It was only a score of years ago that the “Holy Grail” for custom rifle accuracy was minute of angle. By custom, I refer to hand massaged actions mated to after market barrels usually with specially tailored ammunition. Nowadays, to be competitive in the sporting arms business, virtually every rifle above $500 is expected to perform at this level and with factory produced premium ammunition. This mythical minute of angle goal…or standard…was arrived at by those interested in long range hunting/marksmanship/martial applications. One MOA is a little over ten inches at one thousand yards. Most North American game has a vital area (the area through which a shot can be placed and reasonably expect the animal’s rapid expiration) of about ten inches and thus has direct bearing on a long range hunter’s theoretical maximum lethal range. You may debate the ethics and other issues regarding hunting at such extended ranges but the fact remains, this IS the standard by which rifles are judged. That debate is not the subject of this post. After reading many responses to other accuracy questions and statements to posts I have made here and other places, I realized the subject of “standardized testing” for archery equipment does not appear feasible to many of you. For those who do not believe testing along these lines within the bounds of reality, I beg your indulgence and suggest perhaps you follow another thread. For those of you tired of being told bow manufacture and set up is akin to “black magic” and that knowledge should be retained only by a select few (the “Archery Intelligencia”…no, I don’t think Hillary Clinton is an archer) please give the following consideration. The great Chuck Adams has written that he believes acceptable hunting accuracy equates to a one inch diameter group per ten yards of distance to the target. In other words, a twenty yard distance equals a two inch diameter group, a fifty yard distance, a five inch group, etc, etc. For our purposes this is a ten minute of angle group. At one hundred yards the grouping would be just over ten inches in diameter. Once again, I am not suggesting shooting at game from one hundred yards. This is for discussion purposes only. Personal experience shows that hand held groups can be appreciably smaller than five inches at fifty yards. It would seem to me that a machine held set up should be able to halve that group. As I have yet to find any actual test results along these lines, I wonder if I underestimate modern compound bow technology. I contend that fifty yards is the new twenty yards. Many set ups will produce fine accuracy at a mere twenty yards; however, by extending that range to the Big 50, all types of problems have an opportunity to raise their ugly heads and as energy and velocities continue to rise, the possibility of making ethical hunting shots at fifty yards and more does become a reality. My questions are: 1. What do you reasonably expect fifty yard groups would be from a modern, well adjusted, machine rest fired bow with properly spined arrows? 2. Should the arrows be unfletched? Removing the fletching removes a host of variables. I suggest three weight classes including two carbon composites and one alloy shaft to see if the given system prefers a specific “load”. 3. Should draw weight be set to a more accessible level i.e. sixty pounds? We aren’t all in our twenties any more and one of the benefits of this burgeoning technology is the fact that a sixty pound draw of this new breed of hyper-efficient bow performs well above older, seventy and even eighty pound draw equipment. 4. Should the draw length be set closer to average lengths i.e. twenty eight inches? We are not all the Orangutan types the IBO testers believe us to be. I may be a knuckle-dragger but it is primarily because I have such short legs! 5. Would you buy an archery magazine specifically because this type of testing was included? 6. Would such information make a difference in deciding upon your next choice of bow? 7. What other parameters would you like to see included in objectively measured archery equipment? Once again, thank you for your patience and participation, Konrad
Pipe dream. 1. What do you reasonably expect fifty yard groups would be from a modern, well adjusted, machine rest fired bow with properly spined arrows? Probably what you cited, above. 2. Should the arrows be unfletched? Removing the fletching removes a host of variables. I suggest three weight classes including two carbon composites and one alloy shaft to see if the given system prefers a specific “load”. As long as it's uniform, I wouldn't see why it would make a difference. 3. Should draw weight be set to a more accessible level i.e. sixty pounds? We aren’t all in our twenties any more and one of the benefits of this burgeoning technology is the fact that a sixty pound draw of this new breed of hyper-efficient bow performs well above older, seventy and even eighty pound draw equipment. Why would DW make a difference? Just asking. 4. Should the draw length be set closer to average lengths i.e. twenty eight inches? We are not all the Orangutan types the IBO testers believe us to be. I may be a knuckle-dragger but it is primarily because I have such short legs! Once again, I don't see why this would be a factor or make a difference RE: accuracy. 5. Would you buy an archery magazine specifically because this type of testing was included? Absolutely not. 6. Would such information make a difference in deciding upon your next choice of bow? Absolutely not. 7. What other parameters would you like to see included in objectively measured archery equipment? a. Objective testing agency - with no stake in the outcome. b. Standardized specs (DL) The problem you're gonna have, here....is the mfr's are all going to want to be involved with the process. If they're not (the only way it can be done objectively), they can always claim the testing agency didn't have the expertise needed to set their bow up. properly.
I've shot probably a dozen different bows off a Hooter Shooter. Every one that was tuned properly would shoot arrow after arrow into a group that nearly had all shafts touching at 70 meters if wind wasn't a factor. Even poorly tuned bows would shoot them into similar groups most of the time assuming arrow spine and tolerances (spine, straightness, weight) were identical. The problem with removing the human factor from the bow, is that the attributes of a "forgiving" or "accurate" bow usually can't be replicated when using a shooting machine. You can't replicate how fast a deflex or center pivot riser settles in your hand after the draw sequence. You can't replicate what happens when the bow isn't drawn to exactly the same DL every time (creeping on the shot). You can't replicate torque applied to the bow by a certain shooting form. These are the things that make a difference when the rubber hits the road, and you simply cannot test for these types of things with a shooting machine or by eliminating the human error part of the equation. See above. If you really take your time I've seen multiple groups at 70 meters with all shafts touching out of a shooting machine, and it's fairly easy to put them all in 1" or so group at that distance with nearly any setup, tuned or not. Wouldn't matter IMHO as long as each setup used the same thing, and had appropriate clearance. Doesn't matter really as long as all bows are at the same GPP for arrow weight and same DW. 29" is the average DL I saw when selling hundreds of bows at a shop. I guess it really doesn't matter though as long as all bows are at the same measured draw length. No. No. Real AMO measured draw lengths.
What RJ said. I've seen the same thing with a shooting machine they'll drive one shaft down another at 20 yards shot after shot even with a bow that's out of tune. It's inhuman and perfectly repetitive. What really makes a bow "accurate" is how it responds to and negates the amplitude of our human flaws.
