[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: In Case Y'all Don't Know #44965

Doc Nock wrote:

Have you gents taken your MEDS today?

:shock::roll:8)

Yes. That might be the problem.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to the workshop, where I’m perfecting a design for arrows that lose energy as they leave the bow…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: In Case Y'all Don't Know #44847

R2 wrote:

…..The warden informed the guy that 10 yards was too close because the arrow wasn’t going fast enough yet and that arrows increased in speed the farther they traveled (why do we need rocket fuel?).

So are we thinking about a whole lot of stuff plumb backwards? 😀 Maybe we oughta let the deer not get so close, or maybe we ought to retreat some before we shoot or is this only a characteristic of compound bows? Just wondering.:D

This is precisely why I always place a chronometer about 50 yards away before I shoot through it. Any reading that I get closer than that is deceptive, since my arrows haven’t reached terminal velocity yet.

However, given that it takes 50 yards for my arrows to reach a speed of 170 fps, I can usually shoot, put my bow down, run 50 yds. with chrono in hand, set it up in the arrow’s flight path and get out of the way before it passes through. 8)

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Limb tip protector #44779

Steve Graf wrote:

Here’s the one I’ve been happily using:

http://www.3riversarchery.com/Recurve++Longbow+Bow+Tip+Protector_i4029_baseitem.html

Same. I have it on several different bows, and I’ve never had one come off accidentally, yet it comes off easily (without having to unstring the bow, etc). for drying/cleaning. Best tip protector I’ve used.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Southwest DIY Javelina Hunts? #42744

Just a reminder – for spring 2015 tags, you need to apply by October 7th, 2014. Leftover tags are on a first-come, first-serve basis.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Thoughts on things… #42117

You’re killin’ me, Mike!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: which string? #42112

J.Wesbrock wrote: Endless strings are just fine. You can twist them up or down just like a Flemish. To be honest, I’ve found endless strings a lot more stable and less prone to creep, but that’s just me. It seems most everyone I know with a Flemish string is constantly messing with it to keep their brace height correct.

I would definitely agree with the first part of your comment, Jason – in my experience, endless loop strings are less prone to creep when the string is new. But once broken in, I don’t have any issues with my Flemish strings continuing to stretch or needing to be messed with – after the initial stretch, they don’t creep at all. Both types of strings work great, but it does seem like you have less adjustability with an endless loop to begin with, which isn’t to suggest that they aren’t ‘fine’ strings, it’s just something to be aware for the archer who is unfamiliar with them.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: which string? #41233

Generally, the string should be 4″ less than the AMO length for a recurve, and 3″ less for a longbow. But that’s just a guideline. Have you tried twisting the endless loop string a bit to tighten it up?

Keep in mind you’re going to get some stretch with B50 as well, as it breaks in. Given the limited adjustability of endless loop strings in general, it sounds like that string may be a little too long for your bow. But of course, this is just internet armchair advice, without being able to see anything we’re talking about.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: which string? #40989

I would agree that 6-1/2″ is too low for that bow. You’re probably going to want a brace height somewhere around 7-1/2″ to 8″ for a Hunter. You can twist the string to shorten it, thereby increasing the brace height. However, in my experience, endless loop strings don’t have the range of adjustability that Flemish twist strings have.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: ausjim #40881

Thanks for the update, Mike – I was wondering and hoping everything was ok with him.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Thoughts on things… #40181

Cheers, Ben! I love seeing pics of your latest arrows.

Steve Graf wrote:

Actually, if you look around there are a lot of people, in a lot of different disciplines doing the same thing. When you look at archery as art, then you begin to see that it isn’t so different from every other pursuit of perfection. In our area, we have a load of potters, jewelry makers, painters, writers, etc.

But still, they are drowned out by the commercialism you speak of. It just means we have to learn to hear the whisper in the wind.

So true, Steve.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What are your favorite trad pictures? #40174

This is a pic I took of a buddy of mine last season as we climbed the hill behind the house on a late September day:

I also love this pic, from last year’s Scout Mountain Trad Shoot:

Yours truly, out stumping and poking around in the sage for sheds this past spring:

Tackle pic:

Glassing on a nice, early season day:

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Keeping the "hunt" in hunting #38923

David Petersen wrote: Interpretation, por favor?

Aw shucks Dave, now where’s the fun in that? Apropos of an “ethics” conversation, I’m content to let people come to their own interpretations. 😉

Btw, did something happen to your previous post re: Tantillo? I don’t see it anymore….:?:

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Keeping the "hunt" in hunting #38821

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Why the need for so many different sportsmen orgs? #38493

Stix wrote:

I think that a national organization with state chapters is a good example of having teeth where needed to recognize local issues, but have the full force of a national chapter behind them when there is a need for legislative lobbying.

I would agree….with the caveat that I’ve seen other national groups start out this way, but eventually still fall prey to the typical pitfalls that seem all too common with big NGOs – devolving into do-nothing “clubs” rather than being action and issues based (usually out of fear of alienating big donors), becoming too top-heavy and then as a result becoming obsessed with fundraising to continue to feed a large administration in an endless loop, or becoming an army of lawyers whose only tool seems to be one lawsuit after another so that they can put another feather in their cap.

The above may sounds a little cynical, but I’ve been involved on various levels with numerous non-profits for the last 20 years. And THIS is why I’m currently active with BHA. I believe we are on a very good path with a true, “boots on the ground” emphasis, and I think that we have a healthy mix of bigger-picture, national focus, combined with state and local level folks that know their local issues intimately and aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty. This is combined with a really committed and passionate membership, the likes of which I have not seen in many other organizations. Every time I go to a BHA gathering, I get re-energized by this.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Why the need for so many different sportsmen orgs? #37791

Because at the end of the day, we don’t seem to be capable of escaping our tribal heritage. When the tribe gets too big, there seems to be a timeless urge to start a new one, even if it ends up being the same thing in the end.

On a more pragmatic level however, I think sometimes that small, local/regional orgs can be better suited to tackling local/regional issues than big, national-level orgs can. So there needs to be room for both. That’s a generality, but it does seem to be the case sometimes.

But I agree with your point, Steve – it does seem like there is a fair bit of redundancy and overlap (esp. at the national level), and many people I know are dues-paying members of many of the same multiple organizations. But it seems inevitable that someone gets dissatisfied with the way a certain group is doing things and wants to start something else. In the end, Pogo’s axiom rarely fails to come into play.

[Author]

Posts