I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Particularly after I shot the Guardian. With the constant push to eliminate all shock, vibration and feedback from a bow during the shot. Can a bow to be too void of "feedback" an be detrimental to consistant accuracy? In years past, a few of the bows I've owned would let me know if I didn't make a good, crisp shot. Its sort of difficult to explain the feel when a shot doesn't go right, but I think most of us who've shot long enough know what I'm talking about. Even these new, ultra low shock designs will let you know, but its not nearly as pronounced as some of the older designs.

I often have wondered why you do not see many parallel limb configurations on the indoor line. I realize ATA length plays a large role, but many of the longer ATA parallel bows feel much longer than they really are.

Tuning is another thing that comes to mind. I remember quite a few bows that I could tell to a degree that my tuning efforts were getting closer as the bow would begin to exibit less noise and vibration. With a bow that has very little to begin with, I believe it might be easy to be lulled into thinking its good enough when if fact it might not be. Are we beginning to rely more heavily on only visual feedback on paper or target and not also with bow feel?

Too much vibration of course is not good. But wouldn't too little or none, have similar affects?

I realize this post may infringe somewhaton what PAbowhnter has already posted and I apologize if it has. My goal was to take this in the other direction.