Aiming method

[the rifleman]

McDave well described the approach I use to get my arrow to hit where I want.  I tried a variety of aiming styles from instinctive to gap at the target as well as crawling and this method of referencing the sideplate has been my go to for the past three years.  My accuracy and consistency have never been better.  The great thing about this method for me is that it works well for me in the deer woods and is legal at any 3D shoot that I attend.  I should also say that as this has become ingrained it has become less of a hard reference and just something that I pick up in my secondary vision.
We are all wired differently and have individual learning styles and how we perceive stimuli, so what works best for one may not work for everyone. I wasn't happy with my shooting and felt that it had plateaued so I explored different approaches until I found what worked for me---and then ingrained it with lots of shooting every day.  I always like to see others exploring ways to become better.

[TSP]

Finally, a topic that's never been discussed or argued about before.   

Here's just another opinion that happens to be mine, so it is very highly respected and valued by at least one person.

Not everyone aims when shooting arrows but everyone does point their arrows when shooting.  Aiming means using some (I'll call it artificial) device to aid in pointing...like a sight pin, arrow tip, knuckle, fingertip, dot or tape mark, riser edge, strike plate, etc.  Gapping involves aiming since it relies on the air space between the arrow tip (or shaft), and the arrow point itself (artificial devices) to estimate where to point.  Anything else that doesn't require any of these artificial aids to point the arrow at the mark is basically just pointing the arrow...some call it instinctive but regardless it does not require any sighting to assess where to send the arrow.  With regard to aiming vs. pointing there is no such thing as 'gapstinctive' or 'split vision' types of instinctive, terms that are often cleverly used to mask what is simply a variation of aiming.  Instinctive (not really but that's a common name given to it) truly is rather simple in nature...you look at the mark, point the arrow using the skills God gave you to do so...yes like throwing a ball or forking food into your mouth or looking over a car's hood to drive it), and rely on that 'picture' to complete the pointing and the shot.  Simple in practice yes, simple in how it works...not so much.  Beyond the interesting science of 'how' there's also a very real system involved in how one's body applies it, one that ironically everyone uses regularly even if without conscious thought.  No amount of denial can change this reality, though many will try to wordsmith complicated denials.  But there's no denying, you can direct arrows (or most any projectile) without 'aiming' them.  And there's a satisfaction in doing so, in applying that 'natural pointing system' with regular success, that aiming simply has not and cannot match.  It's part of the sneaky multitude of perks that keeping it real and low-tech brings. 

Of course, there's no harm in aiming if that's your preference.  But please, if you want to be a target shooting hero be transparent and consider forgetting the pretenses involved with '"I'm not really aiming my arrows just using my artificial devices to best advantage' approaches.  Much better to just put a sight on your bow and enjoy the maximum precision that actual aiming hardware brings.  The rest of us will wish you best of luck with your choice and be on our way, with arrows pointed with instinctive simplicity using bows also once regarded as simple sticks and strings (how ironic is that).  That's about as close to furthering the idea of traditional as we're likely to get without actually defining the term itself (which for some reason we all seem loath to do).  And I'm fine with that.

[Terry Green]

Nice TSP, very well said. 

[McDave]

With regard to aiming vs. pointing there is no such thing as 'gapstinctive' or 'split vision' types of instinctive, terms that are often cleverly used to mask what is simply a variation of aiming.

One little correction, TSP.  “Split vision” is the term popularized by Howard Hill to describe his aiming system.  He never claimed that it was instinctive; in fact, he specifically stated that he was not an instinctive shooter.  He used the term to make a distinction between his system of aiming and gap aiming, which he also didn't like.  In gap aiming, gaps are calculated based on estimating the distance to the target and correlating that distance to a memorized or written chart of gaps.  In split vision aiming, Howard placed the arrow point above, on, or below the spot he wanted to hit based on his previous experience with similar shots, without calculating anything.  I suppose you could call the distance between where he was aiming and the point he wanted to hit a “gap” in common parlance, but the word has a more specific meaning in archery.

If these distinctions are not important to you, and you believe anyone who doesn't shoot instinctively should just use bow sights instead, that is your right.  However, there are many of us who enjoy shooting in tournaments or hunting without using bow sights or shooting instinctively.  I mean, it worked pretty well for Howard, and some of the rest of us would like to emulate him, or even change his method a little bit to suit ourselves. 😊

[Captain*Kirk]

I started out gapping and did very well with it. But being strongly left eye dominant and strongly right handed, this meant closing my left eye. I switched over to instinctive and had some adaptation issues, and I don't group as well consistently but when hunting whitetails, I never felt closing one eye was the right thing to be doing. Also, gapping requires one to absolutely know the distance. 2 feet off can mean a complete miss, and I don't feel the need to drag a rangefinder around in the woods for a 20 yard shot.

[Sam McMichael]

Sorry, TSP. but I just can't accept your premise that instinctive is not an aiming method. I looked up the definition of aiming and it referred to pointing or directing a shot at the target. It did not stipulate the use of a mechanical sight or a physical calculation. A human brain can handle the computational requirements. I'm not trying to start an argument, but I do say that in one way or another we all aim, and yes that does include "pointing" the arrow at the target with the intent of hitting it.

[LookMomNoSights]

McDave and Sam clear some smoke with this .......  excellent points.
Now the O.P. clearly asked ........ "What aiming method" do you use?  If "aiming" is only for the target heros utilizing sights on there bows,  then I suppose aiming is something that a 100% instinctive shooter does not do ..... so they have no aiming method?  so the original question does not pertain to them so much?   

[Terry Green]

McDave and Sam clear some smoke with this .......  excellent points.
Now the O.P. clearly asked ........ "What aiming method" do you use?  If "aiming" is only for the target heros utilizing sights on there bows,  then I suppose aiming is something that a 100% instinctive shooter does not do ..... so they have no aiming method?  so the original question does not pertain to them so much?   

I answered the question....

'I aim with my eyes'. 

[LookMomNoSights]

McDave and Sam clear some smoke with this .......  excellent points.
Now the O.P. clearly asked ........ "What aiming method" do you use?  If "aiming" is only for the target heros utilizing sights on there bows,  then I suppose aiming is something that a 100% instinctive shooter does not do ..... so they have no aiming method?  so the original question does not pertain to them so much?   

I answered the question....

 

'I aim with my eyes'. 

   and there ya go, perfect!  Maybe that's my answer as well,  seeing as though I have a hard time explaining to someone who asks,  how I aim and shoot accurately.  I'm stealing your line Terry,  just sayin'

[Captain*Kirk]

I answered the question....
'I aim with my eyes'. 

Interesting perspective, and description. Because I've noticed since beginning to shoot 'instinctive' that I no longer have any visible perception of the bow, arrow or point, as opposed to when I was gapping (using the point to judge the gap) Both eyes are firmly fixed on the target.

[LookMomNoSights]

I answered the question....
'I aim with my eyes'. 

Interesting perspective, and description. Because I've noticed since beginning to shoot 'instinctive' that I no longer have any visible perception of the bow, arrow or point, as opposed to when I was gapping (using the point to judge the gap) Both eyes are firmly fixed on the target.

I'll mention again as I did in a spine post, Masters of the Bare Bow Vol II ........ Gary Davis talks about this aiming method and how the eyes cannot focus on something near and something far, at the same time.  You only need to try that once to see that it's absolutely true.  Now what someone can do though,  is switch the focus back and forth, referencing both factors,  before lets say committing to focusing on only one factor,  such as the target,  at the moment of the shot.

[Captain*Kirk]

I'll mention again as I did in a spine post, Masters of the Bare Bow Vol II ........ Gary Davis talks about this aiming method and how the eyes cannot focus on something near and something far, at the same time.  You only need to try that once to see that it's absolutely true.  Now what someone can do though,  is switch the focus back and forth, referencing both factors,  before lets say committing to focusing on only one factor,  such as the target,  at the moment of the shot.

I can agree with this...when gapping, that was essentially what I was doing. Shifting between setting the gap and focusing on the target before release. Now, when shooting instinctively, I don't even look at the arrow.

[TSP]

Some good comments.

McDave, I think you misinterpreted my earlier post.  I'm familiar with Hill's system and never said he shot instinctively (because he didn't).  My point was that others today that purport to use his split vision system DO often suggest that he shot 'sort of' instinctively and seem to delight in also suggesting that his split vision gapping method is kind of pseudo-instinctive (my term).  My belief (an opinion) is that one cannot use mechanical aides/devices as a necessary step to applying their 'aiming' approach and then claim they shoot 'almost' instinctively.  It flies in the face of common sense.  That's not a subjective view about anyone's choices (I care not if one aims or points, it's up to them) but rather a perspective based on the very real differences in aiming mechanically vs. pointing instinctively.  One cannot have their cake and eat it too, at least not both at the same time. 

Sam, its intersteing that in the vast and ever-evolving (may I say marginally chaotic) world of traditional archery one is hard-pressed to find a credible or at least widely accepted definition of what traditional archery actually is (and yes, I've tried), let alone what the finer points of aiming mean.  And yet your first step in addressing the aiming question is to reach for the dictionary to look up the formal and quite generic meaning of 'aim' as if it can be applied directly without much forethought to the act of shooting an arrow?  Lol, I think there's more than a little irony in that approach but hey, but I admire your attempt.  At least its more credible than how many would approach it.

The differences between aiming and instinctive are real, we just choose to ignore them because its convenient to do so and avoids conflict in our own world of biases and personal convictions.  I get that.  With my take on the differences I'm not trying to belittle either of the approaches, just trying to clarify those real differences.  No malice or slight-of-hand is intended. 

How we direct our arrows does have a role in what we do.  It deserves more clarity and attention than what we give it.
     

 

[McDave]

I am in general agreement with TSP's comments above.

However, on a slightly different subject, there have been a few recent comments among these posts pertaining to gap aiming that I take issue with.

When gap shooting, if the shooter's focus shifts between the spot to be hit and the point of the arrow, one should let down the shot and start over again.  No good gap shooter does that; there is no way Howard Hill could have shot so accurately with so short a hold time if he had done that.  If there is one thing that good gap shooters and good instinctive shooters agree on, it is that one's eye should remain focused on the spot from the moment aiming starts until the arrow is sticking out of the target.

It is true that one cannot focus on things at different distances at the same time.  But just because one is not focusing on them doesn't mean that they go away; the image of the arrow point is still there in your out of focus peripheral vision, and that is what good gap shooters use to aim the shot.  And that is what Howard Hill meant by “split vision:” an in-focus vision of the target at the same time there is an out-of-focus vision of the arrow point.

Some people find it easy to achieve split vision; others have to work at it, but most people, after they understand the concept, manage to do it without too much of a struggle.

Some instinctive shooters have the opposite problem of learning to ignore the arrow point until it seemingly vanishes.  Some people evidently are unable to master this, and some of those people deny that it is even possible to ignore the arrow point to that degree, and that everybody who says they can do this are just trying to kid themselves and everyone else.  Are some people really so ignorant that they truly believe that the only things that are possible are the things that they themselves can do?

[GCook]

Personally I've shot without sighting for the length of my traditional journey until the last two months and have been fairly successful in keeping meat in my and other folks freezers shooting that way.  However I chose to make a change and although I shoot some 3D matches I don't consider myself a target hero or even much good at it because even using a gap system you have to be pretty good at judging distances.  Still, at 35 yards and under I tend to be in foam more than not.  Plus when it is flesh I need to be as sure as I can I put the arrow in the right spot.  So even if they are as close as I always have shot without sighting (under 20 yards) having a way to be a bit more consistent makes sense to me.
And the comments about aiming at the ground and stuff is true, it's not really workable for me. So with a combination of anchor point and arrow length I can have my arrow point within 4" of where I want to hit from 12 to 25 yards.  Under 12 I still just look  at the spot I want to hit and the brain does it's thing.
I understand the satisfaction that comes from not sighting and letting my brain/eye/ body do it's thing and get it done.  I also understand the disgust when somehow it fails to do it as well as I like and I lose a wounded animal.
What I don't understand is why guys who use the non sighting method of shooting look on those who use sighting methods with such disdain.
I also don't understand why those who can only use a sighting method don't believe others can shoot well without using an "aiming" or sighting method and want to go to such lengths to prove they actually do use one. 
Why does it threaten folks what method someone else uses?

[LookMomNoSights]

This is only an opinion that I have ........ I could care less how anybody gets their arrow to the target because I do it my way and it works for me and that's what I need to shoot animals or anytime I want to put an arrow on a spot.  I don't care if you have a physical reference point on your bow that you use for gapping or you can put them in the kill or on the bullseye with no defined approach that you can explain to a person.  We have the freedom to do what we want.  Some enjoy trying new things, new methods,  even after decades of going at it.  Sometimes only for the purpose of understand an different way and sometimes to try and improve on something they are not totally satisfied with.  Some have no desire to change anything whatsoever,  ever .....especially if it all works for them.  Good on all of it I say.  What I feel (opinion) is that sometimes, and this is just an example:  gap shooter vs. instinctive shooter - it can turn into the "well I used to walk to school,  up hill both ways in 3ft of snow with no shoes" type of thing.  Almost as if a true instinctive shooter is or should be regarded and recognized as "traditional"-er than someone who employs say a gaping method.  I think that until you get a hard sight mounted to your bow with pins or aperture of some sort,  you are shooting a bare bow and it's damn challenging.  You know what I'll never not enjoy?  Watching someone shoot a bare longbow or recurve with good form and put the arrows where they need to be with consistency.  Two shooters on a line shooting right next to each other,  putting arrows on the spot,  one is just looking and one is gapping,  but at a quick glance most couldn't tell the difference.  The only person that really knows what their eyes are seeing is that person actually shooting the bow.
 Split second shots made in the woods on game that result in meat in the freezer?  With a bare bow?   All very impressive (to me),  both challenging, both respected.
If the bow is bare,  it's cool to me. 

[Bowhunter57]

I have used an instinctive and/or gap method most of my life. It has worked well for me, but even so, I've always felt there could be something else that would enhance my accuracy.

A few years ago, I watched a YouTube video of Zach with "the push archery" and he explained several methods of shooting/aiming styles. I had heard of string walking, but never took an interest or had anyone explain the mechanics of it. After watching how string walking is used/applied, I decided to give it a try. Much to my amazement, my shooting accuracy greatly improved.

I've changed to shooting 3 fingers under and string walking. The only thing that I've ran into has been target panic, due to the thought process that goes with string walking. I may end up taking one of those Joel Turner courses to get out of it.

[PrimitivePete]

 I think the easiest way for me to describe the aiming process I use is subconscious aiming because outside of looking at the spot I want to hit I am not aware of any physical reference I am using. Some people would call this instinctive, but I believe instinctively aiming is not subconscious aiming. Although they are close and appear the same. The best example I can give is when Joel Turner asked my to point at a door in the distance. Just point, interestingly I was pointing at dead center of the door. I do not believe that was out of any instinct, but I agree with Joel it is how we are wired to subconsciously allow the mind to zero in on an object

[MSU]

I have been instinctive for 55 years,  mostly bow hunt and only shoot targets to stay in shape a bit and keep my routine. I pick a spot, do not reference arrow or sight aid. There are many ways to get the job done, do what works best for you.

[TSP]

Relative to my 'there's a difference between aiming and pointing' convictions I think that whether or not an individual has firm views and beliefs about such things in their practice of 'traditional archery' speaks volumes about what traditional archery actually is or has potential to become.  Indeed, how and why we practice almost anything in life says more about the substance of that practice than any word definition can accomplish.  And therein lies the need for us to pay attention and be thoughtful about the how and why part of the things we do. 

There is value and no small level of pride in feeling like there is something connecting us with the term traditional, something challenging, mentoring and even spiritual that we sort of feel but often stubbornly refuse to recognize.  If present within us, that 'something' expresses itself in how we shoot, what we shoot, why we shoot and yes even in things like how we 'aim'...or not.  It brings a sense of belonging and affirmation when we associate ourselves with a band of brothers otherwise know as 'trad'.  On the one hand we are drawn to the idea of having a particular way of doing archery 'simply' as it once was, but on the other hand in the process of practicing it we often (intentionally or not) deny or even ridicule the concept in favor of pretending it has no meaning and makes no difference...for convenience or selfish motives or money/recognition.  It is a peculiar thing this traditional archery, and like any other choices we must make it can define without words who we are as archers. 

So is what we shoot, how we shoot, what types of gear we shoot and what mindset we generally have about shooting important to the practice itself?  Of course it is.  Otherwise what would be the point of identifying ourselves with sites like this having specific name references (like 'TradGang') highlighting it?  This kind of name recognition psychology is not unlike a subconscious admission that things DO exist that set traditional apart from other forms or bow and arrow shooting.  Of sorts, the term itself is a badge of honor that we like to wear proudly but don't always defend in public discussions or personal practice/ways of doing things.  Perhaps we should.