What Tunning methods were used by the great archers in the past?

[Pon]

Not a question about the methods per se, but do you know if there is any evidence of the tunning methods the Legends of our sport used?

What kind of tunning did Howard Hill liked?  Bare shaft, paper or walk back for Fred Bear?

please excuse me if my english is not very good

[sweeney3]

Pretty sure most of them just shot and tweaked untill they hit the right spot after something like a pretty flight in route.  Non-conforming arrows would be culled or grouped together so that sets were matching.

I don't know this, but from what I can tell it seems like that was essentially what they did.

[Don Batten]

In howard hills book, he said that he shot his hunting arrows into a sandpile by his shop. he'd have one group right, left and center. He then kept them separate from each other and then he'd know if he needed to aim right, left, or center. Yep, Old Howard was not an instinctive shooter, but a pretty good shot anyway.

[Steve H.]

I know it didn't involve bareshafting and paper tuning, lol.

[Pon]

Originally posted by Steve H.:
I know it didn't involve bareshafting and paper tuning, lol.

that is exactly what I was wanting to read!    

Thank you all

[lovethehunt]

I think these two flew the same!

[sou-pawbowhunter]

I recall reading somewhere that Fred Bear would start with matched, but slightly weak shafts, then tweak and build out the side plate till he was satisfied with the arrow flight.

[Benny Nganabbarru]

If you can hit the target with your practice arrows, and your broadheads hit the same, then you're pretty good.

[snag]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with an old friend who flew planes in WWII. He was really impressed with the electronics in modern day planes and jets and how much they help in being accurate in your calculations. Compared to WWII planes that they just flew by "the seat of their pants".
Nowadays we can calculate the reaction of materials when bending and under force to get a pretty good idea of their reaction...i.e. Stu's calculator. They didn't have this benefit years ago. I think some guys who lived back in the 20's and 30's would be pretty impressed with the efficiency of our setups today.

[Bjorn]

When we read about the kills they made, Hill, Bear, Hugh Rich, Bob Morley and many many more, they apparently killed animals at 75 yds. So whereas their equipment and tuning were inferior; were their skills were vastly superior; or was it just volume, or did they just not include the missing and wounding in the books and stories?

[Jim now in Kentucky]

I think they just didn't include the misses and wounding. Although Saxton Pope spoke of hits we would consider bad, but he followed them up and called them lethal.

[Rusty in Fla.]

I think if the old timers could see how far tuning has advanced today they'd have to wonder why we don't shoot better than we do?

  Cause here I sit with this computer when I could be practicing.

[Shawn Leonard]

I believe they made the bow fit the arrow back than as said above, weak shafts build out side plate. Stiff shafts reduce it, maybe add weight to point with a stiff shaft like we do. I have to disgree with Ben above, I can take some arrows that are spined pretty lousy for a particular bow and fletch up at 15-20 yards hit what I am looking at, but penetration would be lousy. A perfect flying arrow penetrates way better than a poor flying one! Shawn