Accuracy Anyone?

[konrad]

Over the years, I have read “Bow Tests” from various sources with varying degrees of satisfaction. I have yet to read a report using a qualitative accuracy testing.

My technical background comes from manufacturing and from study of the firearms industry. In virtually every gun test there is group testing using at least three types of commonly used ammunition, fired at a standard 100 yard range.

It would seem a simple matter to apply the same testing regimens to archery equipment using commonly available ammunition (including one alloy and one each light and moderately heavy carbon shaft) and a “standard” tuning set up (i.e. the ubiquitous Whisker Biscuit, a lazar indicated center shot position, D-loop set 1/8th inch high of level).
The range should be 40 yards and machine rest fired to reveal idiosyncrasies within each system.

I get the impression archery magazine publishers are afraid to bruise the feelings of their advertisers and as such shy away from this type of objective testing. It is interesting how in the firearms trade the quality AND accuracy of the least expensive manufacturers has improved the quality and accuracy of even the legendary marques.


Only when someone is willing to broach the subject will we begin to wade through the brand loyalty hype and start to see real truth. All the bells and whistles, fancy machine work and flashy strings are nothing when compared to the accuracy potential of any given platform.

Accuracy is, after all, what it’s about.

[Lowedog]

Seems like I have seen some online tests with a Hooter Shooter. 

There are so many variables that go into shooting with a bow I think it would be hard to get definitive results.  Each bow would have to be tuned to absolute perfection.  Let alone the fact that even if you had a bow that was proven to be the most accurate on a machine 10 archers could get 10 very different results with that bow. 

[konrad]

The same could be said with automobiles, firearms or pencil erasers.
Absolute perfection is not the goal in qualitative testing.
Base line data for comparison is.

An out of the box Remington Model 700 can always be made to shoot fine groups when razor tuned. That is not what the average shooter will or even should necessarily do when purchasing a hunting arm. Most of the time, perfection is not his or her intention. If it were, they would be buying a custom barreled action and then a stock and after-market trigger and hunting for a reputable gunsmith to put it all together. We are not even talking the check book required for the project.

You can judge potential (and advertising BS) from standardized testing.

I have neither budget nor the years remaining in my life to buy one of everything to try to weed out the chafe to get to the good stuff.

I just want some clear facts.

[Wazukie]

I figure if it goes in the X 9 out of ten times then its pretty accurate.  The average bow hunter (in my opinion and experience) doesn't put in the time nor have the time to be expert accurate with their bow.  Most I have run across, when I bow hunted and shot all the shoots, figured that if they could hit an 8" group consistent, that was good enough.  When I lived in Bonney Lake and had more time, I spent about 4 hours a day shooting at either Skookum, or in my back yard, or at the indoor shop that was in Bonney Lake.  I was going to shoot my first Vegas five Spot in 2006 when I was called to move to Nevada.  I think there are a whole lot more variables in Archery than there is in rifle shooting.  Just my  non-expert

[Lowedog]

There is a huge difference between an out of the box 700 and an out of the box bow from any manufacturer.  Bows require set up as far as cam timing, cam lean etc.  There a far more variables from a compound than from a rifle.  You simply cannot expect to take a bow out of the box throw a rest and sight on it and expect it to shoot well.  That is why all the big brands sell only through pro shops.  

As far as I'm concerned any quality compound (which most of them are) can be made to shoot to the best or better than the shooters abilities.  Fact is though, they all require set up/ tuning in order to get them there.  

I also feel that all the top bows are so close in accuracy it is not even one of my considerations for selecting a bow.  I want to go shoot every bow I am interested in and my criteria would be in order, quietness, hand shock, draw cycle and speed.  

[konrad]

I don’t mean to sound confrontational; however, these are the same sorts of excuses offered up for decades by the archery industry.

If a system requires that much finesse to perform on a par with competition, leave me out.
I don’t want to have to be tied to a “Pro Shop” every six weeks for re-tuning. I don’t think most archers do ether. This is about getting more folks involved and improving the breed. If I’m paying the bucks, I want the best I can afford.

We are, after all, discussing machines. If manufacturers can hold bearing tolerances within thousandths of an inch in the automotive industry, why can you not expect the same level of quality from your weapons?

You may like the bow tie, the horns or another banner but most situations have been solved by ether a 4, 6 or 8 cylinder. There are reasons for selecting one or another. You will find few have use for a V-12 or Flathead Straight Eight these days. They were interesting but not practical.

Yes, there are those who maintain the ’66 Panhead is the pinnacle of engineering. There is also a large group of folks who say the Interstate works pretty well too.

By the way, how many Panheads do you see tooling down the road in the middle of nowhere?

[Todd_ID]

The archer-to-bow-to-shot interface is to individualized to be able to replicate with a machine.  The manufacturers via the AMA will never allow the biomechanical interaction to be replaced with a straight mechanical one.  "Feel" has too much to do with it.  You'd straight out sink whichever bow company was at the bottom of the list.  And you'd be wrong in doing so, because there are plenty of people out there who swear that brand is the only one they'll ever buy, so that company would have stayed in business.  Even though the machine proved bow Y as the top in accuracy, you and I could most likely achieve different results from each other and from the machine. 

Tuning a bow is witchcraft for most folks.  As soon as your top accuracy bow missed a deer there would be lawsuits.

[FC]

Tuning a bow is witchcraft for most folks. 

Much like accurizing a rifle huh? Rifles are all somewhat individual creatures yet when tested you see which models are most accurate, oddly enough these results don't change much when fired by human hands...hmmm. If people bought hordes of bows like they do firearms I think you would see this type of testing. With rifles you have your .22 for grouse/rabbits, .17hm2-6mm for varmints and .243-.338WM for American big game. Most folks who have a bow have just the one maybe two and in general hunt only one type of game with it. If the average person had the chance to shoot more than 1-2 bows they might start doing some accuracy testing.

How many bows/rifles have people here shot? I've fired maybe a dozen bows and probably a few hundred rifles.

[Bob33]

Bows require set up as far as cam timing, cam lean etc.

Why is that?  Why can't manufacturers adjust cam timing, cam lean etc. before shipping the bows?

[Todd_ID]

Bows require set up as far as cam timing, cam lean etc.

Why is that?  Why can't manufacturers adjust cam timing, cam lean etc. before shipping the bows?

I think they try and adjust it before shipping.  At least I've seen the guys at Alpine checking them before putting them in the boxes.  And doesn't a Bowtech come with the results of their individual bow testing; I'd like to think they don't just throw a string on and shoot over the chrony and ship it, but maybe they do?  Not that it does much good after 50 shots worth of string and cable stretch, though.  Problem starts with using 3rd party sourcing for limbs and then not testing axle hole square or limb deflection.  Precise matching unprecise components is very labor intensive.  You can bet the top guys shooting for the manufacturers have the option of sorting through limbs before assembly, not that many do, though.

[konrad]

Tuning a bow is witchcraft for most folks. 

Much like accurizing a rifle huh? Rifles are all somewhat individual creatures yet when tested you see which models are most accurate, oddly enough these results don't change much when fired by human hands...hmmm. If people bought hordes of bows like they do firearms I think you would see this type of testing. With rifles you have your .22 for grouse/rabbits, .17hm2-6mm for varmints and .243-.338WM for American big game. Most folks who have a bow have just the one maybe two and in general hunt only one type of game with it. If the average person had the chance to shoot more than 1-2 bows they might start doing some accuracy testing.

How many bows/rifles have people here shot? I've fired maybe a dozen bows and probably a few hundred rifles.

Excellent points!

In this country archery as an industry is relatively new when compared with the firearms trade. Firearms have a long and cherished tradition in the United States...Thank God!
I believe we are at the beginning of the same sort of tradition forming in the minds of Americans.
Who in the world really drives the archery industry today?
Americans, that's who.
Ultimately, Americans will drive head-to-head testing as a prerequisite and expected part of the decision making process.

Perhaps in another 50 years, folks will own more than one bow and children will be exposed to archery right along side or even before the venerable 22. I can only hope and pray it becomes so.
The survival and success of the industry as a whole depends upon expanding the consumer base, not restricting it to an elite few. When folks liken bow tuning to "witchcraft", I can only shake my head.
For me, it always comes back to the bucks. I hate paying top dollar for unknowns.
I hate being taken advantage of.
When I buy a can opener or any other appliance I want to be assured my money is well spent.

It has always struck me as strange how a fellow will insist on shooting a 70 pound draw weight bow at a paper target only 20 yards away. Then they want to post about their torn shoulder ligaments.

As far as operator error goes, the same applies to every machine built by man. Some will always seem to get a little extra from whatever tool they are using (even a stick with a string stretched on it). Have you ever seen someone who couldn't operate a can opener?

I just want to know the tool I'm getting has been shown to be safe and well designed.
In this case, I want a tool with a high accuracy potential shown by an objective testing procedure.

[Lowedog]

http://bowsite.com/BOWSITE/features/articles/equipment/2010head2head/  Hear is a pretty decent test done every year.  Accuracy isn't part of their testing though and there is a reason for that. 

To me the joy of archery is that it does take tinkering in order to have a compound perform at its best.  And as far as being tied to a pro shop that is why most guys who are really into it and demand their system is performing at peak performance learn to do it themselves. 

The manufacturers that want you to buy their bow from a pro shop shop know that there are so many variables from each person that they could not possibly set them up from the factory and be perfect for every person that picked it up.  The sad thing is that they have no requirements in order to be a pro shop.  So you either find a shop you trust really knows what they are doing or you learn to do it yourself. 

Bows require set up as far as cam timing, cam lean etc.

Why is that?  Why can't manufacturers adjust cam timing, cam lean etc. before shipping the bows?

I think they try and adjust it before shipping.  At least I've seen the guys at Alpine checking them before putting them in the boxes.  And doesn't a Bowtech come with the results of their individual bow testing; I'd like to think they don't just throw a string on and shoot over the chrony and ship it, but maybe they do?  Not that it does much good after 50 shots worth of string and cable stretch, though.  Problem starts with using 3rd party sourcing for limbs and then not testing axle hole square or limb deflection.  Precise matching unprecise components is very labor intensive.  You can bet the top guys shooting for the manufacturers have the option of sorting through limbs before assembly, not that many do, though.

Take the Bowtech Destroyer for example.  It has a dual yoke cable set up.  That means you can adjust cam lean/centershot for each cam individually.  I could be set it up for me to shoot perfectly then have to change it for each of 10 different people who wanted it to be perfect for them.  Each person is going to have a different grip and form that will effect how the bow performs.  Add a quiver full of arrows to the side of the bow and you might have to change it again.  Also  take into consideration that a compound has 2 cables and a string that stretch/settle over time.  That is another reason to either trust your shop or do it yourself. 

 I don't put much weight into accuracy comparisons done on rifles either.  We all know that if you take 6 rifles of the same caliber and shoot the same factory load through them the only thing you have proved is that rifle X shoots that load better than the others.  Rifle Y might win out if a different load is used.  Hell you could take 6 Model 700's and get the same results. 

Like was said earlier If you did have a shoot out on a Hooter Shooter and brand x wins out that doesn't mean it will be the bow for you.  You as an individual might shoot the last place bow better because of the way you grip the bow, your form, draw cycle, etc... To be fair though in a test like that each bow would have to be tuned to shoot on the machine.  You couldn't simply pull them out of the box slap a rest on them and expect that they are shooting correctly. 

Here is an example of the Hooter Shooter being used to super tune arrows...
BowCast - Video - Using a Shooting Machine to Tune Your Arrows

[konrad]

Lowedog,

Thanks for the Bowsite link. It provided for some interesting reading.

I understand there are many variables in tuning a bow for an individual. It is also true that on any given day any given rifle will outperform its sisters and brothers on the production line depending on specific circumstances.

I'll say again: As far as operator error goes, the same applies to every machine built by man. Some will always seem to get a little extra from whatever tool they are using (even a stick with a string stretched on it). Have you ever seen someone who couldn't operate a can opener?

Heck, you can buy three Corvettes of consecutive serial numbers, supposedly with all the same specs and still expect one to be faster than the others through the quarter mile. The differences would be marginal though and any one of the three could be called representative for the package ordered. There are considerably more parts that have to work together properly in an automobile than a bow. This is the birthplace of manufacturing. As long as we allow manufacturers to weasel, they will do so.

Speaking of the auto industry, look how long it took Detroit to respond to competition from overseas. I would hate to wind up considering a Yamaha for my next bow.

Representative is what I'm looking for so objective judgments can be made.
If these producers don't have a skin thick enough to stand a little criticism, perhaps they should be in the business of making doilies.


It is also refreshing to see a quote from Finn Aagard. He did a little testing and critical reporting in his day too.

Thanks again,
Konrad

[adam.WI]

The biggest problem I see is that one bow shoots a bullet hole with one set up and another with a completely different, but if both are tuned perfectly for that bow should shoot the same. Also a bow that shoots out of a vice flawlessly could still be the least forgiving bow in the market but has "amazing potential". That would just build a hole new kind of hype in the industry that is not needed. IBO speeds are already flawed why add something else for the manufacturers to use as a marketing ploy. 
I can hear it now "Well the Z7 shot a 1/2" group at 100 yards and the alphamax 35 was 5/8". The Z7 is obviously the better choice."