Archery Accuracy Standards

[konrad]

It was only a score of years ago that the “Holy Grail” for custom rifle accuracy was minute of angle. By custom, I refer to hand massaged actions mated to after market barrels usually with specially tailored ammunition.

Nowadays, to be competitive in the sporting arms business, virtually every rifle above $500 is expected to perform at this level and with factory produced premium ammunition.

This mythical minute of angle goal…or standard…was arrived at by those interested in long range hunting/marksmanship/martial applications. One MOA is a little over ten inches at one thousand yards. Most North American game has a vital area (the area through which a shot can be placed and reasonably expect the animal’s rapid expiration) of about ten inches and thus has direct bearing on a long range hunter’s theoretical maximum lethal range. You may debate the ethics and other issues regarding hunting at such extended ranges but the fact remains, this IS the standard by which rifles are judged. That debate is not the subject of this post.

After reading many responses to other accuracy questions and statements to posts I have made here and other places, I realized the subject of “standardized testing” for archery equipment does not appear feasible to many of you. For those who do not believe testing along these lines within the bounds of reality, I beg your indulgence and suggest perhaps you follow another thread.

For those of you tired of being told bow manufacture and set up is akin to “black magic” and that knowledge should be retained only by a select few (the “Archery Intelligencia”…no, I don’t think Hillary Clinton is an archer) please give the following consideration.


The great Chuck Adams has written that he believes acceptable hunting accuracy equates to a one inch diameter group per ten yards of distance to the target. In other words, a twenty yard distance equals a two inch diameter group, a fifty yard distance, a five inch group, etc, etc. For our purposes this is a ten minute of angle group. At one hundred yards the grouping would be just over ten inches in diameter. Once again, I am not suggesting shooting at game from one hundred yards. This is for discussion purposes only.

Personal experience shows that hand held groups can be appreciably smaller than five inches at fifty yards. It would seem to me that a machine held set up should be able to halve that group. As I have yet to find any actual test results along these lines, I wonder if I underestimate modern compound bow technology. I contend that fifty yards is the new twenty yards. Many set ups will produce fine accuracy at a mere twenty yards; however, by extending that range to the Big 50, all types of problems have an opportunity to raise their ugly heads and as energy and velocities continue to rise, the possibility of making ethical hunting shots at fifty yards and more does become a reality.


My questions are:
1.   What do you reasonably expect fifty yard groups would be from a modern, well adjusted, machine rest fired bow with properly spined arrows?
2.   Should the arrows be unfletched? Removing the fletching removes a host of variables. I suggest three weight classes including two carbon composites and one alloy shaft to see if the given system prefers a specific “load”.
3.   Should draw weight be set to a more accessible level i.e. sixty pounds? We aren’t all in our twenties any more and one of the benefits of this burgeoning technology is the fact that a sixty pound draw of this new breed of hyper-efficient bow performs well above older, seventy and even eighty pound draw equipment.
4.   Should the draw length be set closer to average lengths i.e. twenty eight inches? We are not all the Orangutan types the IBO testers believe us to be. I may be a knuckle-dragger but it is primarily because I have such short legs!
5.   Would you buy an archery magazine specifically because this type of testing was included?
6.   Would such information make a difference in deciding upon your next choice of bow?
7.   What other parameters would you like to see included in objectively measured archery equipment?


Once again, thank you for your patience and participation,
Konrad

[Special T]

I have thought the same thing, but never put it into words like that. I don't know that a magazine like that would do very well... Its kinda like consumer reports but just for bows... you would just have one issue a year... I would be very interested in what it had to say however... I usually limit my shots to 40yrds just because my accuracy seems to fall off after that... I do know that most rifles and bows shoot better than the person that operates them... It takes quite a shooter to utilize the maximum potential of today's bow/firearm....

[Holg3107]

1: Machine rest at 50 yds I would think you should be in that 2"-3" range.
2: if you are shppting outside then the arrows should be fletched, if inside (which is the only way this test will have merrit) unfleched is fine.
3: stick with the same as IBO
4: Stick with the same as IBO, its the easiest way to compare any given data.
5: no
6: no
7: its imposible, I believe any modern bow that is tuned properly with proper arrows will shoot the same. I would rather see information on amount of noise when fired than what kind of group a certain bow can shoot. with archery each bow has the ability to have components added to make it fit the shooter. rests, releases, ect... all change how a bow shoots and each shooter has their own preferences. Its similar to a rifle in the fact that the load being fired is as if not more important than the gun itself. I would rather see accuracy tests based on different arrows than bows.  

[adam.WI]

This is really the same post that you had the other day. A bow fired out of a fixed machine set a specific way which bow is better. Archery is all about the sweet spot on a bow and to mass set a bow does not and will not give the best performance. I also strongly believe shooting out of a machine is pointless. I guarantee that if form and how forgiving a bow is was not an issue that bows would have cleared 400 fps in the past years. It's like saying a bench gun is the best hunting rifle because you can get a 1/4" moa, don't mind the fact that it ways more than you can lift and swings as well as a 2X4. This type of testing would only bring a new kind of hype to the sport, something that is not needed. Bow shops let you shoot bows to see what shoots the best for you. I think that is all the performance testing that is needed.

[konrad]

Adam,

For you to postulate that American sportsmen and women could not recognize the difference between a bench rest rifle and a sporterized Springfield is like Real World Testing Labs doing a review on an Abrams tank and stating that because it has 1500 horsepower, no one should consider owning a Porsche…obtuse.

Having struggled with engineered products and problems almost forty years of my working life tells me that not all products are created equal. To use the tank example again, if the Grant was such a marvel, design would have stopped there. I have a spear but it is not my first choice on stand.

Correct shooting technique, or form, is of course paramount to repeatable accuracy. However, there is no way you can ell me you would buy a bow just because it was the cheapest…or most expensive… without doing a modicum of research. Active, hands-on shooting of the equipment is the end of that research process. I dare say most reasonable people don’t lay down $1000 and more without some evaluation. Most folks don’t have the time to hang about archery shops for days settling on their choice. Most shops will not take kindly to someone asking for five bows to be set to their specific measurements, weight draw, rest, sight and arrows, paper tuning and then seeing how they feel. In the end it’s like wanting to buy a TV at WalMart. Who knows how the dude set the contrast, color and tint? Was the best looking one set for pricing?

I never suggested bench testing was the end all, merely the beginning.
 

[adam.WI]

Adam,

For you to postulate that American sportsmen and women could not recognize the difference between a bench rest rifle and a sporterized Springfield is like Real World Testing Labs doing a review on an Abrams tank and stating that because it has 1500 horsepower, no one should consider owning a Porsche…obtuse.

Having struggled with engineered products and problems almost forty years of my working life tells me that not all products are created equal. To use the tank example again, if the Grant was such a marvel, design would have stopped there. I have a spear but it is not my first choice on stand.

Correct shooting technique, or form, is of course paramount to repeatable accuracy. However, there is no way you can ell me you would buy a bow just because it was the cheapest…or most expensive… without doing a modicum of research. Active, hands-on shooting of the equipment is the end of that research process. I dare say most reasonable people don’t lay down $1000 and more without some evaluation. Most folks don’t have the time to hang about archery shops for days settling on their choice. Most shops will not take kindly to someone asking for five bows to be set to their specific measurements, weight draw, rest, sight and arrows, paper tuning and then seeing how they feel. In the end it’s like wanting to buy a TV at WalMart. Who knows how the dude set the contrast, color and tint? Was the best looking one set for pricing?

I never suggested bench testing was the end all, merely the beginning.
 

I never stated that people can't tell the difference, in fact that is exactly the opposite of my point. People can tell and feel the difference which is why the test would be pointless. Yes there is a place for this type of tests, just not bows. To say "X" bow is better than "Y" because it shoots a better group with a certain set up is worthless. One extra twist in the string on the same bow can change everything. To say that it would be standardized testing is crazy. Take a poll and find out how many bow set ups are the same, down to the amount of twists in the strings, cables, the exact amount of turns of from max, anything that is affected by who ever sets up the bow. It just is not repeatable. It works in fire arms because everything is hard machined products with certain tolerances. Far tighter than something that is designed to be manipulated.

To bring in the tank argument, you are arguing my point. The tank has higher numbers across the board but what does it prove? It proves the tank is great for what it was designed for. If a bow performs well in a hooter shooter I don't care because I don't take that to the woods, or the lane.

As far as spending money on the cheapest or most expensive where does that come from. I never brought in money, I look for performance in hand. As in I go shoot as many bows as I want or need until I find what feels the best and performs the best.
I would also say that if your shop wont set up as many bows as you want to shoot, go somewhere else that will. They don't deserve your business.

I do understand that you don't mean this to be the standard but with all the variables does it show any real data, or just give way to more marketing ploys.

Adam

[Hornseeker]

I think you are on the right track. That IBO ratings are generally unrealistic... I'd like to see tests with 27-29 inch draw lengths, but all draw lengths would be fine, up to 31...

I actually think, in calm conditions, say indoors, with a consistent machine, and a tuned setup, you would be shooting well under two inch groups at 50 yards and would probably be under 1 inch... I've seen guys shoot 50+ yards off hand that were shooting 2 inch groups....

I think Chuck was dead on for accurracy standards though!