Robert Williams

The real bona-fide elite of the stickbow world will really hate me using the term " instinctive" in the same sentence with compounds and releases, but here' s advice I give to apsiring bowhunters:

Learn to shoot your bow accurately at 20 yards or so without using your sights.

Now what kind of arrogant arse am I to suggest you take the sights off your bow? Yeah, that' s probably the first thing a few may think when they consider that advice, but that' s NOT what I meant.

Leave your sights on your bow. Shoot with your sights. Count on them to put the arrow where you need it to go. But spend some time working out a " backup plan" . When the moment of truth comes and your peep didn' t rotate just right or your sights came loose and fell off your bow while you were on the trail or the peep filled with water or it' s really dark and cloudy and near the end or beginning of legal shooting hours.... You still have the ability and confidence to make the shot - you just go with plan B.

You will also find that it makes those really close, really quick shots a no-brainer. As hunters, we try to have a solution to everything that can go wrong, but I don' t see shooters with their compounds drawing and shooting with the arrow in a shotgun sighting position very often practicing their shots without relying on their sights.

Ted Nugent doesn' t even HAVE sights on his bow and takes a ton of deer. Just a little time fiddling around with " instinctive" shooting on your high-tech setup gives you the best of both worlds and can save your hunt.

That' s my tip of the day. ;o) Have a great weekend everyone!

Tech29

why take the shot if the possibilities of injuring the animal are soo high?
Doesn' t this go against hunting ethics?

Robert Williams

Tech29, can you please point out to me the part of my post that recommended taking a shot when the possibility of it being a non-lethal wounding shot was a high probability? I' ve got to apologize to everyone if I accidentally typed something that into my post!!!! Or are you assuming that it is only possible to make a very high-percentage clean kill if sights are used???

Lilhunter

Rob,

No, its good advice, but there does become a higher margin for error espically when the person trying this does not practice it on a daily basis. The dedication needed to be a decent let alone good instinctive shooter is much more then the average bowhunter would realize let alone care to put out. Its great advice, as lots of things can happen to a persons equipment. But to have someone go out and try it, and not fully understand what they are doing with sights let alone trying to use stincter as backup.....makes me wonder.

Arthur P

Tech 29, you sort of imply that if you don' t use sights, you have questionable ethics. I' ll pick that bone with you.

My last 3D score with a compound was 284. That' s 30 targets, some set out as far as 45 yards, scored 10-8-5. I dropped 8 arrows into the 8 ring. I shot that score with fingers and no sights, took second place in the compound division. Against the sights shooters.

I have a self-imposed limit of 30 yards when I' m hunting with my compound. Within that distance, I don' t miss. Plain fact. I don' t see any great possibility that I' m going to wound an animal just because I don' t have sights on my bow. As bad as my close up vision is now, I' d have a higher probability of wounding WITH sights because I can' t see them. So my ETHICAL choice was to take them off all my bows.

Sights are optional, not required. It just takes some practice to learn how to shoot without them. And I' ve had a lot of practice.

TFOX

I think he was refering to the really dark statement. IMO if you can see the animals vitals area then it is perfectly ethical to take the shot.


I also think that some computer ethics change drastically when they are presented with a questionable situation in the woods.I am not pointing fingers but it just seems to me that a lot on the computer scream ethics when they know good and well if they have no other choice in the woods that their ethics start to get a few grey areas.I don' t think it is done on purpose but self controll is the key.


This should get something started.

Robert Williams

Tfox, I don' t suppose it ocurred to you that it' s possible to be too dark to clearly see through a peep sight without at all being too dark to see the animal' s vitals clearly, huh? Some things are so obvious I didn' t think I' d have to mention them, but I guess failing to do so results in all sorts of inappropriate assumptions.

jsasker

ROB,
I need all the help i can get so i will be leaving my sights on my bow--can' t remember the last time my sights FELL off my bow.

Robert Williams

You know, everyone makes really good points here. I' ll ammend my original post. Never ever ever try to shoot without sights for any reason because it' s impractical, can' t work and is just a really horrible bad idea. There. Now everone can be happy again. Sorry for plaguing this board with such horrible advice. Just because some people like Ted Nugent are capable of shooting without sights doesn' t mean other people have enough hand-eye coordination to do so. Carry on.

Tazman

Robert, I feel you make a very good point, I may try it, this year. Last year I went from shooting 4 pins to shooting one. Did I feel I was being unethical? Heck no! I practiced my butt off learning how high or low to hold the single pin, it became natural before season opened, my first kill came at 22 yards and to be honest I don' t even remember aiming!

Ethical is what you have practiced and know you can do, which is exactly what you were saying, if you practice enough without sights at all it is perfectly ethical!