you are experienced enough.
I shoot selfbows. I like a trad or barebow setup because I am a weird survivalist. If i have to shoot a makeshift bow, I want to be able to not rely on anything but my ability. That being said, sights are absolutely not cheating. Even in a survivalist situation, if you can scavenge a sight to get your food easier, then go for it.
@Chris C not true. I still have to aim. It's the exact same skill set as if I was gap shooting I'm just aiming with a sight instead of an arrow point or whatever else you happen to be using as a reference.
@Chris C the other bit you've forgotten is sighted recurve is always a far more competitive division then any barebow or long bow division so to do well there is far less allowance for mistakes.
to add, compatible equipment and how closely similar your arrows are also plays a huge role. Being a school archer I used to shoot random arrows that we have left, some are bent some are carbon some are aluminium some are different sizes and spine. For each shot the arrow goes everywhere so we have to remember what this arrow requires. Some requires us to shoot to the left a bit, some maybe above and wherever else because nothing in this world is perfect
I used to do target archery when i was young, using a club bow. the sight was a strip of double sided foam tape on the front of the bow a long glass headed pin was stuck into the foamleft right adjustment was pushing in or pulling out the pin vertical involved pulling the pin out and pushing it back in higher or lower. crude but effective if you are super broke it may be a good optionuse a seperate pin for each distance to avoid repeated adjustment, hope this helps someone
Sports exist to make us prepared for survival. Olympic style archery is pretty useless as compared to any other sport. Maybe the sports where they shoot super small caliber guns is kind of equivalent? Shooting a useful rifle would not be the same experience but the aiming would still be close... Horse archery and other traditional methods for showing archery skills would make for better sports for sure...
Yepp, an olympic style bow and using those methods will not be accurate at all in horseback shooting. He really should not have said that one method and set of equipment is far more precise than the other (so many times he said it as well) when the supposedly superior method only works in very contrived situations... in all other situations, the traditional archer would be more precise...
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 "Sports exist to make us prepared for survival. Olympic style archery is pretty useless as compared to any other sport." Prepared for survival? Are you serious? You can't be. Sports? What, like shot put, discus, hammer throw, football, baseball, ski jumping, ice hockey, curling, handball, cycling, volley ball and tens of other useless sports? How does for example ski jumping prepare one for survival? Did they catch birds in medieval times by ski jumping. Or did they have shot putters before cannons and artillery were invented? Almost all sports have no practical use or do not prepare anyone for survival. That's why they are called sports in the first place!
Hi there. I'm new to archery and wanted to thank you for your excellent quality videos. I'm a recurve archer and wanted your recommendation on a relatively mid priced sight? Thanks again
I started shooting with an sight, and switched to traditional styles without sights. Starting shooting with sights is a very good thing in my opinion. It gives you the response how good your technique is. If the arrow goes of the sight aiming point, you did a mistake in the shooting process (false release for example). Aiming is not the challenge in archery - consitency in the shooting process is important. I could perfectly aim (doesnt matter with or without sights) - if i do mistakes in the shootings - the arrow goes anywhere ;)
Being new to recurve archery, I put a simple single single pin sight on my recurve. Some may call it cheating, but here's my rationale... While I DO want to shoot more traditional style, the pin sight allows me to concentrate on developing a consistent form without making it more complex by also worrying about trying to figure out gaps. I don't think of it as a crutch but rather a valuable training aid that allows me to isolate the two skills and simplify learning them more or less separately. Once I have shot a few thousand arrows and hopefully developed good consistent form and am shooting good groups with the pin, then I will remove it and learn to shoot gap. As a long time firearm enthusiast I will say that a simple pin sight on a bow is more akin to shooting a rifle, freehand, with ONLY a front iron sight. It can be done, but it still requires good form with a consistent cheek weld, good trigger control, etc. Without a rear sight on a rifle, you MUST have a consistent cheek weld and form so that your eye itself serves AS the rear sight. While I do have a compound, it is a bit like cheating to me. The let off, the peep, mechanical release, etc., does do a LOT of work for me that allowed me to be sort of sloppy with my form and still shoot good groups. I'm wanting to step back from that and shoot something that demands more of me and my skills rather than on equipment. My thought is that a good recurve archer can shoot a compound well, but in my experience, the opposite isn't necessarily true.
One small quibble. Regarding grouping arrows at any distance. Every archer can and does shoot a grouping. It's always a group whether it's a 10 meter radius or a 5 mm radius. The goal is 5mm radius. A tight grouping is the goal. I know it's common shooting parlance which is why I understand you. Just thought I would tease a bit. Cheers
I saw Lancaster Archery had arrows that were $400+ per dozen! Bicycle seats that are $200-300 just for the saddle😱 The whole world has gone mad-mark it a zero.
There is nothing special about the sights we use. Technically, it serves as our basis. Those who say that modern archery sucks are either people who have never shot a bow or those Medieval Fanatics who have nothing else to do with their lives.
I disagree I shoot barebare recurve, Olympic recurve, horse bow and compound, and yes the more advanced a bow is and the more toys on it the less fun it is to shoot so yes modern styles of archery suck, they suck the fun out of it
About instinctive archery, there still have the process of visual confirm. Like, dose the view picture at full draw looks/feels correct? And yes, it's much more unreliable then a reference point.
Whoever said that bow sight is like a scope doesn't know what they're talking about, it's more like a recon sight. An iron sight is a built-in reference point that's a part of the weapon. The arrow is like the iron sight. A scope has zoom functionality. That bow sight's between the two, like a recon sight. An equivalent to instinctive shooting would be shooting "from the hip," but it's not reliable beyond short-range. In contrast, sighting and even sniping with firearms is almost as old as the general use of firearms. Heck, with low rates of fire, such as in bows or older firearms, sighting is and has always been pretty damn important.
The latter point is so important and sorely overlooked, especially in Lars-era of speed-shooting fandom. You have the advantage of a weapon that outranges what your opponent has, with limited ammunition and is strenuous to use. Unless that particular shot demands urgency, a war archer is going to make sure that shot is aimed as accurately as possible. It doesn't take a lifetime of training to get random peasants to flick arrows aimlessly into the air and hope they hit something. Trained archers actually wanted to hit what they aimed at. Sadly, our understanding of archery has reached the point where actually being able to hit the target precisely is considered "cheating", and we worship the fluke shot more than the repeatable one.
I think you won the argument, when you compared the sight on a Bow, to the iron-sights on a gun. It's just a reference point for aiming. Precision & consistency is important to me. Now I want a sight or scope, for my futuristic future hunting recurve Bow.
Archers out here on the left coast "will" their arrows to precisely hit their target. They don't need any aiming aid. They can also diagnose and effectively treat diseases, predict the future, and travel to other universes and dimensions sole-ly through the force of their will. Seriously. Just ask them. ;-) Also, I'm a beginning archer. For the past week or so I've been practicing with a Samick Sage and have enjoyed it immensely. However, for just starting out, the draw is a little heavy and it's hurting my shoulder now. So, I decided to get an economical but quality compound bow that I could hold at full draw more easily and that had some sights. Wow, my enjoyment of archery took a huge leap forward almost instantly. I don't care anything about this sight issue other than to say that my groups have shrunk significantly and my shoulder doesn't hurt anymore using my new compound bow. It would have been smarter for me to start with the compound and then transition to the recurve, IMHO. Maybe more economical, too, as I bought two recurves, one with a little less draw weight to help ameliorate my shoulder problem.
I may shoot "instinctively" but I think a more precise way of telling it would be " I aim subconciously! The key in all methods is simply to practice and have fun doing it.
I think you may have just agreed with me when I said- "Paradoxically, any recurve that a multi pin sight would not look out of place on is invariably more effectively shot without one." given you've conceded that a gap shooter uses their arrow tip and gap as a means with which to sight their shot anyway. Most trad shooters have a higher anchor point than an olympic recurve archer, so their shot consistency using a gap method is far more refined than those with a lower anchor. Which brings me to my theory that the need for a sight is directly proportional to the height of an archer's anchor. The higher the anchor the more accurately the arrow shaft can be used to sight the shot, and conversely the lower the anchor, the less reliable the arrow shaft as a means to sight the shot becomes. It's also worth adding that most trad bows have a smaller cutaway for centre shot. In many cases the riser obstructs the sight picture of those with lower anchor points and thus it lends itself to an instinctive or higher anchored shot technique. Which brings me back to- "Paradoxically, any recurve that a multi pin sight would not look out of place on is invariably more effectively shot without one." Also, there's nothing wrong with an 'instinctive' archer's accuracy. I shoot instinctive up to about 20 yrds, then a hybrid 'gap/instinctive' method beyond. Essentially I sight the gap to make sure I'm in the ballpark, then it's all target fixation and 'instinctive' from there. This method serves me well. In closing, I think we agree that sighting your (recurve/longbow) shot can be useful. Where we disagreed was whether a 5 pin sight was.
The rest of the Italian tank tech tree got released for Warthunder. Could you do one of your reviews on the “L3/33 cc”. It’s the smallest tank in the game now, and also the first tank you can research in the Italian tech tree.
Why can't people just shoot because it's fun and leave other people alone? Somebody say sight and stabilizer is cheating and make shooting easier. I hand them a fully set up, low draw weight recurve bow kit and ask them to just shoot a group.
Actually using the comparison that it's like having a scope on a rifle is a very good way to look at it. The same kind of misconceptions exist with long range precision rifle shooting as with bows. It's not nearly as easy as people think. In fact what you're doing with your bow sights is what's referred to as getting a dope (Data Of Previous Engagement) with a precision rifle. You're making the same kind of calculations with your bow they're just on a smaller scale.
Very few sports are non argumentative and the same applies to archery! I love it all from primitive to high tech and appreciate them for what they can do ! The weakest link in any type of archery is always going to be the person shooting . 😂
I completely agree with you and I just can't understand how people can't associate bow sights as the equivalent to iron sights, if sights where cheating then anyone could just take a rifle and precisely shoot a targer with just an iron sight. Furthermore, if it was like that then using scopes would make you a top level sniper. Reality is anything you shoot will require technique. If a rifle requires practice, why wouldn't a bow?
I just enjoy that art of instinct shooting, I originally started with compound and then went to sighted modern recurve, and now I shoot a plain ol stick with nothing on it. It's just more satisfying to me to see a target and then have my arrow flying away from me without more than it being a reaction of my body and mind working together. Now I just gotta get those groups tighter, I used to do 4 inch circles at 15 yards, probably more like 8 right now... Edit One thing that I feel I must add in defense of instinct archery. While it is true that a sighted technique will have the capacity for greater accuracy over instinct archery, I think it is unfair to compare them in a modern target setting. In real world hunting (or combat I guess...) It is rare that you will know a distance to any exact level. Therefore you still have to "feel" out how far your game is, taking away the pinpoint accuracy of your sights. I still consider instinct archery the more difficult and arguably more unreliable form, but I do believe that with enough practice it is the most advantageous for things like hunting small game, or Native American combat :P .
I'm new to archery and have been shooting completely instinctively so far. I was wondering what kind of accuracy can a person reasonably expect shooting this way? I can do 6-8 (ok maybe 8-10) inch groups with of course the occasional wide flyer at 10 yards right now. Again this is completely instinctive, no gap shooting, no string walking, nothing.
Shooting instinctively, I can get all arrows touching at 10 yards easily.Otherwise, I wouldn't expect a 6-inch grouping past 20-30 yards, and then you're basically hitting the target rather than trying to be precise.
It’s like when I went shooting and my rifle has a scope and people tell me that it’s cheating and that I suck at shooting because I have a scope so I let him shoot my rifle and he missed by 3 feet and he took five shots and missed them all
Hahahahahaha 19:20 I'm sitting here in bed at nearly 4am and I burst out laughing at that. Man that was great hahaha “the real mastaaaa of the paaaast” hahaha
Sensei, the complaints are silly, haters gonna hate regardless. Although prefer to shoot instinctive barebow I liked the good explanation, thanks for taking the time. I liked the footnote comparing the bicyclist to the car commuter, a good analogy. Both work, its a matter of preference.
You cannot compare a firearm with a bow. Wind barely affects firearms (only in long distances) while with a bow you need to GUESS the reference point depending on the wing direction. If you are a bad archer, or if you have a bad technique sight will not help you in any way.
Your analogy with sights is a bit off. Iron gun sights have a front and rear element for accurate alignment like diopter target sights. Only compound bows match this with the peep sight & front sight. The single sight setup on a recurve is far less accurate. Like a pin stuck to a stick 😊 hardly cheating 😂
Was looking for this, glad i found it. The sight on my compound bow is very much like iron sights on a rifle and offers far more precision than i would imagine just having the front pin. If i were to go hunting, I'm absolutely taking the compound, once tuned it is pretty foolproof. Competition is a different thing all together, the largest pool in my area all shoot compound ... locally it would be harder to place well with the "easier" bow. Internationally, the Olympic style pool is intensely competitive.
@@All4Grogg I've not hunted, but if I was going to over short range I'd rather shoot instinctive trad. I can hit a ping pong ball pretty reliably at 20 yards shooting instinctive/ split vision. My shooting with the compound over that distance is more accurate, but it wouldn't make up for the fact the trad bow is so much lighter & easier to shoot quickly.
@@jonc67uk Hunting is perhaps too general a term as the conditions vary so much from one location to another. Shooting instinctive trad is going to be much, much more challenging to get the intended result of a clean ethical kill from an unknown range usually under 40m if hunting in a heavily forested location. Weight and speed are massively overrated, i don't know anyone who is roving and really no one expects the possibility of a second shot. Deer are fast and don't run in a straight line at all. I'm very much opposed to allowing pride/bragging rights to interfere with the ethical taking of an animal. If you can do it, every time, consistently and under pressure, OK. Field Archery is pretty amazing, for those who don't know what i'm talking about here is a good video ruclips.net/video/iA9ndIvRlk4/видео.html . Basically, these are professional archers, they are amazing. They miss.
@@All4Grogg to be honest if I were going to actually hunt at any kind of real range I'd use a rifle that I'd had a decent bit of practice with first tbh.
And who's to say that if firearms had not taken over warfare and hunting like they did, that archery would not have developed into what it is today at an earlier time?
@@NUSensei Thanks but that just seems really difficult to execute. Could just set the mid point on the string and then mount a two point sight that is parallel to the arrow and now you have a consistent, mechanical aim system.
I think it is. I increased my pb by 140 by using a sight. It’s harder to aim barebow because you have to figure out the reference point yourself. The sight does the hard work for you
I personally shoot traditional. But I don’t see a sight as cheating. It’s just a style of shooting. Whatever works for you is what you should do. I don’t use a sight because I like more of a challenge, doesn’t mean I need to invalidate other kinda of archery.
G'day NU, 100 per-cent right! Cheating, schmeating, using sights is not cheating at all. It is just a technological development at a given period of time. If there were .303 rifles around at the time of Agincourt then every archer would have dropped his bow and picked up a .303; he'd be stupid, and probably dead, not to. If, after the battle, some of those archers preferred killing a rabbit for their dinner with a bow and arrow then that's OK too. (A .303 will disintegrate a rabbit if you're too close to it.) It's wonderful that people like old fashioned archery with nothing more than a piece of wood, a bit of string and an arrow. It's also fair to say that ALL archery is 'old-fashioned', as bows and arrows stopped being issued by armies hundreds of years ago. The preferred way to kill a rabbit for your dinner is with a .22 rifle these days. So even if you do, humanely, despatch little Mr Cotton Tail with a $5000 compound bow set, you are still killing that animal the old-fashioned way. Is that 'cheating', of course it isn't. Another great video! Cheers, BH
No, no it's not. Tons of military rifles with iron sights have a peep sight. It's much closer to that. a V-shaped notch and a post, vs a peep and a post, isn't really much of a difference. Also, a peep sight is not really any more accurate than the notch type. I suspect it's just a bit easier to acquire a target under pressure. If it was actually more accurate, competition iron-sight rifles would also use that style but they don't. Now, if you actually want a comparison to a scope, a compound bow with a clarifying lens in the peep and a 6-8x power lens in the scope? THAT is a lot closer to what you describe, with one KEY difference: Most people shoot scoped rifles from a bench or prone. You can't do that with a bow. Try shooting an 8x power scope on a 9.5-10 pound rifle while standing and holding it still. You'll find it's not quite so easy. That's what it's like shooting a compound bow in the same situation. And yes, target compound bows do weigh often in the neighborhood of 8-10 pounds.
You have it all wrong, compound is like iron sights (two reference points, peep and scope vs front and rear sights), recurve is like a beaded shotgun sight (ie no rear sight).
@@Lost_Hwasal Well he doesn't have it all wrong tbh. To start off, I don't think direct comparisons are the point of the video in the first place, so yes a compound has a forward and rear sight much like a gun, but the comparison of a recurve sight to ironsights is more about effectiveness of the sighting method. Otherwise gap shooting, string walking and face walking would be the same as using a sight since they all use a single forward reference point. As for this comment specifically, he says "a compound target sight with a magnified scope is like a scope on a gun". That is actually a fair comparison even directly speaking. Yes the pin and peep sight of a compound is more directly akin to a forward and rear sight on a rifle, but note he said "with a magnified scope" on the compound. The compound bow does have sights they call scopes, and they can be magnified to 2x, 4x, 6x and 8x. Not entirely sure if it goes any higher but yeah. I believe that's what this guy is talking about, a compound bow using a scope with magnification.
I shoot without sights and dont use the gap shooting or face/ stringwalking methods therefore im instinctive right ? Wrong !!! I still subconsciously and consciously use the arrow shaft below my eyes as a reference point to know my windage is correct..I then subconsciously project the arrows path in relation to how high or low I need to lift my bow, thus referencing elevation... If you think you are an instinctive archer, try shooting at that target your trying to hit at night when the sun goes down, Let me know how you get on !!! The brain needs reference to calculate a target.. Impossible to even draw a bow without some form of direction or reference !!
The idea that it is cheating I sadly say does come, when coming from other archers, from my fellow instinctive shooters and I think that comes from the gap in how each group sites in. An instinctive shooter has to shoot each distance regularly to reinforce the subconscious memory for that distance where a site using archer just has to site in once and can practice form at any distance and this creates a perception that the sited archer doesn't have to work as hard ie cheating. [I say sited archer because my "traditional" set up uses an aluminum riser and carbon limbs so only trad in form IMO] I also believe that this "cheating" belief exists more in newer archers and pure traditionalists, if you shoot instinctive for a while and you really work at it you instinctively start using other reference points, your brain looks for them because it wants to shoot better. It all comes down to practice, example: in the Halloween holiday shoots this year (we did one each week of October) our shop put on a zombie shoot, one week it came down to 2 bare-bow trads shooting at 30yds because all the sited archers, compound and re-curve, had lost. This was because most of the shooters were not regular shooters, most were hunters that prepped a few weeks before their tag's date, no amount of tech or sites could offset for not practicing. As a primarily instinctive archer it does feel at times like my friends who use site are cheating, typically when I'm having a bad day, but there is an aspect to your discussion on siting methods that I feel you skipped, versatility. I recognize that as an instinctive shooter I'm utilizing the aiming method with the lowest precision and accuracy but with the greatest versatility, to use any of the sites or sighting methods that you mentioned you need to be able to put a rough number on the distance where as an instinctive shooter uses his subconscious to take care of that and this can be advantageous in the field. Though non of this philosophizing or realizations will stop me from telling my buddies "Fuck your fancy sites" when I out shoot said fancy sites :) this is particularly fun to say when I do it with my horse bow. [These situations are rare and not the norm, but it is so much fun to say when it does happen]
I consider range estimation to be a different skill to sighting. Instinctive doesn't have an advantage there - what advantage it may have comes from familiarity in applying that skill, which is not exclusive to instinctive shooting. The process is the same across the methods: "This target looks like it's around 23 metres away, and it's down hill, so I'll aim around here". Just remember that this isn't a discussion on instinctive archery. That's a video for a different time. This is about why using a sight is not dissimilar to other methods of aiming.
@@NUSensei 1) Yes I did get a little off topic and wow in rereading that was I kind of all over the place. But more often then not I am agreeing with you in my rambling way. I would disagree that range estimation is part of siting for those who shoot unmarked regardless of whether you use sites, siting methods, or instinctive. The main points I wanted to get across is 1) that sadly most of this comes from my style but stating that even instinctive shooters use reference points, which is what a site is, we only notice it once we really try to improve the skill, 2) as such not making it cheating just a different way of doing the same thing, we instinctive archers don't tend to be as purely instinctive as we like to think, and 3) that I felt you skipped out on the versatility that is a component. As to that being a different video I get that, but I think you need to state a set of parameters or assumptions with these videos because they come across as you talking about the whole of archery instead of just target archery and as such you do come across as condescending towards the traditional archers and their pride in their style and as such we feel a need to defend it. I don't believe this is your intention I believe you are just tired of hearing shit about this point. I love the discussion these videos provoke
Pretty sad that firearms enthusiasts would draw incorrect conclusions. If anything, the recurve sight is like a shotgun bead. You don't even get a rear sight to align it with. The repeatability of your shots are completely reliant on consistent bow/gun mounting/drawing. With iron sights, it doesn't matter so much how you hold it so long as you line up the sights and you have a good trigger pull (see Jerry Miculek shooting pistols held upside down). With a bead / recurve sight, if your hold is inconsistent, your sight could be actively telling you to shoot where your arrow isn't going to go.
It is a different skill, a different sport. Driving a car is not cheating in a car race but it is cheating in a bike race... Olympic archery is as different from traditional archery as car racing is from bike racing, maybe more different...
Actually as a traditional longbow shooter I watched the Olympic archery and recognised the similarities we have in technique if not in equipment. The same basics of back tension, alignment, clean release etc are needed for a good shot in either form.
A lot of people believe that if you can't pick up any bow in the middle of a forest and shoot a deer in the hesrt 50 yards away, then you aren't an archer. I just like the more traditional look.
I think that the issue fueling this discussion is that many people who don't know much about history have a romanticized view of it. While I don't believe that we, in modernity, have gotten everything right, I have good reason to believe that people in the past sucked at a lot of things that modern people do very well because of the knowledge and technology that we have access to.
I don't use "sights", but I can't believe there are people who would get upset if I did. Tomorrow I may change my mind, and my conscience wouldn't bother me at all.
if i were making this video, it would have stopped at about the one minute point, where Nu made the point that "there isnt a specific set of rules, therefore using sights is not cheating", very simple logic. to say that using sights is cheating is as silly as a boxer saying mma is cheating. well it would be if a fighter is using mma techniques in a boxing match, but this not bcoz he kicks, but bcoz he violates the rule of boxing.
Likewise, someone shouting that "modern archery isn't real archery" is forgetting the likelihood that in a "real" fight, the boxer wouldn't be wearing gloves, and his opponent probably has a knife.
NUSensei i think its just like hamlet, everyone (or every group of people engaging in archery) has their own version of what archery is supposed to be. i dont think theres anything wrong with it. the problem is when they try to superimpose their version onto someone else's, forgetting different disciplines in archery all have the same root: someone in Africa (for argument sake) tied a string to both ends of a stick and then launched another stick with the intention of hitting something, all disciplines are branches on the same evolutionary tree of archery. in this regard, to say that the techniques employed in one discipline is cheating is like saying Caucasians are cheating in dairy because Asians are mostly lactose intolerant. its not cheating, its adaptation.
also i just realized im an instinctive shooter according to this video. i dont aim for long i just draw and shoot and i usually hit the target (im not very experienced yet, only started doing this in late september or so)
Nothing is cheating when hunting for game. Every hunter in history has used the best that could be obtained. This is the mindset, not for cheating, for what is important. That being a clean kill.and recovered of the animal. Competition archery is like rifle competitions. You have everything from traditional to unlimited. I like these peep sights built into the string, in conjunction with the adjustable sights. I have always been a fan of aperture sights.
Спорт
*READ BEFORE COMMENTING*
*tl;dr:*
Sights are just a reference point. If you remove sights, we’ll use something else to aim with. All archers, to some extent, “sight” the target. Using a precision tool for a precision sport is not cheating.
Of course, if you prefer to shoot instinctively because it feels more traditional and natural, you are right to do so. But choosing to go to work on a bicycle doesn’t mean going to work by car is cheating.
*Addendum:*
People have the impression that Olympic archery (which uses sights and other accessories) is the only form of modern archery. This is incorrect. The open recurve classification is the most competitive class, but there are other divisions which don’t use sights.
In fact, if you look at all the archery organisations and rules (including WA, IFAA, etc.), there are numerous classifications that cover every part of the spectrum of “aiming”. The rules directly or indirectly allow specific aiming methods (e.g. a rule set might require the split-finger draw, which prevents stringwalking).
This “schism” appeared in the 20th century as archers developed more unconventional aiming methods to be more accurate, which traditional archers considered to be “cheating”. This is the same argument that we’re having now - except that today’s archers are no longer competing in the same format and division, so using sights no longer creates an uneven playing field. Those who want to shoot more natural methods can do so without being bullied by modern aiming methods.
*Main Talking Points:*
Sights are just an extension of aiming methods that archers already use, and are a natural development of modern archery.
Sights are not automated high-tech devices. They are actually low-tech manually configured tools, not unlike an iron sight on a rifle, as compared to a modern scope.
The skill in using a sight lies in the hours of practice to prefect shooting form, and spending hours to become familiar with your equipment to understand your shot enough to make correct sight recordings and adjustments, like a modern marksman dialing in their scope. Saying that a sight removes skill is like saying that a sniper using a scoped rifle has no skill.
Other aiming methods, such as stringwalking, facewalking and gap shooting, are effectively the same as using the sight, requiring the same process to determine reference points, but recording them differently. Instinctive shooting is based on memorising the visual sight picture rather than cross-checking with a static point.
*Frequently asked questions / comments:*
*“If sights are the same as shooting without, why use them?”*
Sights are the most precise reference point. There is still variation depending on your sight picture and shot execution (same as a gun). Other sighting methods are more vague and prone to greater errors.
*“Sights makes shooting easier.”*
Shot placement is a combination of aim and execution. Knowing where to aim is relatively simple: either you know where to aim or you don’t. Once you figure it out, it comes down to your shot execution, which is far more difficult to master. This is where a skilled archer shines: their technique is honed and consistent, allowing them to adapt and adjust their aim without concern over their shot execution, whereas a novice archer cannot tell whether it was their aim or their form.
*“Historical archers didn’t use sights and shot instinctively.”*
Not totally true. Some archery styles were primarily instinctive, but many documented styles go into detail about aiming methods, including Ming Archery, Arab Archery and English Archery. Historical archers had ways to aim. It would be ridiculous to think that feats of accuracy were accomplished without any method of sighting the target. Good archers don’t rely on flukes.
*“I shoot well without sights.”*
Back this up with evidence. The most objective evidence is a scorecard from an official round. Barring that, recording yourself shooting at a set distance and target size is also proof. For the record, the national records between sighted shooters and modern barebow shooters are hundreds of points apart; and the gap between modern barebow and instinctive is just as wide. No one has achieved an Olympic qualifying score with barebow, let alone instinctive.
This isn’t to say that barebow and instinctive shooting suck. They’re reasonable accurate at closer distances, and good enough for what most instinctive shooters want. But you need to compete or compare using the same metrics to validate any claim of proficiency.
*“Instinctive shooting is more impressive.”*
I won’t disagree - it’s beautiful to watch someone shoot naturally and confidently. As someone who shoots both sighted and unsighted traditional, I can appreciate when a traditional instinctive shooter exhibits displays of proficiency. However, in comparing modern sighted archery, one wonders why we are captivated by people who choose to use a less accurate method to achieve less accurate or less repeatable results.
*“You’re jealous.”*
Wouldn’t it make more sense that the shooters who achieve less accurate results are jealous of shooters who attain better results? If we’re competing at 70m, why would I be jealous of someone who uses a technique that misses the target half the time? If anything, calling modern archers “cheaters” is a typical cry from people who can’t achieve that level with or without the equipment - and that argument has been going on for a hundred years. As long as the playing field is level and archers are competing against each other with the same rules, there is no cheating, and nothing to be jealous of.
I also like how no one claims "first" because I'm the first comment. There, I can have my cake.
@@NUSensei hello Sensei. Thanks for all the great information
@@NUSensei new rule :first comment must contribute
I can't believe so many people that have actually shot a relatively modern bow at least a few times keep thinking that sight is some kind of magic...
@@diewindowsdie people also belive in black magic, santa, and the Easter bunny or that instinctive archery is a thing on the flat earth ....
Medieval archers did hit their targets at 72 meters. It’s a lot easier if you have 200 other guys shooting with you.
And if your target is a 5'5" man and not a 2" circle.
@@HRRRRRDRRRRR In France, there is five minutes and three seconds between the man and the circle.
I'm happy, as a longbow non-sight gap shooter, to agree with you. I have taught a good many people to shoot, and usually their first question is 'how do you aim', and then gradually they realise that a bow is not like a gun - aiming is not the main skill. You can aim as accurately as you like, but if the shot is not made consistently, with steady bow arm, smooth loose, consistent draw putting the same energy into the arrow each time, you still won't hit much. In fact I suspect that Olympic style shooting expects greater accuracy to such an extent that it encourages the maximum development of those more important and basic skills, rather than demanding less skill.
Very well said. I'd also wonder if, from a non-archer's perspective, it makes practicing cross-discipline a worthwhile skill. Non-sight shooters might gain a lot from highlighting their form flaws with sights, and sight shooters might be able to relax and focus less on placing the sigh on the target and more on whatever needs working on?
It's not really fundamentally different for a firearm _"- aiming is not the main skill."_ _(functionally different yes)_
Rifles weigh quite a lot, many competitions don't permit rests.
But mainly - *_like every competition_* - the situation is intentionally set up to be very challenging for the very best and talented, of the most dedicated people on the planet.
Perhaps a time limit, or tighter grouping, or greater distance.
For example, I've been in rifle matches that were close _(only 100 yards)_ where the inner color _(similar to this video target's gold area)_ included rings 8, 9, 10 & x _(huge scoring difference!)_ this entire color area *_was less than 1/2 the width of my front sight post._*
@@Dr.JustIsWrong I'm sure you're right, I shouldn't really have compared with guns when I have little experience or knowledge of them. I suppose I mean it's not like what people who haven't shot guns but just seen them on films or TV think guns are like, all about aiming.
Practice is cheating.
Eric Scott it makes archers too good , it should be nerfed
Scott, your comment completely missed the target. Keep practicing.
This talk brings back so many memories, I compare a bow sight to a shotgun bead sight. You have to keep things aligned properly to shoot accurately. Or at least hit hit a proper target. The bead is just a reference to aim with and there is no rear sight so form matters. When I took up archery I got the sense, aiming a bow reminded me of shotgun bead aiming. My analogy might be off a little but I think this is a great video, awesome work!
If someone tried to tell me "real" shooters dont have a bead sight on their shotgun... You know who else have arbitrary rules? Beauty contests for dogs and cats. You don't want to know what I think about that.
I was unsure about putting a sight on my and my daughters recurve, I Am now going to put one on both after watching this video! Keep up the good work and your videos are much appreciated!
How much of this video is because of archers that can't actually shoot well, can't accept that others shoot well through practiced skill, and are hating on anyone showing skill with or without sights
Great video! I'm so tired of all the negativity on the web forums about instinctive vs sighting methods vs sighted versions of archery trying to validate one form of archery over another. It's one thing to discuss the different forms of archery and appreciate the nuances of the different forms that exist but there is way too many that choose to put down one form of archery because it differs from their own. I truly appreciate your approach and your thoughtful explanation in your video. Keep up the good work!
I get asked regularly if thumb draw is better?
I laugh and answer no! just a different way to throw sticks.
It makes me smile.
No form of archery is "better" than another. The reality is what makes you smile the most.
Cheers
You make very good informative videos.
Very nicely explained....
Some of the best content among ur rest of uploads.
Though it's long but u will admire after patiently hearing him what he is trying to explain.
I refuse to give up my 20x scope and laser sight.... now tell me again why is my takedown bow curving inwards while unstrung?!?! 0___o
My form has issues. A sight would not make the slightest difference in my shooting. If you think you can grab an Olympic setup and shoot 9s and 10s without serious work - nah.
@Chris C Barebow means a set of skills and produces a precision. If you use sights you tighten that precision and find out that small adjustments that were of not much effect with barebow precision become significant. Suddenly you need to compute and take into account new parameters or new skills. That is why stabilisers, swinging and other gimmicks are useful only after using a sight. In barebow the precision is not enough to make any use of those improvements.
Very well said. I get the feeling this is something that has really incensed Nusensei.
Finally, a video I can send to my non archer mates to explain this. I've tried but im not as precise and eloquent as yourself. Thank you.
Haters are still gonna say that sights enables auto aim and homing arrows
There is no point to argue with haters (or any other type of fanatics).
When he said what people thought Sights do, I started thinking about how to make laser-guided arrows.
You know, like the missiles. Camera on the tip, controlling steering mechanisms to chase a dot.
Now that's cheating in competition.
To be even more cheeky, if the competition isn't being video recorded, then you can use an infrared laser for your robot arrows to chase, because our naked eyes can't see infrared light, but many cameras can. Try pointing your smartphone camera at a Wii sensor-bar, or at the front of a TV remote when you press it's buttons.
...That's the first time I ever used "cheeky" in a sentence. I don't even know if I used it right. I'm a US American.
This is very accurate ... I'm using traditional archery and support this educational to all archers both modern and traditional ... thanks ...you are the best...
I must be looking at it backwards.
I got into archery so I could go deer hunting with my dad.
He taught me the importance of always making a good shot so the animal doesn't suffer.
He started out on a 55# Bear recurve bow.
When it came available he installed a pin sight and peep.
Accuracy was improved and oddly none of his friends accused him of " cheating".
Good video as usual. Glad I found your channel.
Thanks
From only shooting rifles/pistols; you have given me such an appreciation to archery and I’m seriously considering taking this as a hobby. Thank you! Recurve hunting bow seems to be my style 😊
I totally agree with you. I chose to do traditional but I know it’s less accurate than a modern method with sights or counter weights. I chose this method, I’m jealous at the very tight groupings that can normally occur with modern sights. I just like the feel of a more traditional bow, it’s more of a relaxing experience for me, I’m not looking for competitive archery or hunting, just range or field archery is pleasant. I get modern archers looking at me when I get a good grouping at 45-50 yards saying good job, I usually say that seeing their groupings make me want to practice more. No cheating just more shooting. Take the ego stuff someplace else not at the range, we’re all just archers.
indeed. it's only 'cheating' if someone explictly tries to make it seem like they are being traditional archers and try to sneak modern inovations. even then, unless they are puting it online, they are only cheating themselves.
Hey man thx for the vid!! I hope you read this cause I wanna say thank you so much for all the advice!! Yesterday I got my first bow and due to your advice I’m hitting red and gold already which I couldn’t do without all your advice!! So then you so much 😁
Ask yourself, if you had to go to war with a bow, would you want one with an aiming device as accurate as possible....or not?
Same when going hunting, it is ethical to use what provides for an ethical kill at the distance of you will hunt from. Now if you can hunt without a sight, great but I would still use a sight of some sort for ethical purposes, not to show off my archery skills at the risk of an unethical shot.
Not to mention, there is enough challenge in hunting well outside of the shot itself that using or not using a sight is really not the challenging part of the hunt.
Exactly. With firearms, you want the most accurate shot possible. People who want to devote themselves to shooting from the hip are showboating - skillful, but if they were in a real situation, they would be criticised for not using the most effective methods. Only in archery do we see the perception of "worse is better" in the general perception.
I have a friend who did that cowboy action shooting thing for a while. Fast draw hip firing a revolver at bottles and plates or whatever. They use reference points for aiming as well. Anchoring the elbow against their hip or ribs, and the placement of their muzzle beneath the target (Gap, anyone?) Even then, they shoot ammunition designed to fragment and spread, like a miniature shotgun. This looks amazing in real time, and takes quite a bit of practice, but it's still not "precision" in comparison to taking aimed shots.
Chris C ummm...No! First, there are plenty of reasons one HAS to use a bow and arrow. In hunting for example, you have certain seasons for only a bow. You also have certain jurisdictions that only allow bow and arrow hunting. In counties I am in, bow and arrow are only allowed for deer and hog. So your assumption that you would upgrade to a rifle fails and tells me you are not a hunter, at least not a well informed one. One of the biggest reasons I got into archery was having great access to public hunting lands due to using a bow and arrow.
Also, where I hunt, the average shot distance, due to trees, vegetation, and terrain, is 20-40 yrds, well within a bow and arrow range. A rifle adds very little to the ability to take the animal, but can cause safety issues as the round will travel out of my sight, making for an unsafe shot. Also, one missed shot with a rifle and the hunt is over due to noise. I can miss with an arrow and have a chance to continue the hunt.
BTW, a firearm is very loud. A bow and arrow, not near as much. So yet another reason to use a bow and arrow over a firearm in either situation.
It would also seem you are not well informed history of rebellion. It is not like you have a wide selection of arms at the “Let’s Revolt R Us” store. “Let’s see...do I want the bow and arrow, mace, spear, or 50 cal machine gun? What to do? What to do.”
In fact many uprisings, such as eastern block countries during the Cold War, had NO ARMS at all because they were a disarmed citizenry. People stood in front of tanks daring them to run over them as part of their efforts. So your argument about “getting a firearm” doesn’t pass the history test.
Not to mention you don’t seem to follow his entire video on how all methods of aiming use some sort of sighting method. The only difference is the different expectation of accuracy and precision. As your sighting system increases in precision, the expectation of your grouping should get smaller as well. The standard of precision changes with the change in sight system.
Your overall point would be similar to comparing a law enforcement officer carrying a side arm with front and rear sights and 4-5 in barrel which is accurate at 3-10 yrds...maybe 25 yrds but accuracy in that case means hitting a man size target at 3-10 yrds. However a sniper would carry a precision rifle, scope, maybe night sights, and is expected to hit a 3-4 inch spot on a person at hundreds of yards out.
Is the sniper cheating because of his better sight system?
He also goes into all the aspects of how form does more to impact your accuracy/precision than a sight does, which again is true as well. Having a sight doesn’t impact your release, draw, stance, back tension, or steadiness of your arm, all which impact your accuracy and precision long before your sight does.
I suggest you re-watch the video.
Or choosing a bow for the physicality, the aesthetic, the appeal.
And if think there's no challenge in a modern recurve, borrow one and go to a competition. Show us all what we've been mistaken about for fifty years. Be the first one in the world to provide the groundbreaking demonstration showing us how much the Olympians actually suck.
Chris C You can’t argue with that logic! Just in case you don’t know, this is sarcastic response. Otherwise, I would have to go into the Matrix like logic of
1) using a sight on a recurve is supposedly cheating, but...
2) using a rifled scope to shoot more accurately somehow discounts an archers skills regardless of the type of bow, but then...
3) using a compound bow, which commonly uses sights, would be a similar argument in favor of using a sight on a bow, but then...
Wait, are you arguing in favor of a sight on a bow or against? Lost in the logic, which again gets to my first point...”You can’t argue with that logic!l
Troll alert!
To take it one step further, iron sights have two points of reference down the line of sight. Iron sights relative to a bow, you would need to add a peep to the configuration of the bow along with a sight. The sight alone is nothing but, just like you said, a point of reference. Some may even consider it a distraction and not an aid, like i do, at least within 20 yards. It's like a bug on the windshield. Cheers NuSensei! You Rock!
Beautifully explained.
Great video and a discussion that needs to happen.
Very few shooters use compound bows without sights in the modern era. You can gap using parts of the bow, eg back surface of cable guard, arrow rest and bracket with arrow point to get centre. As discussed, a reference diagram is made in notes and practice keeps them in memory. The technique is comparable to string walking.
No incantations, no chickens blood, no "Being one with the arrow", its your own integrated sight system.
Legally you havent altered or marked your bow, you are merely shooting with a specific overall sight picture at a particular yardage.
Bah chicken blood is useless only pure virgin human blood has any effect
Can you do a video about straight, off set and helical arrow fletching? I saw a video about this but your vids are always better.
Greetings from Germany
hahaa it's only cheating if it's only available to some and not others?
dont worry NUSensei, amongst the traditional there's also face/string walking also considered cheating. Some even consider 3-under or having any form of reflex/deflex as cheating.
Due to this we now have way too many categories which makes it really confusing for anyone starting out.
As someone who practices olympic freestyle form but does not use a sight. Aiming is the least important part of the shot process. If you cannot consistently hit where you are aiming at, then aiming is useless, by whatever mechanism you use to aim.
This post is fantastic. I struggle with this topic every time i pick up a bow (every few years for a couple of months). I forget a lot.
In my words and thoughts after watching this, people should stop using the term "traditional" and instead use "instinctive" and add qualifiers and realize the reality of a continuum like "primitive" instinctive or gap instinctive or bow mark instinctive, to basic pin site to adjustable ring site, all the way to who knows what. I feel that one big point missed in the very first lesson is the conversation that the shooter should not set their elevation by the arrow tip (way too high at short distances). In fact they should have a piece of 1" wide orange tape at the aprox level for 10m as a training wheel, and learn to partially ignore the tape if they want to be more instinctive, or focus on it for 1 sec if they want to advance to pin sites, but work on consistency and build muscle memory etc from their for many hours before moving on.
Thank you for covering the assertion that all historical archers shot instinctively - it's something that I've heard go unchallenged in a number of discussions about aiming methods and its always sounded to me like a claim that would not only be impossible to verify, but also seems pretty unlikely.
It's strange to point out, but yes, the general viewer typically doesn't realise that shooting without sights doesn't necessarily mean you are shooting instinctively. Most historical texts on archery provide very clear methods of aiming.
I shoot flat bow and Olympic recurve and sights are just a base reference point , or the tip of my arrow (flat bow) for a basic reference point when gap shooting. I've got notebooks for my recurve and my flatbow with weather conditions and rough temperatures noted as well as wind direction etc, in fact the books look like a wizard's big book of spells . Hours and hours of practice both in and outdoor .
Your open sentence , BEST!!
The scope analogy still fits, with a bare bow, the instinctive sighting technique is analogous to iron sights, where the scope is added to the weapon to increase accuracy at distance, just like the bow sight.
You are correct, I have a quiver full of sights for my barebow.
I agree on all points, and you explained it well. But one thing I would not underestimate is the power of your subconscious mind. There are millions of calculations done in your subconscious, wheres you can concisely focus on only 3 or 4 simultaneously. Your body will give you the consistency needed, once you are experienced enough.
I shoot selfbows. I like a trad or barebow setup because I am a weird survivalist. If i have to shoot a makeshift bow, I want to be able to not rely on anything but my ability. That being said, sights are absolutely not cheating. Even in a survivalist situation, if you can scavenge a sight to get your food easier, then go for it.
@Chris C not true. I still have to aim. It's the exact same skill set as if I was gap shooting I'm just aiming with a sight instead of an arrow point or whatever else you happen to be using as a reference.
@Chris C the other bit you've forgotten is sighted recurve is always a far more competitive division then any barebow or long bow division so to do well there is far less allowance for mistakes.
to add, compatible equipment and how closely similar your arrows are also plays a huge role. Being a school archer I used to shoot random arrows that we have left, some are bent some are carbon some are aluminium some are different sizes and spine. For each shot the arrow goes everywhere so we have to remember what this arrow requires. Some requires us to shoot to the left a bit, some maybe above and wherever else because nothing in this world is perfect
I used to do target archery when i was young, using a club bow. the sight was a strip of double sided foam tape on the front of the bow a long glass headed pin was stuck into the foamleft right adjustment was pushing in or pulling out the pin vertical involved pulling the pin out and pushing it back in higher or lower. crude but effective if you are super broke it may be a good optionuse a seperate pin for each distance to avoid repeated adjustment, hope this helps someone
Would like to see other archery styles included at Olympics. Maybe horse archery
Sports exist to make us prepared for survival. Olympic style archery is pretty useless as compared to any other sport. Maybe the sports where they shoot super small caliber guns is kind of equivalent? Shooting a useful rifle would not be the same experience but the aiming would still be close... Horse archery and other traditional methods for showing archery skills would make for better sports for sure...
Yepp, an olympic style bow and using those methods will not be accurate at all in horseback shooting. He really should not have said that one method and set of equipment is far more precise than the other (so many times he said it as well) when the supposedly superior method only works in very contrived situations... in all other situations, the traditional archer would be more precise...
@@0ooTheMAXXoo0 "Sports exist to make us prepared for survival. Olympic style archery is pretty useless as compared to any other sport."
Prepared for survival? Are you serious? You can't be. Sports? What, like shot put, discus, hammer throw, football, baseball, ski jumping, ice hockey, curling, handball, cycling, volley ball and tens of other useless sports? How does for example ski jumping prepare one for survival? Did they catch birds in medieval times by ski jumping. Or did they have shot putters before cannons and artillery were invented?
Almost all sports have no practical use or do not prepare anyone for survival. That's why they are called sports in the first place!
Would it be viable to have a red dot mounted on the sight rig instead of a ring and post?
I would love to know how or where to buy a sight like the one you are showing. Can I install it in any re-curve
bow?
Hi there. I'm new to archery and wanted to thank you for your excellent quality videos. I'm a recurve archer and wanted your recommendation on a relatively mid priced sight? Thanks again
I started shooting with an sight, and switched to traditional styles without sights. Starting shooting with sights is a very good thing in my opinion. It gives you the response how good your technique is. If the arrow goes of the sight aiming point, you did a mistake in the shooting process (false release for example). Aiming is not the challenge in archery - consitency in the shooting process is important. I could perfectly aim (doesnt matter with or without sights) - if i do mistakes in the shootings - the arrow goes anywhere ;)
Being new to recurve archery, I put a simple single single pin sight on my recurve. Some may call it cheating, but here's my rationale... While I DO want to shoot more traditional style, the pin sight allows me to concentrate on developing a consistent form without making it more complex by also worrying about trying to figure out gaps. I don't think of it as a crutch but rather a valuable training aid that allows me to isolate the two skills and simplify learning them more or less separately. Once I have shot a few thousand arrows and hopefully developed good consistent form and am shooting good groups with the pin, then I will remove it and learn to shoot gap.
As a long time firearm enthusiast I will say that a simple pin sight on a bow is more akin to shooting a rifle, freehand, with ONLY a front iron sight. It can be done, but it still requires good form with a consistent cheek weld, good trigger control, etc. Without a rear sight on a rifle, you MUST have a consistent cheek weld and form so that your eye itself serves AS the rear sight. While I do have a compound, it is a bit like cheating to me. The let off, the peep, mechanical release, etc., does do a LOT of work for me that allowed me to be sort of sloppy with my form and still shoot good groups. I'm wanting to step back from that and shoot something that demands more of me and my skills rather than on equipment. My thought is that a good recurve archer can shoot a compound well, but in my experience, the opposite isn't necessarily true.
One small quibble.
Regarding grouping arrows at any distance. Every archer can and does shoot a grouping.
It's always a group whether it's a 10 meter radius or a 5 mm radius.
The goal is 5mm radius.
A tight grouping is the goal.
I know it's common shooting parlance which is why I understand you.
Just thought I would tease a bit.
Cheers
Now we have hunting sights with a built in rangefinder and the aiming dot will move to the correct location to shoot for that distance!
I've seen those, they look cool, but the cost around 1k. When they drop in price they can be entertained in the discussion
I saw Lancaster Archery had arrows that were $400+ per dozen!
Bicycle seats that are $200-300 just for the saddle😱
The whole world has gone mad-mark it a zero.
There is nothing special about the sights we use. Technically, it serves as our basis. Those who say that modern archery sucks are either people who have never shot a bow or those Medieval Fanatics who have nothing else to do with their lives.
I disagree I shoot barebare recurve, Olympic recurve, horse bow and compound, and yes the more advanced a bow is and the more toys on it the less fun it is to shoot so yes modern styles of archery suck, they suck the fun out of it
what beginner sights for the samick sage would be good for beginners?
About instinctive archery, there still have the process of
visual confirm. Like, dose the view picture at full draw looks/feels correct? And yes, it's much more unreliable then a reference point.
Whoever said that bow sight is like a scope doesn't know what they're talking about, it's more like a recon sight. An iron sight is a built-in reference point that's a part of the weapon. The arrow is like the iron sight. A scope has zoom functionality. That bow sight's between the two, like a recon sight.
An equivalent to instinctive shooting would be shooting "from the hip," but it's not reliable beyond short-range. In contrast, sighting and even sniping with firearms is almost as old as the general use of firearms. Heck, with low rates of fire, such as in bows or older firearms, sighting is and has always been pretty damn important.
The latter point is so important and sorely overlooked, especially in Lars-era of speed-shooting fandom. You have the advantage of a weapon that outranges what your opponent has, with limited ammunition and is strenuous to use. Unless that particular shot demands urgency, a war archer is going to make sure that shot is aimed as accurately as possible. It doesn't take a lifetime of training to get random peasants to flick arrows aimlessly into the air and hope they hit something. Trained archers actually wanted to hit what they aimed at. Sadly, our understanding of archery has reached the point where actually being able to hit the target precisely is considered "cheating", and we worship the fluke shot more than the repeatable one.
I'm so glad I'm not the only one using the window as reference. 😌
I think you won the argument, when you compared the sight on a Bow, to the iron-sights on a gun. It's just a reference point for aiming. Precision & consistency is important to me. Now I want a sight or scope, for my futuristic future hunting recurve Bow.
amen brother
Archers out here on the left coast "will" their arrows to precisely hit their target. They don't need any aiming aid. They can also diagnose and effectively treat diseases, predict the future, and travel to other universes and dimensions sole-ly through the force of their will. Seriously. Just ask them. ;-) Also, I'm a beginning archer. For the past week or so I've been practicing with a Samick Sage and have enjoyed it immensely. However, for just starting out, the draw is a little heavy and it's hurting my shoulder now. So, I decided to get an economical but quality compound bow that I could hold at full draw more easily and that had some sights. Wow, my enjoyment of archery took a huge leap forward almost instantly. I don't care anything about this sight issue other than to say that my groups have shrunk significantly and my shoulder doesn't hurt anymore using my new compound bow. It would have been smarter for me to start with the compound and then transition to the recurve, IMHO. Maybe more economical, too, as I bought two recurves, one with a little less draw weight to help ameliorate my shoulder problem.
what would happen if you but a pistol scope on a bow?
I shoot by gap just learning but i find sights to be to much for now feels like adding more diffilcuty as a learner of form still
I may shoot "instinctively" but I think a more precise way of telling it would be " I aim subconciously! The key in all methods is simply to practice and have fun doing it.
I think you may have just agreed with me when I said-
"Paradoxically, any recurve that a multi pin sight would not look out of place on is invariably more effectively shot without one."
given you've conceded that a gap shooter uses their arrow tip and gap as a means with which to sight their shot anyway.
Most trad shooters have a higher anchor point than an olympic recurve archer, so their shot consistency using a gap method is far more refined than those with a lower anchor. Which brings me to my theory that the need for a sight is directly proportional to the height of an archer's anchor. The higher the anchor the more accurately the arrow shaft can be used to sight the shot, and conversely the lower the anchor, the less reliable the arrow shaft as a means to sight the shot becomes.
It's also worth adding that most trad bows have a smaller cutaway for centre shot. In many cases the riser obstructs the sight picture of those with lower anchor points and thus it lends itself to an instinctive or higher anchored shot technique.
Which brings me back to-
"Paradoxically, any recurve that a multi pin sight would not look out of place on is invariably more effectively shot without one."
Also, there's nothing wrong with an 'instinctive' archer's accuracy. I shoot instinctive up to about 20 yrds, then a hybrid 'gap/instinctive' method beyond. Essentially I sight the gap to make sure I'm in the ballpark, then it's all target fixation and 'instinctive' from there. This method serves me well.
In closing, I think we agree that sighting your (recurve/longbow) shot can be useful. Where we disagreed was whether a 5 pin sight was.
The rest of the Italian tank tech tree got released for Warthunder. Could you do one of your reviews on the “L3/33 cc”. It’s the smallest tank in the game now, and also the first tank you can research in the Italian tech tree.
Why can't people just shoot because it's fun and leave other people alone?
Somebody say sight and stabilizer is cheating and make shooting easier. I hand them a fully set up, low draw weight recurve bow kit and ask them to just shoot a group.
Actually using the comparison that it's like having a scope on a rifle is a very good way to look at it. The same kind of misconceptions exist with long range precision rifle shooting as with bows. It's not nearly as easy as people think. In fact what you're doing with your bow sights is what's referred to as getting a dope (Data Of Previous Engagement) with a precision rifle. You're making the same kind of calculations with your bow they're just on a smaller scale.
Very few sports are non argumentative and the same applies to archery! I love it all from primitive to high tech and appreciate them for what they can do ! The weakest link in any type of archery is always going to be the person shooting . 😂
11 different style's of shooting in the NFAS UK 🇬🇧 😀 so choose your style and shoot it total up to you ...
I completely agree with you and I just can't understand how people can't associate bow sights as the equivalent to iron sights, if sights where cheating then anyone could just take a rifle and precisely shoot a targer with just an iron sight. Furthermore, if it was like that then using scopes would make you a top level sniper. Reality is anything you shoot will require technique. If a rifle requires practice, why wouldn't a bow?
I just enjoy that art of instinct shooting, I originally started with compound and then went to sighted modern recurve, and now I shoot a plain ol stick with nothing on it. It's just more satisfying to me to see a target and then have my arrow flying away from me without more than it being a reaction of my body and mind working together. Now I just gotta get those groups tighter, I used to do 4 inch circles at 15 yards, probably more like 8 right now...
Edit One thing that I feel I must add in defense of instinct archery. While it is true that a sighted technique will have the capacity for greater accuracy over instinct archery, I think it is unfair to compare them in a modern target setting. In real world hunting (or combat I guess...) It is rare that you will know a distance to any exact level. Therefore you still have to "feel" out how far your game is, taking away the pinpoint accuracy of your sights. I still consider instinct archery the more difficult and arguably more unreliable form, but I do believe that with enough practice it is the most advantageous for things like hunting small game, or Native American combat :P .
I'm new to archery and have been shooting completely instinctively so far. I was wondering what kind of accuracy can a person reasonably expect shooting this way? I can do 6-8 (ok maybe 8-10) inch groups with of course the occasional wide flyer at 10 yards right now. Again this is completely instinctive, no gap shooting, no string walking, nothing.
Shooting instinctively, I can get all arrows touching at 10 yards easily.Otherwise, I wouldn't expect a 6-inch grouping past 20-30 yards, and then you're basically hitting the target rather than trying to be precise.
@@NUSensei That's good to know! I'll keep practicing!
It’s like when I went shooting and my rifle has a scope and people tell me that it’s cheating and that I suck at shooting because I have a scope so I let him shoot my rifle and he missed by 3 feet and he took five shots and missed them all
Compound 😂 imagine compound with no sight
This reminds me of "having picture references for drawing is cheating". I was puzzled, considering that i fail to care that if this was even an exam.
I have low vision and need a sight.
As long as it's not a telescopic sight lol, I use to have a bow that only had a drawing pin to use for aiming.
Hahahahahaha 19:20 I'm sitting here in bed at nearly 4am and I burst out laughing at that. Man that was great hahaha “the real mastaaaa of the paaaast” hahaha
Sensei, the complaints are silly, haters gonna hate regardless. Although prefer to shoot instinctive barebow I liked the good explanation, thanks for taking the time. I liked the footnote comparing the bicyclist to the car commuter, a good analogy. Both work, its a matter of preference.
You cannot compare a firearm with a bow. Wind barely affects firearms (only in long distances) while with a bow you need to GUESS the reference point depending on the wing direction. If you are a bad archer, or if you have a bad technique sight will not help you in any way.
6:35 the bow says bang. the bow says bang. every weapon makes a sound the bow says bang.
Your analogy with sights is a bit off. Iron gun sights have a front and rear element for accurate alignment like diopter target sights. Only compound bows match this with the peep sight & front sight. The single sight setup on a recurve is far less accurate. Like a pin stuck to a stick 😊 hardly cheating 😂
Was looking for this, glad i found it. The sight on my compound bow is very much like iron sights on a rifle and offers far more precision than i would imagine just having the front pin.
If i were to go hunting, I'm absolutely taking the compound, once tuned it is pretty foolproof.
Competition is a different thing all together, the largest pool in my area all shoot compound ... locally it would be harder to place well with the "easier" bow. Internationally, the Olympic style pool is intensely competitive.
@@All4Grogg I've not hunted, but if I was going to over short range I'd rather shoot instinctive trad. I can hit a ping pong ball pretty reliably at 20 yards shooting instinctive/ split vision. My shooting with the compound over that distance is more accurate, but it wouldn't make up for the fact the trad bow is so much lighter & easier to shoot quickly.
@@jonc67uk Hunting is perhaps too general a term as the conditions vary so much from one location to another. Shooting instinctive trad is going to be much, much more challenging to get the intended result of a clean ethical kill from an unknown range usually under 40m if hunting in a heavily forested location. Weight and speed are massively overrated, i don't know anyone who is roving and really no one expects the possibility of a second shot. Deer are fast and don't run in a straight line at all.
I'm very much opposed to allowing pride/bragging rights to interfere with the ethical taking of an animal.
If you can do it, every time, consistently and under pressure, OK. Field Archery is pretty amazing, for those who don't know what i'm talking about here is a good video ruclips.net/video/iA9ndIvRlk4/видео.html . Basically, these are professional archers, they are amazing. They miss.
@@All4Grogg to be honest if I were going to actually hunt at any kind of real range I'd use a rifle that I'd had a decent bit of practice with first tbh.
@@jonc67uk yup, part of doing it right is knowing what shots NOT to take.
I don't do public land during rifle season... Nope.
And who's to say that if firearms had not taken over warfare and hunting like they did, that archery would not have developed into what it is today at an earlier time?
I still don't understand how archers aim without a two point system. How do you know the angle with just one aim point?
The anchor point serves as the second reference point. This relies on the archer being able to consistently draw to the same point.
@@NUSensei Thanks but that just seems really difficult to execute. Could just set the mid point on the string and then mount a two point sight that is parallel to the arrow and now you have a consistent, mechanical aim system.
@@chengong388
That's what the peep sight on a compound is. Recurves can't use one.
I think it is. I increased my pb by 140 by using a sight. It’s harder to aim barebow because you have to figure out the reference point yourself. The sight does the hard work for you
now that this has been settled we could disqus the cause of all these misconceptions, instinctive
OMG: LUV the go -T .. looks like u r! Wise ole soul :>)... Keep it.. :>)
I personally shoot traditional. But I don’t see a sight as cheating. It’s just a style of shooting. Whatever works for you is what you should do. I don’t use a sight because I like more of a challenge, doesn’t mean I need to invalidate other kinda of archery.
G'day NU, 100 per-cent right! Cheating, schmeating, using sights is not cheating at all. It is just a technological development at a given period of time. If there were .303 rifles around at the time of Agincourt then every archer would have dropped his bow and picked up a .303; he'd be stupid, and probably dead, not to. If, after the battle, some of those archers preferred killing a rabbit for their dinner with a bow and arrow then that's OK too. (A .303 will disintegrate a rabbit if you're too close to it.)
It's wonderful that people like old fashioned archery with nothing more than a piece of wood, a bit of string and an arrow. It's also fair to say that ALL archery is 'old-fashioned', as bows and arrows stopped being issued by armies hundreds of years ago. The preferred way to kill a rabbit for your dinner is with a .22 rifle these days. So even if you do, humanely, despatch little Mr Cotton Tail with a $5000 compound bow set, you are still killing that animal the old-fashioned way. Is that 'cheating', of course it isn't. Another great video! Cheers, BH
A compound bow with sights And peep hole in sting => rifle with scope, or at least the closest thing in the archery realm before you hit crossbows
No, no it's not. Tons of military rifles with iron sights have a peep sight. It's much closer to that. a V-shaped notch and a post, vs a peep and a post, isn't really much of a difference. Also, a peep sight is not really any more accurate than the notch type. I suspect it's just a bit easier to acquire a target under pressure. If it was actually more accurate, competition iron-sight rifles would also use that style but they don't.
Now, if you actually want a comparison to a scope, a compound bow with a clarifying lens in the peep and a 6-8x power lens in the scope? THAT is a lot closer to what you describe, with one KEY difference: Most people shoot scoped rifles from a bench or prone. You can't do that with a bow. Try shooting an 8x power scope on a 9.5-10 pound rifle while standing and holding it still. You'll find it's not quite so easy. That's what it's like shooting a compound bow in the same situation. And yes, target compound bows do weigh often in the neighborhood of 8-10 pounds.
Id say a recurve target sight its like iron sights on a gun while a compound target sight with a magnified scope is like a scope on a gun
You have it all wrong, compound is like iron sights (two reference points, peep and scope vs front and rear sights), recurve is like a beaded shotgun sight (ie no rear sight).
@@Lost_Hwasal Well he doesn't have it all wrong tbh. To start off, I don't think direct comparisons are the point of the video in the first place, so yes a compound has a forward and rear sight much like a gun, but the comparison of a recurve sight to ironsights is more about effectiveness of the sighting method. Otherwise gap shooting, string walking and face walking would be the same as using a sight since they all use a single forward reference point.
As for this comment specifically, he says "a compound target sight with a magnified scope is like a scope on a gun". That is actually a fair comparison even directly speaking. Yes the pin and peep sight of a compound is more directly akin to a forward and rear sight on a rifle, but note he said "with a magnified scope" on the compound. The compound bow does have sights they call scopes, and they can be magnified to 2x, 4x, 6x and 8x. Not entirely sure if it goes any higher but yeah. I believe that's what this guy is talking about, a compound bow using a scope with magnification.
I shoot without sights and dont use the gap shooting or face/ stringwalking methods therefore im instinctive right ? Wrong !!! I still subconsciously and consciously use the arrow shaft below my eyes as a reference point to know my windage is correct..I then subconsciously project the arrows path in relation to how high or low I need to lift my bow, thus referencing elevation... If you think you are an instinctive archer, try shooting at that target your trying to hit at night when the sun goes down, Let me know how you get on !!! The brain needs reference to calculate a target.. Impossible to even draw a bow without some form of direction or reference !!
The idea that it is cheating I sadly say does come, when coming from other archers, from my fellow instinctive shooters and I think that comes from the gap in how each group sites in. An instinctive shooter has to shoot each distance regularly to reinforce the subconscious memory for that distance where a site using archer just has to site in once and can practice form at any distance and this creates a perception that the sited archer doesn't have to work as hard ie cheating. [I say sited archer because my "traditional" set up uses an aluminum riser and carbon limbs so only trad in form IMO] I also believe that this "cheating" belief exists more in newer archers and pure traditionalists, if you shoot instinctive for a while and you really work at it you instinctively start using other reference points, your brain looks for them because it wants to shoot better.
It all comes down to practice, example: in the Halloween holiday shoots this year (we did one each week of October) our shop put on a zombie shoot, one week it came down to 2 bare-bow trads shooting at 30yds because all the sited archers, compound and re-curve, had lost. This was because most of the shooters were not regular shooters, most were hunters that prepped a few weeks before their tag's date, no amount of tech or sites could offset for not practicing.
As a primarily instinctive archer it does feel at times like my friends who use site are cheating, typically when I'm having a bad day, but there is an aspect to your discussion on siting methods that I feel you skipped, versatility. I recognize that as an instinctive shooter I'm utilizing the aiming method with the lowest precision and accuracy but with the greatest versatility, to use any of the sites or sighting methods that you mentioned you need to be able to put a rough number on the distance where as an instinctive shooter uses his subconscious to take care of that and this can be advantageous in the field.
Though non of this philosophizing or realizations will stop me from telling my buddies "Fuck your fancy sites" when I out shoot said fancy sites :) this is particularly fun to say when I do it with my horse bow. [These situations are rare and not the norm, but it is so much fun to say when it does happen]
I consider range estimation to be a different skill to sighting. Instinctive doesn't have an advantage there - what advantage it may have comes from familiarity in applying that skill, which is not exclusive to instinctive shooting. The process is the same across the methods: "This target looks like it's around 23 metres away, and it's down hill, so I'll aim around here".
Just remember that this isn't a discussion on instinctive archery. That's a video for a different time. This is about why using a sight is not dissimilar to other methods of aiming.
@@NUSensei 1) Yes I did get a little off topic and wow in rereading that was I kind of all over the place. But more often then not I am agreeing with you in my rambling way.
I would disagree that range estimation is part of siting for those who shoot unmarked regardless of whether you use sites, siting methods, or instinctive.
The main points I wanted to get across is 1) that sadly most of this comes from my style but stating that even instinctive shooters use reference points, which is what a site is, we only notice it once we really try to improve the skill, 2) as such not making it cheating just a different way of doing the same thing, we instinctive archers don't tend to be as purely instinctive as we like to think, and 3) that I felt you skipped out on the versatility that is a component.
As to that being a different video I get that, but I think you need to state a set of parameters or assumptions with these videos because they come across as you talking about the whole of archery instead of just target archery and as such you do come across as condescending towards the traditional archers and their pride in their style and as such we feel a need to defend it. I don't believe this is your intention I believe you are just tired of hearing shit about this point.
I love the discussion these videos provoke
Yes they are
Ultimately, shouldn't we all strive to be the master who can draw that straight line without a ruler? 😉
They are if you're in a barebow or traditional competition...
Pretty sad that firearms enthusiasts would draw incorrect conclusions. If anything, the recurve sight is like a shotgun bead. You don't even get a rear sight to align it with. The repeatability of your shots are completely reliant on consistent bow/gun mounting/drawing.
With iron sights, it doesn't matter so much how you hold it so long as you line up the sights and you have a good trigger pull (see Jerry Miculek shooting pistols held upside down). With a bead / recurve sight, if your hold is inconsistent, your sight could be actively telling you to shoot where your arrow isn't going to go.
It is a different skill, a different sport. Driving a car is not cheating in a car race but it is cheating in a bike race... Olympic archery is as different from traditional archery as car racing is from bike racing, maybe more different...
Actually as a traditional longbow shooter I watched the Olympic archery and recognised the similarities we have in technique if not in equipment. The same basics of back tension, alignment, clean release etc are needed for a good shot in either form.
A lot of people believe that if you can't pick up any bow in the middle of a forest and shoot a deer in the hesrt 50 yards away, then you aren't an archer.
I just like the more traditional look.
Why would they be? Granted, if you're competing, the point is that the tools are equal.
not only do some people know what a sight does they dont even know what a sight is
I think that the issue fueling this discussion is that many people who don't know much about history have a romanticized view of it. While I don't believe that we, in modernity, have gotten everything right, I have good reason to believe that people in the past sucked at a lot of things that modern people do very well because of the knowledge and technology that we have access to.
I'll be covering the romanticising of history in a separate video.
@@NUSensei Great! Looking forward to it...
I don't use "sights", but I can't believe there are people who would get upset if I did. Tomorrow I may change my mind, and my conscience wouldn't bother me at all.
if i were making this video, it would have stopped at about the one minute point, where Nu made the point that "there isnt a specific set of rules, therefore using sights is not cheating", very simple logic. to say that using sights is cheating is as silly as a boxer saying mma is cheating. well it would be if a fighter is using mma techniques in a boxing match, but this not bcoz he kicks, but bcoz he violates the rule of boxing.
Likewise, someone shouting that "modern archery isn't real archery" is forgetting the likelihood that in a "real" fight, the boxer wouldn't be wearing gloves, and his opponent probably has a knife.
NUSensei i think its just like hamlet, everyone (or every group of people engaging in archery) has their own version of what archery is supposed to be. i dont think theres anything wrong with it. the problem is when they try to superimpose their version onto someone else's, forgetting different disciplines in archery all have the same root: someone in Africa (for argument sake) tied a string to both ends of a stick and then launched another stick with the intention of hitting something, all disciplines are branches on the same evolutionary tree of archery. in this regard, to say that the techniques employed in one discipline is cheating is like saying Caucasians are cheating in dairy because Asians are mostly lactose intolerant. its not cheating, its adaptation.
Who thought sights were cheating, I mean even if you don’t have a sight or scope on a gun you still have iron sights on it
first time i tried archery i tried sights and couldnt figure them out so i ditched them.
also i just realized im an instinctive shooter according to this video. i dont aim for long i just draw and shoot and i usually hit the target (im not very experienced yet, only started doing this in late september or so)
Nothing is cheating when hunting for game. Every hunter in history has used the best that could be obtained. This is the mindset, not for cheating, for what is important. That being a clean kill.and recovered of the animal.
Competition archery is like rifle competitions. You have everything from traditional to unlimited. I like these peep sights built into the string, in conjunction with the adjustable sights. I have always been a fan of aperture sights.