|
RE: The way the indians did it - Bowhunting
ORIGINAL: Rob/PA Bowyer I agree AP, very much so but bc said about norms and in most polls, the majority of deer are taken 20 yards and in. I threw up my own experience of missing a buck at 16 yards, I'm here to tell you that I could have hit the damn thing with traditional gear so why would traditional gear have made that hunt "harder"? In the last 2 years, I thought I was confident several times out to 25 even30 yards. I learned I was not. I am confident out to 15-18 yards. Shooting a 3D deer is a total different beast than a deer in the wild. A 16 yard shot in the woods with a bare bow ain't no chump shot. |
RE: The way the indians did it - Bowhunting
Rob,
Have you shot many deer with a traditional bow? |
RE: The way the indians did it - Bowhunting
ORIGINAL: bigcountry In the last 2 years, I thought I was confident several times out to 25 even30 yards. I learned I was not. I am confident out to 15-18 yards. Shooting a 3D deer is a total different beast than a deer in the wild. |
RE: The way the indians did it - Bowhunting
ORIGINAL: Schultzy Rob, Have you shot many deer with a traditional bow? What difference does that make to this thread. Let's just say after 26 seasons, I didn't start yesterday. |
RE: The way the indians did it - Bowhunting
Rob, if you want to talk about the average compound shooter vs the average traditional shooter, then I'll fall back on statistics. Hunter success ratios are 3 times higher for compound hunters than for traditional hunters, ref: study done by Oklahoma State University on hunter success and wound/loss ratios comparing traditional vs compounds for the U.S. Army Ammunition Depot, McAlester, Oklahoma. Check with OSU library archives if you'd like to buy a copy.
If compound was equally as hard as traditional, overall, then the ratios would be identical. To my knowledge, this is the only study that has ever directly compared hunter success between traditional and compound equipment. Interestingly, it also compared wound/loss statistics between the two. Far lower wound/loss rate for traditional. Traditionals were collecting a much higher percentage of the animals they hit than the compound guys. Some might say it's more experienced bowhunters that have gone over to traditional, and that accounts for the disparity in wound/loss. I'm inclined to agree with that. |
RE: The way the indians did it - Bowhunting
ORIGINAL: bigcountry ORIGINAL: Rob/PA Bowyer I agree AP, very much so but bc said about norms and in most polls, the majority of deer are taken 20 yards and in. I threw up my own experience of missing a buck at 16 yards, I'm here to tell you that I could have hit the damn thing with traditional gear so why would traditional gear have made that hunt "harder"? In the last 2 years, I thought I was confident several times out to 25 even30 yards. I learned I was not. I am confident out to 15-18 yards. Shooting a 3D deer is a total different beast than a deer in the wild. A 16 yard shot in the woods with a bare bow ain't no chump shot. |
RE: The way the indians did it - Bowhunting
A 16 yard shot in the woods with a bare bow ain't no chump shot. Nor is it with a compound as I obviously pointed out. ;) |
RE: The way the indians did it - Bowhunting
ORIGINAL: Arthur P Rob, if you want to talk about the average compound shooter vs the average traditional shooter, then I'll fall back on statistics. Hunter success ratios are 3 times higher for compound hunters than for traditional hunters, ref: study done by Oklahoma State University on hunter success and wound/loss ratios comparing traditional vs compounds for the U.S. Army Ammunition Depot, McAlester, Oklahoma. Check with OSU library archives if you'd like to buy a copy. If compound was equally as hard as traditional, overall, then the ratios would be identical. To my knowledge, this is the only study that has ever directly compared hunter success between traditional and compound equipment. Interestingly, it also compared wound/loss statistics between the two. Far lower wound/loss rate for traditional. Traditionals were collecting a much higher percentage of the animals they hit than the compound guys. Some might say it's more experienced bowhunters that have gone over to traditional, and that accounts for the disparity in wound/loss. I'm inclined to agree with that. What that tells me, There are more compounders out there, that we know, More wounded loss animals from compounders over traditional, okay, more hunters, more shots, and like you I'm inclined to agree that the rookies are in the compound side of that statistic. More recoveries per shots with traditional gear, so what made thier hunt harder if they are technically more successful in shots per recoveries? |
RE: The way the indians did it - Bowhunting
Hey now! No hard feelings here Rob! It was just a question. I told you earlier in this thread I have the utmost respect for you. The reason I asked is I've done both, I've been put in both situations plenty of times, the part you said with Matt, I agree with you, bare bows come in handy in times like that! Just wondering what your expeirences were with shooting traditional.
|
RE: The way the indians did it - Bowhunting
I don't know how I got any work done today between the bowhunting forum threadsand some online poker. Some very entertaining threads today for sure (Wow!! talk about PMS typehunting withdrawal symptoms).:D
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:49 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.