New Field Section

[Guest]

Field archery can be like no other form of archery. Do you look for speed or accuracy? Where is the best course to shoot, or have you just shot at a dud.

[Guest]

You're right, I think field archery is like no other! It's always a compromise between accuracy and speed. After all, we all want the accuracy, but particularly on the unmarked rounds like ABA and 3D, speed is crucial to account for errors in distance judgment. ...but how much speed is enough? And how much accuracy are we willing to lose in favour of blistering arrow speeds. After all, I've heard it said that speed only helps you miss faster!

[Marcus]

Of course it depends too on what you want to do to win. There are ways around speed that fall under the rules.
Also a funny thing is that higher poundage doesn't always result in faster arrows due to ABA's arrow weight rules. My old PSE Fire Flight with ACE's at 49# was pumping out 280 fps, while many 60-70# bows at the time were doing about 270 due to massive arrows.
While I like speed in unmarked you must remember that it only matters if you can hit the centre of the target at long range everytime.

[Guest]

You're right about the light arrows.

My Stratus Plus is currently at 49lbs to get around ABA's 50lb rule, and I'm shooting ACE 570's at around 275 FPS. Much faster than alot of my competitors with heavy alloys at 80lbs!

[Marcus]

What did you do to get the speed? Have you put an over draw on? Are you shooting single cams or double?

[Eberbachl]

The big 'secret' to the speed of course is simply shooting lighter arrows, but other advances I have been able to achieve is by shooting the stratus plus with shorter limbs, and switching to command cams instead of energy wheels.

Of course, one could go alot further than this with more aggressive cams, overdraw, etc. but seeing as though I shoot fingers and barebow I still need to retain a degree of forgiveness which this setup seems to do quite well.

[Marcus]

I think Erika just bought a Stratus plus, rather long bow. What axel to axel do you have on it?
Does it give you much finger pinch?

[Eberbachl]

Yes, I think Erika just bought the silver one?

My axle to axle length is 42 3/4 inches, rather longish, but perfect for fingers.

I'm a big fan of shooting 2 fingers under, rather than 3 under or one over 2 under. I shoot 2 under with no pinch whatsoever at 28 1/2 inch draw. To me 2 fingers under is the logical choice, at 49 lbs the draw weight is not a problem and 2 fingers under means that there is one less finger to create bad releases by coming off the string at a slightly different time to the bottom two etc. etc. etc.

I think with the Carbon plus 4 limbs on Erika's bow the axle to axle might be slightly longer than mine?

[Jim Park]

I am definately interested in high speed for field. I am also interested in very good accuracy. I have found that I can get both at the same time.
In most of our FITA field competitions, if you lose more than about 4 or 5 points in a round then you will probably not win.
Hence, you simply must be able to 5 for every shot, and be able to get your first shot at every target in the middle.
My favourite bow for field is my Thunderbolt, because it is fast, and always goes where I point it. Hence, if I do miss, it is my problem and not the bow's problem. I shoot at 60 pounds (the max permitted), and use ACE 520's at 290 grains, giving me 294 ft/sec.
I have done much calculation of how to shoot up hills, and on how accurately I need to be able to guess unmarked distances, and in each of these respects I definately want lots of arrow speed - I am certain it gives me an advantage over those with slower bows.
Just so that I can be sure that the arrow speed is not affecting my accuracy, I have done a great deal of group testing with both my Thunderbolt and Quantum bows, with both X10's and ACE's.
Using the Thunderbolt with ACE's at 294 ft/sec I have shot 357 for a FITA field, and I know for sure that the three points I lost were me, and not the bow (dumb shots at easy targets: I lost two points at a 15m target and one point at 35m, real easy targets).
If you want to see the benefits of speed for field then I have built all the maths into my Accurate Sights program - try it out for 250 ft/sec vs 290 ft/sec.
Also, at the World Field in Italy in 2000, most of the top archers shot one cam bows, or at least twin cams - there was virtually no one with round wheels.

[James Park]

I look for speed AND accuracy.
My first rule is that the bow must shoot the arrow where the sight was when I released, otherwise either something is wrong with the bow, or it is just not inherently accurate enough (fortunately both my bows do hit where they were aimed, so it is now just up to me to point them in the correct place).
My second rule is that speed helps for both unmarked distances and for shooting up and down hills.
I am generally aiming to get around 280 to 290 ft/sec for field.
Also, working on the basis that most field courses are reasonably well sheltered, I am not fussed about trying to minimise drift, and hence am happy to use a larger diameter arrow to try and get more line cutters. Hence, something like a Beman ICS or a Safari (so long as it is straight) is my current choice for field.

[Kuru]

I would be interested to try this accurate sights program out and compare it with a program like archers advantage, especially with the ABA national field championships coming up in june. Whereabouts can I get a copy ?

[James Park]

You can obtain Accurate Sights from The Nock Shop. Cost is $40.

[Marcus]

Also there are reviews on it at the DVA site in the http://www.dva.asn.au/reviews/[URL2]Equipment Reviews section.

[Kuru]

I grabbed a copy from the nock shop last week and just added a review, was my first visit there and the guy I spoke to, Paul was very helpful and I actually got service which is very strange these days from shops so looks like they have a new sucker, i mean customer, I'm getting a bit addicted to buying and latest and greatest toys !

[Marcus]

Jut read your review garath. What is this new rule about sight markings? If it is a case of you needing to carry it around on a piece of paper instead of sticking it to your bow I have 2 questions.
1) What difference does it make?
2) Why don't you just let us shoot FITA, stop changing the damn field rules.

[Kuru]

Marcus the new ruling for fita unmarked field is that you can only have the manufactures markings on the sight not a bit of paper that has settings on it, I'm assuming it's to try and stop people checking out others sights when they shoot, it's quite a good idea checking out other peoples sights if they have them taped to it. Personally I've never had sight markings taped to the sights for that exact reason but I've noticed the whole field rules seem to change each year for some reason, But with James's program you can just print a copy on a small sheet of paper that'll match up with the manufactures settings anyway. I didn't even know about the rule until I was showing my father the program and he told me about the rule, they brought the rule in at the last junior nats

[James Park]

I have looked carefully at the new rules and sought clarification from the national judges.
What they are trying to stop is the methoid of gauging used recently by Clint. This method uses the sight block and some fixed part of the bow to frame the target diameter and then has a small scale on the sight bar to indicate the distance. This method was originally brought back to Australia from the 1996 World Field Championships by Graeme Bartlett and me after we saw the Italian team using it. However it came to FITA notice only when the small scale was blatently used. Such a scale will only be about 20mm long and is very obviously not your sight settings, but intended for gauging.
You are certainly permitted to have your sight markings on the sight bar (as is printed out by Accurate Sights). You are also permitted to carry a card with your sight markings on it.
The interesting question is: are you allowed to have two sets of sight markings on the sight bar (for example one set for each of two types of arrow, as I use). I had two sets on my bow when I presented it for bow inspection at the Nationals and the judges had no problem with it, as it was very obviously for the two arrow types and not for gauging.
You are also of course allowed to have the scale that many sights come with.

[Kuru]

Re your question James, On Fita's website, Fita Infomation newsletter 1/2002(february 2002)
Page 4 There is the question regarding Sight setting scales for Fita unmarked. It's a very grey area and I can only guess it would depend on the judge that day how he/she regards that ruling.

[James Park]

Yes, I am aware of that item on the FITA web site, and so were the judges at the Nationals. The item on the FITA site is not actually in the rules but is a commentary by the Chairman of the FITA field committee.
When I showed my bow top the judges they were well aware of it, but were quite happy that if the sight tape was obviously for real site settings and not for gauging then it was ok.
Just about every archer had a sight tape on his sight (but most only had one). Probably about half a dozen had two.
Hence, I am pretty sure there is no problem.
The reason I have two sets of markings is that I have one for my X10's for target, and one for my ACE's or Safari's for field.

[Kuru]

As I say it just seems a bit of a grey area, Fita seems to say yes you can have something however you can't do something with it. Nice if they could just say yes or no

[Marcus]

Well that's OK then. Having people carry sight settings is a bad idea. Your day would be finished if you dropped them, especially in the wet.

[Kuru]

I actually did that once at your field course ! The amazing thing was I actually found it a couple of targets back !!

[James Park]

I much prefer to have the sight marks on my sight bar because that way I am much less likely to make a gross error in my sight settings and then miss (and a miss in field will almost certainly ensure that I do not win).
The sort of thing I am scared of with a list of sight settings is: distance=50, sight setting=3.7, miss-read it as 4.7, went way over the top of the target, lost the tournament.
With the sight settings actually on the sight bar this is much less likely (but then again, Rod Miller shot at a 20M target with his sight on 50M at the State Field last year, on two separate occassions - never did find the arrows).
Rod has a tale to tell from the Nationals as well: he uses Accurate Sights (which is the best thing to do, of course), but when he thought he was inputting the 20-70M sight gap, he actually input the 20-90M sight gap. The program then (correctly) printed out an incorrect sight marking tape. Rod, having done all this on the evening prior to his departure for Sydney, did not pick up the error (I always check a new set of markings by shooting a few arrows). His first arrow on the practice day at Homebush was shot at 70m - it went way over the target, cleared the mound behind the targets, and landed (we think) in the river. Rod had noticed that the calculated arrow velocity was a bit low for such a fast bow as his Thunderbolt (and that should have pointed to the problem), but did not investigate it.
I should say that Rod's activities on the practice day amused the rest of us greatly, but then in the team event he shot magnificently, and contributed immensely to Victoria's excellent win.

[Kuru]

Only thing that concerns me is if you have settings taped to the sight bar and you've got somebody shooting to the left of you they could see what you've set it on, ie wait till you've shot then adjust their sights, which is quite a good idea when you think about it :)

[Marcus]

I had a junior pulling that crap at a comp one time Garath. I set my sight, held it so he could see, draw, held, waited, let down and waited for him to shoot, his arrow went 10 m high, I changed my sight to what I knew it should be a drilled it.
Not a nice thing to do, but if people want to cheat they deserve it.
At the DVA IFAA shoot last year I messed up 2 targets by misreading my Yardage-meter conversion. Easy to happen and very frustrating.

[Bruce]

A lot of archers are using a shield over there sight settings to prevent archers seeing there settings . Some also only use a pin prick to mark there sights . Me I use big numbers but dont line them up to a pin I use another part of my site .

[James Park]

At the Nationals I did take the time to have a look at the sight settings used by the others in my group (you can see them rather well using your binoculars). On one particular target, one of them had his sight set to 50M and started with a high 3. The other had his sight on 46M and shot a 5. I gauged the target and picked it at 49M and shot an X. Had I used the information from the others, I would have lost points, Hence, interesting to look, but I would not trust.

[mike]

I agree with Jim that it would be interesting to see how other people have guaged a target, but I would not trust it for a moment because you don't know a) how well they shot the shot and b) what part of the sight they use to read off the settings. And some people simply have numbers like "1" for 0m, 2 for 10m etc - that could really stuff you up!

The only thing I have heard that I think IS usefull is to take a look at the face itself through binoculars to see what the majority of people have done -- where the arrow holes are (of course doesn't work for the first few targets of a round) from this you can roughly assess whether people are generally guaging it long or short -- helps you with your final decision on the distance.

Still, without a good guaging system you may as well not bother!!!

Have just recieved the latest edition of Accurate Sights -- what can I say, fantastic -- SIX stars!!

Great features include a guaging feature that draws sight pictures for each distance and a trajectory feature to help you decide what weight tolerance you will allow when building a new set of arrows.

[Marcus]

I try not to look where other people's arrow holes land because it makes me second guess myself. Nothing worse than guaging 26m, seeing everyone went high so putting it on 23 and going low, changing the site back to 26 and drilling the X. :(
Agree, if you don't guage, stay at home and complain about how they should shoot unmarked because everyone else guages anyway. (the cry of the lazy!)

Might have to build a six star rating on the DVA site just for the latest version of Accurate sites.

[mike]

I really meant if you couldn't decide in a range of say 36m or 37m, it might give you confidence with one over the other, and confidence in field archery counts for a lot!

[Marcus]

Yeah I know hat you mean, have used it before. But confidence is everything and if it makes me second guess I'm not confident. However it is a useful system, especially if you have 3-4 good groups in front of you. (stuck behind some U12's and a group of longbowmen make ruins the results a bit ;) ) :eek

[James Park]

When shooting unmarked field, I know that I have to score around 355 (or more) as otherwise I will possibly be beaten by Clint, Bryce or Leigh. Hence, I can probably only afford one or two points loss from gauging errors, at most.
Hence, my own gauging must be sufficiently good that I can get to with 1 Metre if possible (Accurate Sights will show you how accurately you need to gauge). This means that I cannot rely upon the errors of others to help me know the distances - it is simply not sufficiently accurate.
Hence, the only reason I would look at arrow holes in the target is if I am unsure of which face size it is. That is, has anyone made a gross distance error or not.
When I shot recurve there was one other very good reason for looking at the arrow holes, and I would certainly recommend it in that case. This is where the terrain causes a recurver to cant the bow unknowingly and to get left or right shots. The arrow holes will be a reasonable indication of what to do in this circumstance (simply allow the cant to happen and aim off in the other direction). Alternatively, for a recurver, you can use an arrow held by the nock end to find vertical and then hold the bow so that there is no cant (I used this method at the World Field in Austria in 1998).