Shooting Style Question

[coachA]

I have recently watched a youtube video called The Push. I brought up a lot of great points about archery and hunting. Why is it that a person that shoots truly instinctive sort of looks down their nose at a person that uses another type of aiming method? I just dont see where it is really a big deal. Its like the debate between the 270 and 30-06, does it really matter if the person is enjoying the time in the woods. I may be reading more into it than I should, we will see. From My personal experience, I rarely have time to shoot in the Fall because I am a Football coach and dont usually get home until after dark and there isnt a range close. So, I am probably going to convert to the Fixed crawl method of shooting because I dont have much practice time and this method will still allow me to possibly do some hunting during our bow season in Alabama. I am just curious to what your thoughts are about the subject?

[30coupe]

I'm an advocate of whatever works best for you. I don't see why it should matter to someone else how you shoot as long as what you do gives you enough accuracy to make clean kills.

I shoot instinctive, but I know other methods work. I tried the fixed crawl, but it made my bow louder, so I didn't mess with it long. The video was good though.

[Pine]

You do whatever you like .
This hobby is supposed to be enjoyable , so relax and do what you want .

[maineac]

Likewise, shoot what works for you.  I have shot instinctive so long that other methods are just to hard to pick up.  I do start to use the gap method at 30yds and beyond on targets.

[crazynate]

Just have fun with it and do what's best for you. I don't have perfect form  it I've out shot guys that think they do. It's all about fun.

[McDave]

To be honest, I don't recall reading about an instinctive shooter looking down on a person who uses another aiming method.  What I have read is when someone objects to someone else saying he shoots instinctively when the writer doesn't agree with the second person's definition of instinctive.  For some people, the definition of words is important and I suppose it is good to agree on what words mean.  However, when a person tries to make a moral issue out of it, I think they've gone a little too far.

[Red Beastmaster]

I'm a self taught instinctive shooter with hunting as my main archery interest. So is everyone I hang with, and it's a large group. I don't even know anyone who uses some other aiming method.

I honestly only look at what I want to hit. Not looking down my nose at all but gapping, crawling, walking, gun barreling or whatever is a mystery to me.

[coachA]

McDave
I can understand that. I haven't ever read anything about an instinctive archer looking down their nose. I have seen it though. I was not want to question any morals of anyone, I have just seen things that I didn't understand and was wondering.

[McDave]

Originally posted by coachA:
McDave
I can understand that. I haven't ever read anything about an instinctive archer looking down their nose. I have seen it though. I was not want to question any morals of anyone, I have just seen things that I didn't understand and was wondering.

Sorry Coach, I wasn't referring to you at all.  I kind of agree with you in fact.  To me, some of the arguments I have read about what is and what isn't instinctive seem kind of silly, that's all.

[buckeyebowhunter]

Not sure if he looks down on other methods but in his instinctive shooting book G. Fred describes instinctive shooting as the best aiming system for hunting because of the hunter's ability to quickly release an arrow at fast approaching game.

While I somewhat agree with Mr. Asbell, I also believe that most hunter's who consider themselves purely instinctive shots are not quite in fact shooting purely instinctive. Rod Jenkins calls out Daryl Quidort on this in the Master's series vol. 3 I believe.

I believe that just about any aiming system can be practiced in order to get off quicker shots at game, even gapping. And in my opinion most close shots (15 yds an under) are done practically instinctively anyway. Just find the best system for you and stick with it. If you feel as though ppl are going to look down on you just tell em you're shooting instinctive since you don't have sights anyway how would they know lol    

[forestdweller]

The divide or rather arguments come into play whenever those that use a string walking or GAP method say that their method is more accurate and better than instinctive.

It's only natural for the person that uses their own method to defend the method that they use.

If you watch "The Push" the maker of the video claims that string walking is superior to instinctive in a non direct manner.

Some people also look down on string walking because it was not a traditional method of shooting the bow unless you consider tradition to be within the 20th century to the present (less than 100 years).

With selfbow's and wooden composite bows and self nock's string walking would be nearly impossible and even if you did manage to prevent the arrow from popping off it would overly stress your bow resulting in breakage or vastly decreased durability.

That being said I believe that instinctive is vastly superior to string walking for many reasons.

[longbow fanatic 1]

Im a string walker during 3-d season and hunt with a fixed crawl. While shooting a 3-d with several trad friends, an acquaintance (instinctive archer) said, "if I had to shoot a trad bow the way you do, I would give up shooting trad." I had another archer (also an instinctive archer) during another 3-d outing say, " you're one of those anal archers." I let the comments go. I prefer to just remain silent and out shoot them.

[longbow fanatic 1]

Originally posted by forestdweller:
The divide or rather arguments come into play whenever those that use a string walking or GAP method say that their method is more accurate and better than instinctive.

It's only natural for the person that uses their own method to defend the method that they use.

If you watch "The Push" the maker of the video claims that string walking is superior to instinctive in a non direct manner.

Some people also look down on string walking because it was not a traditional method of shooting the bow unless you consider tradition to be within the 20th century to the present (less than 100 years).

With selfbow's and wooden composite bows and self nock's string walking would be nearly impossible and even if you did manage to prevent the arrow from popping off it would overly stress your bow resulting in breakage or vastly decreased durability.

That being said I believe that instinctive is vastly superior to string walking for many reasons.

I'm not here to start an argument, but with all due respect consider this. I'm not an archery historian, but I would venture a guess that prior to the 20th century there were no glass limb lams, carbon lams or limb veneers. Basically, self bows. You made the following statement: "Some people also look down on string walking because it was not a traditional method of shooting the bow unless you consider tradition to be within the 20th century to the present (less than 100 years)." If you follow the same logic, unless you're shooting a bow that you made, with arrows that you made, with obsidian broad heads you knapped, you're not traditional.

I hate this conversation, but lets be accepting of all trad archers. We are all on the same team. We, traditional archers, are a very accepting and non judgmental group, but sometimes we eat our own. Why? I don't know.

[forestdweller]

Deleted original comment because I don't want to create a fluster.

 

Originally posted by longbow fanatic 1:
 

Originally posted by forestdweller:
The divide or rather arguments come into play whenever those that use a string walking or GAP method say that their method is more accurate and better than instinctive.

It's only natural for the person that uses their own method to defend the method that they use.

If you watch "The Push" the maker of the video claims that string walking is superior to instinctive in a non direct manner.

Some people also look down on string walking because it was not a traditional method of shooting the bow unless you consider tradition to be within the 20th century to the present (less than 100 years).

With selfbow's and wooden composite bows and self nock's string walking would be nearly impossible and even if you did manage to prevent the arrow from popping off it would overly stress your bow resulting in breakage or vastly decreased durability.

That being said I believe that instinctive is vastly superior to string walking for many reasons.

I'm not here to start an argument, but with all due respect consider this. I'm not an archery historian, but I would venture a guess that prior to the 20th century there were no glass limb lams, carbon lams or limb veneers. Basically, self bows. You made the following statement: "Some people also look down on string walking because it was not a traditional method of shooting the bow unless you consider tradition to be within the 20th century to the present (less than 100 years)." If you follow the same logic, unless you're shooting a bow that you made, with arrows that you made, with obsidian broad heads you knapped, you're not traditional.

I hate this conversation, but lets be accepting of all trad archers. We are all on the same team. We, traditional archers, are a very accepting and non judgmental group, but sometimes we eat our own. Why? I don't know. [/b]

The bow's might not be traditional but many people prefer to shoot them the traditional way which put's the least amount of stress on the bow, is the safest way to shoot the bow, and is the most traditional way to shoot the bow.

[longbow fanatic 1]

Forest,

I really enjoyed your response. Consider this: Anyone, and I mean anyone, who joins our passion should be embraced. I shoot everything from an olympic style recurve with carbon arrows, to ILF hunting bows with carbon and aluminum arrows to wood longbows shot with self made wood arrows.

We are too small of a group to divide those among us who choose different equipment.    

[McDave]

Traditionally, I would guess that since back before recorded history, the one thing that all archers have had in common is that they all wanted to shoot the bow better than they did.  I would assume this included anything they could do to improve the accuracy of their equipment and anything they could do to improve their own skills.  Can you imagine a caveman hunter or an English archer before the battle of Agincourt saying, "Better not use the point of the arrow to aim with; it's not traditional, you know!"

In that sense, the compound bow and the crossbow are part of our same tradition of continually striving to find ways to improve our equipment.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with deciding that we want to limit ourselves to a particular style of shooting or a particular type of equipment, whatever our reasons may be.  But to do it because it is more traditional is somewhat of a misnomer, I think.

[forestdweller]

Originally posted by McDave:
Traditionally, I would guess that since back before recorded history, the one thing that all archers have had in common is that they all wanted to shoot the bow better than they did.  I would assume this included anything they could do to improve the accuracy of their equipment and anything they could do to improve their own skills.  Can you imagine a caveman hunter or an English archer before the battle of Agincourt saying, "Better not use the point of the arrow to aim with; it's not traditional, you know!"

In that sense, the compound bow and the crossbow are part of our same tradition of continually striving to find ways to improve our equipment.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with deciding that we want to limit ourselves to a particular style of shooting or a particular type of equipment, whatever our reasons may be.  But to do it because it is more traditional is somewhat of a misnomer, I think.

With that kind of thinking why don't we all just shoot teched out compounds using the latest gadgets than?

The reason why it's called traditional is because that's the way it has been done for thousands and thousands of years. String walking is not even 100 years old.

Saying that "But to do it because it is more traditional is somewhat of a misnomer, I think." is silly in my opinion.

People shoot traditional or do "traditional things" because it's much more rewarding, requires more skill, and is more personal among many other reasons.

[longbow fanatic 1]

Forest,

I don't shoot traditional archery to earn anyone's respect. What you or anyone else thinks of the way I shoot means nothing to me. Before the compound bow ( circa 1970s?) archer was simply called archery.  There was no traditional archery. Please dont judge other traditional archers because they dont shoot a single string the way you do.

[forestdweller]

Originally posted by longbow fanatic 1:
Forest,

I don't shoot traditional archery to earn anyone's respect. What you or anyone else thinks of the way I shoot means nothing to me. Before the compound bow ( circa 1970s?) archer was simply called archery.  There was no traditional archery. Please dont judge other traditional archers because they dont shoot a single string the way you do.

I don't judge anyone a certain way because they shoot a certain bow but in my opinion the highest achievement in archery is shooting lights out and taking game using both bows and arrows made out of natural materials that you made on your own just as how it was done for 6000+ years (traditional).

[longbow fanatic 1]

Forest,

On page one, you posted a response. I liked your response and responded as such. Then, you deleted your response. Then, you copied my comment and changed your response again. I'm no longer continuing my conversation on this topic. I feel that it's a pointless discussion.