I am not sure how to explain what I perceive after reading a lot of the responses on this thread, but I will add a little more mud to this watery debate. When I read the original article put forth, it indicated that the average guy could work up to heavier bows if he was willing to do the work. This, by nature of the writer's tone, implies the ability to place an arrow appropriately and to use adequate broadheads, proper form, etc.
Some of the proponents of the light bows (and this is solely my interpretation of some of the responses I have read so far)go on to emphasize that arrow placement is the key as if they think it unlikely that the average archer is capable of achieving this same degree of form and control with the heavier bow.
It is my belief that the original writer of the article was simply a believer that a hunter should consider a heavy bow, and that he believes that shot for shot a heavier bow/arrow is likely to perform more effectively than lighter equipment. In other words, not a put down to lighter equipment but rather seeking a slight performance edge. Keep in mind that his article was written at a time when many gun hunters and game managers did not feel that any archery tackle is sufficient for hunting, and many of these were in open opposition to the legalization of bow hunting.
I really am enjoying this thread, because of all items of discussion related to bow hunting, I think most hunters feel more passionate about this topic than any other. If archery lasts for another thousand years, archers will be participating in discussions just like this. I love it.
Topic: a heavy bow article worth reading (Read 1711 times)
