Instinctive vs string walking, an interesting observation

[forestdweller]

I've been shooting instinctive for a little over a year and have played around with 3 under and even string walking due to a form of "grouping panic" that I have been having.

One thing that I have noticed is that shooting instinctive my first shot is almost always on the spot and very accurate even out to 40 yards.

Sometimes 50 yards when it comes to my first shot.....

Now when I played around with 3 under and string walking I noticed that grouping is much easier but the first shot at an unknown distance tends to be much less accurate but grouping easier.....

Perhaps this is the main reason why the greats like Hill, Pope & Young, Fred Bear, and so on all shot instinctive yet all of the top FITA barebow shooters in Europe shoot a sight method (string walking).

Has anyone else noticed this observation?

With that being said I'll never shoot string walking as it's just too damn slow and is the same as using a sight in my opinion which takes most of the fun out of archery for me.

[Schmidty3]

A fixed crawl fixes the "too damn slow". Can't help you with the fun part though  :p

My guess is that your instinctive shot may be better when you are shooting unknown yardage compared to the 3 under. My thought is maybe your range estimation is a bit off and that hurts 3 under with string walking. Which is sort of like a "sight" I guess. I'd rather refer to it as a shooting form calibration  :p

If you're string walking is dialed in. And you know the distance....well that's why its illegal in many tourneys right??? The key is judging that distance.

[Sam McMichael]

For hunting I would use the system that is most consistent on the first shot. Hopefully, in the field, a group will not ne important.

[McDave]

Instinctive works better when there are no conscious thoughts during the draw and release.  Therefore, the brain is fully receptive to physical reactions and sensations from the body.  Any cognitive thoughts, such as calculating an aiming point or causing the arrow point to be placed on that aiming point, reduces the capability of the brain to be receptive to physical inputs from the body.  So it is a give and take proposition: how much do you gain by having your brain fully engaged with your body, and how much do you lose by not engaging the analytical capability of the brain?  Can't have your cake and eat it too....

It makes sense to me that since an entirely different type of thinking is involved in string walking vs instinctive shooting, the results would also differ.  Differ not just in overall accuracy, but also conditionally, i.e. first shot accuracy, sustained accuracy, etc.

[reddogge]

For most the fun in archery is hitting the target or animal you are shooting at with the most reliable method for you. So that means not only instinctive but gapping, string walking, gun barreling, fixed crawl, split vision or anything else that will put the arrow on target when it counts.

[Medicare Bhtr]

Well said Red!

[forestdweller]

Originally posted by reddogge:
For most the fun in archery is hitting the target or animal you are shooting at with the most reliable method for you. So that means not only instinctive but gapping, string walking, gun barreling, fixed crawl, split vision or anything else that will put the arrow on target when it counts.

I agree with you but what's fun for one person is not fun for another.

I prefer being able to shoot without having to count strands on my strings (also making the bow go out of tune and become louder) and use my subconscious mind as my sight.

All of my heroes also shot split finger instinctive and there's something mystical yet traditional about it that methods like string walking can't touch.

I think for me even getting a kill using string walking I would not be satisfied because I consider it the same as using a sight and at that point I'd rather just go all the way and use a compound with a sight.

I shoot instinctive for the Zen like mystique behind it along with the tradition and hunting/shooting benefits behind it.

[TSP]

Mechanical and visual advantages when shooting a bow will sure make it easier for shooters to hit their target reliably, but in some measure the aspect of reward and self-challenge seems substantially (if not wholly) lacking if the hit is assured, and especially if the hit is more important than the how you do it.  

I suppose that's why many choose to shoot bows rather than guns...being repeatably easy to make the hit isn't their main objective.

[mgf]

Did Howard Hill shoot "instinctive"?

I thought he described "split vision"? I think he used the arrow. That sounds about like "gap" to me.

[Draven]

Originally posted by mgf:
Did Howard Hill shoot "instinctive"?

I thought he described "split vision"? I think he used the arrow. That sounds about like "gap" to me.

Almost, but the elevation adjustments are not as precise as the ones for gapping.

[mgf]

Sights on single string (trad) bows go WAY back. I don't know why it wouldn't be considered "traditional".

The reason I don't use a sight on my recurves and longbows is that, for the distance and accuracy, I don't need one. The arrow, or other references work well enough and, in theory, the chance for mechanical failure is lessened...sights can move.

[mgf]

I should also add that I don't think "aiming" is the hard thing about shooting a "traditional" bow.

Solid repeatable form and execution tends to send all the arrows to the same place. Pointing to that place is the EASY part. The small misses might be aiming errors but the big misses are form errors.

If your form and executions aren't good, a sight will NOT help you.

[McDave]

Originally posted by mgf:
I should also add that I don't think "aiming" is the hard thing about shooting a "traditional" bow.

Solid repeatable form and execution tends to send all the arrows to the same place. Pointing to that place is the EASY part. The small misses might be aiming errors but the big misses are form errors.

If your form and executions aren't good, a sight will NOT help you.

+1

I would add that in switching from instinctive to ANY reference aiming system, something is gained and something is lost.  Assuming your form is good enough to avoid the big misses noted by mgf, what is gained in switching to a reference aiming system is a certain mechanical repeatability and the ability to correct the trajectory based on the previous shot.  What is lost is the almost instantaneous instinctive accuracy your mind/body connection is capable of when cognitive thinking is not involved.

[mgf]

I don't disagree but I don't really think there's always such a distinct line between aiming methods.
 
An archer with solid repeatable form and execution has a bunch of aiming options and can mix and match as he/she pleases.

Without the repeatable form and execution you just miss all the time unless you just get lucky.

I'm really not sure why we spend so much time/energy think and arguing about aiming methods and what we call them when "aiming" is, generally, such a small part of what it takes to make a good shot.

[TSP]

There are those who don't believe in traditional archery per se, that maximized archery accuracy must be the paramount concern regardless of the means used or the situation faced, and who prefer aiming discussions restricted to how one shoots a rifle...i.e. with some sort of artificial sighting or gaping mechanism like a pin, arrow tip, arrow ferrule, etc.    

Thankfully not everyone has those convictions, otherwise we'd all be in deep training competition for the next IBO National Championship (trad division, BTW) and TradGang itself wouldn't be needed since there's already a boatload of sites dedicated primarily to target archery concepts and methods.

Thankfully.

[TSP]

There are those who don't believe in traditional archery per se, that maximized archery accuracy must be the paramount concern regardless of the means used or the situation faced, and who prefer aiming discussions restricted to how one shoots a rifle...i.e. with some sort of artificial sighting or gaping mechanism like a pin, arrow tip, arrow ferrule, etc.    

Thankfully not everyone has those convictions, otherwise we'd all be in deep training competition for the next IBO National Championship (trad division, BTW) and TradGang itself wouldn't be needed since there's already a boatload of sites dedicated primarily to target archery concepts and methods.

Thankfully.