instinctive shooting v aiming

[joe nichols]

I just combleted my first bow build and since I've started shooting, I have come across a thought/question.  What exactly is instinctive shooting.
The night I got my bow to a shootable state, it was dark so my neighbor shined a light at the target for a few shots.  I could not see the arrow but it wasn't that bad of a group, for me.  The next day, I shot and the group was horrible.  I have tried this a few other times and it seems I am better when I don't even look at the arrow.  If that makes any sence.
Is this instinctive shooting?

[McDave]

Instinctive shooting means that you aim without the use of any external references, such as the tip of the arrow, marks on the bow, etc.  You focus on the target and release the arrow when you feel like the bow is lined up, like you would throw a basketball to the hoop or a baseball to the first baseman.  It is possible to focus on the mark you want to hit to the extent that the mark is the only thing you see, just like you can focus on a single star long enough that all the other stars seem to disappear.  The argument is, where instinctive shooting ends and aiming using outside references begins.  For example, what if you see the arrow point in your peripheral vision, but you don't place it in any particular position to aim the shot?  There is really no answer to this question, but there is somewhat of a grey area between pure instinctive shooting and gap aiming.

If you haven't already, you should get Fred Asbell's book, "Instinctive Shooting" and read it.

[moebow]

McDave pretty much covered it, IMO.

I will add that if you have poor groups, it is not your aiming method.  Your shot execution is what produces good groups, any of the aiming methods just move your groups to the bull's eye.

Sounds like you are new to to this.  I'd suggest just placing your bow hand in the middle of the target and just shoot for a while.  Get used to the shot execution and you will find better groups.  That will be the time to start trying to aim.

Arne

[joe nichols]

Both great responses.  Thank you.
 I just spent an hour with my son and I shooting.  He seems to do better using the arrow as a refference.  I do better just looking at the target.  If I close one eye and take a few seconds I can get a nice tight group, aiming with the arrow, I  actually broke a knock.  But I get just as tight and quicker just eying the spot.  
I will just shoot for a while without expectations and see what happens.
Again, thank you

Originally posted by moebow:
McDave pretty much covered it, IMO.

I will add that if you have poor groups, it is not your aiming method.  Your shot execution is what produces groups....


Arne

Oh my!  Everyone needs to GET that one.

Originally posted by Jim Casto Jr:
 

Originally posted by moebow:
McDave pretty much covered it, IMO.

I will add that if you have poor groups, it is not your aiming method.  Your shot execution is what produces good groups....


Arne

Oh my!  Everyone needs to GET that one. [/b]

Matter of fact it was soooo good, I thought I'd post it twice.      

[Terry Green]

" What exactly is instinctive shooting."

Subconscious aiming using eye and hand coordination.

[LongStick64]

Right on the money Terry !!! Now why is it so hard for some to understand that

[Diamond Paul]

Instinctive shooting is what I use; you don't consciously use the arrow or any other external aiming device.  It works fine, but it does have its limitations, mostly in terms of being competitive in organized target-type shooting, especially as the distances get longer.  I don't see too much difference between a good instinctive shooter and someone who gaps, in any of its many forms, at shorter ranges, like twenty and in.  Yes, a good gap shooter is going to score better on a twenty yard NFAA indoor round, but in terms of practical hunting accuracy there isn't much to distinguish between them.  Since instinctive shooting success is a function of hand-eye coordination and concentration, it may be subject to greater variation in day to day consistency than gapping or other forms of using a "sight."  Just like NBA shooters have good nights and bad nights from the three point line, so will instinctive shooters.  Arne nailed it, though.  Form will determine how consistent your groups are, not your aiming method.

[Terry Green]

Heck if I know...and its not 'limited to 20 yards' either.  Another misnomer folks that don't understand instinctive like to state.

[Skates]

Yeah, I just shake my head at the 20 yard statement.  Not sure where that started or came from but like you said, probably from a non-instinctive shooter.  Nice answer, most times shorter is better.

[Terry Green]

The man asked a simple question, and I gave a simple answer.

   

[Jake Scott]

"Tradgang.com is 100% totally devoted to traditional bowhunting."  BOWHUNTING.  

The quoted phrase is the very first sentence on the Tradgang homepage.  Bowhunting is the emphasis here, not 3D or field archery.  I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with anyone (excuse the off color phrasing).  My point was that BOWHUNTERS are capable of the same pinpoint accuracy as gap shooters shooting at targets.  Targets that induce no heart thumping or knee shaking emotional responses.  A lot of bowhunters gap shoot very successfully.  The idea that instinctive shooters are capable of less accuracy than gap shooters doesn't hold water, because once again, we are discussing BOWHUNTING, not winning 3D tournaments.

Jake

[Diamond Paul]

Not less accuracy, just not on such a consistent basis.  I shoot instinctively, so not trying to get into a pissing contest.  Bowhunting and target shooting really don't have much in common, other than the bow.  I guess my point was that one can be a very good hunter with either method, and that one can be the best target shooter in the world and not so great in the woods, and vice-versa.  However, the only objective method of measuring absolute, consistent accuracy is to shoot groups on paper at various distances.  That's why benchrest rifle contests don't use three shot groups as a measuring stick, and why field shooters don't shoot at one distance.  Distance and number of shots pretty quickly gives an objective assessment of your shooting ability.  I don't want to gap, no interest in it, and I do fine out to 35 yards.  I'm not going to be in the last group at any ASA or IBO shoots, but I'm not going to win any, either.  That's ok with me, but I acknowledge that there is a difference in what one can expect with different aiming systems.

[Jake Scott]

Paul,
I see where you're going now.  Valid points, and I agree.  Haha, just took a minute for us to arrive at the same point I guess.  Best of luck afield.

Jake

[Diamond Paul]

Best of luck to you, too, Jake.  Nerves get the best of me in the field, so I need all that I can get!

Paul

[mgf]

In regards to measurement there are two separate quantities.

"Accuracy" which describes how close to the target we can expect a group to be.

"Precision" which describes how repeatable our shooting is.

In other words "accuracy" is basically group location and "precision" is basically group size.

Any measurement we make is really only valid under the conditions we make the measurement...yep, you might be great on the comfortable range and lousy from the freezing cold uncomfortable hunting stand...or good from the tree stand and lousy with the pressure of an audience on a range.

I view my measurements of accuracy and precision on my backyard range as a baseline. It gives me a way to tell whether I'm getting better or not and how much.

[mgf]

I like the idea of shooting "instinctively". It's just that my instincts don't seem to be very reliable.

Sometimes I don't remember seeing the arrow and lay them all right in there. Sometimes I can even do it out in the dark yard at night. Other times, I use the tip of the arrow just like a sight pin.

I don't know...my squirrel rifle has a scope on it and my shotguns all had a bead on the end of the barrel.

I guess I'm just not confident that I can reliably hit much unless I "aim".

[Diamond Paul]

I've really, really considered going three under and learning to use some form of gap.  It makes a lot of sense on many levels.  Even if you just wanted to learn to shoot the Rick Welch way, three under gets the arrow closer to the eye and allows you to shoot shorter bows, for hunting, without finger pinch, which is a good reason in itself.  It seems to allow me a stronger grip on the string with my hand still relaxed, too; I feel like I am stronger pulling the bow, in other words, using three under.  However, I have not been able to incorporate these things into my shooting.  Maybe if I took Rod Jenkins' class and had hands-on instruction I could learn to do it, I don't know.  I just have never been comfortable trying to use a gapping system, or sticking with three under.  I don't, like some people, find it makes the bow all that loud, but I just feel more comfortable using split and ignoring the arrow as a sighting reference.  I do realize that I am using it, just not in a conscious, systematic way.  Getting my form down has made instinctive shooting pretty reliable for me.  When I get out past thirty-five yards, I do tend to miss my elevation more often, although my groups are about the same size; typically, they will be low of the spot.  I have to consciously make myself elevate the bow at longer ranges, so I guess I actually cease to be truly instinctive at longer ranges.  At any rate, I enjoy shooting this way, and it works well as far as I care to shoot deer.

[LongStick64]

Keep in mind 3 Under does not get the arrow closer to you eye unless you raise your anchor. If you shoot split and anchor with the middle finger in the corner or your mouth, is the same as shooting 3  under with the index finger in the corner of your mouth.