Compound Bow Reo Wilde paper test

[T101]

reo paper testing, but its what he says from 2min 30secs about a slightly less than perfect bullet hole that's curious, as I've often thought the same thing, what do u think?

to paraphrase, he likes the arrow to have a little direction/tear so if he makes a mistake the arrow will still have that same direction to go, where as if it's a bullet hole and he makes a mistake it will change the arrow direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fdmwj9kWSI

he also says he moves the rest after paper for groups/forgiveness, so this could mean he is actually fixing the previous tear to a bullet hole without actually knowing it. Or of course he could also be making it worse. would have been good if he could have paper tested after his group tuning adjustments.

Not asking about the merits of paper testing just your views on the slight tear being essentially more forgiving?

 

[bimble]

he also says he moves the rest after paper for groups/forgiveness, so this could mean he is actually fixing the previous tear to a bullet hole without actually knowing it. Or of course he could also be making it worse. would have been good if he could have paper tested after his group tuning adjustments.

Or perhaps he's more bothered with group size on the target than bullet holes in paper. know which I'd prefer!!

 

[T101]

yes of course, i tune my bow/arrow to my groups not the paper, however would have been interesting to see the tear after it was tuned.

How many archers tune for a bullet hole and then just leave it, may change their minds seeing this video.

more interested in views on the "gives the arrow some direction so more forgiving" thing.

 

[KidCurry]

I think it is a difficult question to answer as, as you say, he doesn't go back to the paper to see the result of fine tuning for forgiveness. My experience is that once paper tuned I fine tune then go back to the paper to see what the arrows are doing. I have found that paper is a bit unreliable. Today I use paper to set my nock height and take out big tears. Go to modified French tune then yoke tune. I go back to paper to check the result but have always found the result to be more consistent rather but not always a bullet hole. However it is never more than a bullet hole to 1/4" left tear. Before Modified French and Yoke tune the spread of results is always larger. However I virtually never get right tears.
Conclusion... there may be something in a consistent small tear in one direction but I can't say I have any evidence. I think being happy with your bow tune is worth a shed load more points than a perception of a perfect tune and not being happy with what you have.
As to a 'sweet spot' I think he is absolutely correct. I have two PSE Supra's. They are set up identical, and I mean Identical. However they need a slightly different execution to get the best out of them.

 

[backinblack]

Hi T101,

I bought "Modern Recurve Tuning" recently and this advocates a slightly stiff or weak bias for bareshaft tuning rather than a perfect bareshaft test for the same reason: that a bad shot is more likely to follow the bias than be pushed in any direction which the author says is the case where a bareshaft is central to the group of fletched arrows.

Also, I think that Reo's view on the high left tear is reflected by the fact that after tuning for forgiveness, top recurve archers bareshaft tests usually come out a little low and left (slightly stiff arrow, high knocking point) but I'm not a compounder so I'm happy to be shouted down on this.

On a related note, I also remember reading a Liam Grimwood article on tuning stabilisers for compound bows and him saying that he preferred a non-balanced set up so that a push would result in the bow moving in the direction of the bias rather than in any direction. He reckoned that this typically give him a few more points than the balanced option.

Best,
Backinblack

 

[T101]

would agree with most of that Kidcurry, thanks for the info backinblack didn't know that about recurves, and yes remember that stabiliser article, suppose the principle is the same.

Got me thinking though, if say you have your arrow coming out point left, but on a bad shot you also push it left, won't this exaggerate the left miss more than if shot from a dead straight position? Of course if pushed right (if we believe this theory to be true?) then the miss could be smaller than if set dead straight. but would still only be beneficial if you heavily favoured pushing in the opposite direction on a mistake.

other videos I can recall off top of my head from pro level shooters/manufacturers tend to set up initially with a bullet hole, George Ryals, Dave cousins, Bowtech etc just to name a couple.

 

[KidCurry]

... other videos I can recall off top of my head from pro level shooters/manufacturers tend to set up initially with a bullet hole, George Ryals, Dave cousins, Bowtech etc just to name a couple.

I think the 'bullet hole' has come about because it is both understandable and measurable, something you cannot always say about archery It is an absolute known point of setup of a compound bow regardless of group size which is far more a question of form. For 95% of compound archers it is a desirable and repeatable position from which to shoot. Shooting for group size is much more an issue of form. I think if you have near perfect form/repeatability you will benefit from tuning for group size. But for an average compound archer who cannot really define what their group size is, or expected to be, then paper tuning for a bullet hole is a cheap way of getting a bow setup to shoot much better than they can expect to achieve. It is also a point to which they can return to at any point in their shooting. Setting up a 'bias' or 'more forgiving tune' for a bow is harder to repeat or measure for those archers that do not fully understand both their bow and their form, or find it difficult to seperate the two.

 

[T101]

I think the 'bullet hole' has come about because it is both understandable and measurable, something you cannot always say about archery It is an absolute known point of setup of a compound bow regardless of group size which is far more a question of form. For 95% of compound archers it is a desirable and repeatable position from which to shoot. Shooting for group size is much more an issue of form. I think if you have near perfect form/repeatability you will benefit from tuning for group size. But for an average compound archer who cannot really define what their group size is, or expected to be, then paper tuning for a bullet hole is a cheap way of getting a bow setup to shoot much better than they can expect to achieve. It is also a point to which they can return to at any point in their shooting. Setting up a 'bias' or 'more forgiving tune' for a bow is harder to repeat or measure for those archers that do not fully understand both their bow and their form, or find it difficult to seperate the two.

ok yes I realise that, but if theory is correct it would be just as easy for those 95% of archers to set up with a slight tear, of course like you say the bullet hole seems to be the accepted default correct way to paper tune a bow, the offset or bias seems to be not very well known. did find this though however, not heard of the archer but apparently he is quite well respected and has this similar view.

Randy Ulmer advocates it. The idea is that with perfect bullet, an error can manifest in any direction, 360 degrees around the arrow. With a predisposed direction on the initial shot, all errors will be some variation of the same tear.

I have some tuning to do in the near future, to test this to a small degree at least I could deliberately foul some shots on the paper test (some will happen naturally anyway), both with a bullet hole and a slight left/high tear, and compare the tears for consistency between good and bad shots. Assuming I can get a bullet hole +0).

did plan on doing some paper testing with bareshafts , which I've never done before, so may not have the time to do both initially as need to get some practice in with new rig for comp.

 

[bimble]

I think the 'bullet hole' has come about because it is both understandable and measurable, something you cannot always say about archery .

I always assumed it was because people could put a photo of it up on facebook and go, "yeah, look how good my bow is... bullet holes!!"

 

[T101]

I always assumed it was because people could put a photo of it up on facebook and go, "yeah, look how good my bow is... bullet holes!!"

yeh the look on some peoples faces when you tell them you get bullets holes when they have tried everything and just can't....and think they or bow must be cr*p

I know coz I have have been on both sides of it way in the past =0)*


* ok admittedly its still niggles a bit if I can't get a bullet. But I may be converting to "bullet hole is bad" +0)

 

[bimble]

yeh the look on some peoples faces when you tell them you get bullets holes when they have tried everything and just can't....and think they or bow must be cr*p

I know coz I have have been on both sides of it way in the past =0)*


* ok admittedly its still niggles a bit if I can't get a bullet. But I may be converting to "bullet hole is bad" +0)

it could be worse... currently chatting to a friend on FB who has a 2-3" tear that we can't get rid of... not helped that I'm in the office and she's down the field. Running out of possible suggestions to at least bring it in a bit!! Even to getting someone else to shoot the bow (same tear!).

 

[T101]

ooooh yeh that's bad, although what is it shooting like +0)? I think 3/8ths would be limit, probably shooting pretty bad, could be endless amount of things though. impossible without seeing it contact would be my first guess, has she tried bareshaft/powder?

 

[bimble]

no powder with her, looks like there might be contact on the blade, but it has apparently been moved from low to high without changing the tear... it should be set good to the berger hole now (I saw a hilarious photo with it over 1cm above), but you always fear something is lost in translation when you try to describe things via the written word!!

 

[Darth Tom]

What is "modified French tuning", is that where you just shoot 0 and 50m without doing the full walk back?

As for the 2-3" tear, you will probably have thought of most of these already but from my experience (and assuming it's a vertical tear):
- cam timing
- nock height
- damaged blades
- fletch contact
- wrong spine
- dodgy tiller
- form issues
- wrong sort of paper
- air pressure*
- angered the gods
- "oh for goodness sake I'm sure it can't matter that much, just shoot it already!"**

* unconfirmed
** heresy!

 

[bimble]

As for the 2-3" tear, you will probably have thought of most of these already but from my experience (and assuming it's a vertical tear):
- cam timing
- nock height
- damaged blades
- fletch contact
- wrong spine
- dodgy tiller
- form issues
- wrong sort of paper
- air pressure*
- angered the gods
- "oh for goodness sake I'm sure it can't matter that much, just shoot it already!"**

* unconfirmed
** heresy!

Went through all of those... apparently there was a mark on the blade, which reappeared within two shots of being wiped away... now to work out why...

 

[KidCurry]

Randy Ulmer advocates it. The idea is that with perfect bullet, an error can manifest in any direction, 360 degrees around the arrow. With a predisposed direction on the initial shot, all errors will be some variation of the same tear.

My gut says there may be something in it but my head says:

Bullet hole = -1" to +1" impacts all within 1" from centre
1/4" tear left = 0" to +2" impacts right
1/4" tear right = -2" to 0" impacts left

All give the same spread of a 2" group size. The inference from the above Randy Ulmer statement is we should be practicing for the inconsistant shot and not ignoring the inconsistant shot as is so often taught.:scratchch

it could be worse... currently chatting to a friend on FB who has a 2-3" tear that we can't get rid of... not helped that I'm in the office and she's down the field. Running out of possible suggestions to at least bring it in a bit!! Even to getting someone else to shoot the bow (same tear!).

You would not want to be within 100yds of me if I could not get rid of a 2" tear. I would not be a sociable bunny to say the least:gnasher:

 

[bimble]

You would not want to be within 100yds of me if I could not get rid of a 2" tear. I would not be a sociable bunny to say the least:gnasher:

luckily I'm two hours away!! I took a series of photos of my bow this afternoon with instructions to copy them with hers... looking forward to seeing if it's anything obvious.

The photos certainly suggested that my nocking point was 2-3mm too high, which would explain why my sightmarks are a lot lower than they were with the old set of strings...