[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Anyone Experimented with EAOC? #33653

Hahaha….Thanks for playing along everyone – happy Fools Day!!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Anyone Experimented with EAOC? #33290

eidsvolling wrote: What if you turned the arrow around and shot it back-assward? Wouldn’t that give you the best of both worlds?

Well, I know that sounds like a crazy idea, but I actually did try that as well. A few things that I found with this approach:

1) Since it was no longer an EAOC arrow, but the exact opposite, I had to re-adjust the nock or else I’d get a lot of nose-diving, even at close range. I know this “opposite of EAOC” approach can work as well, but I think it would be wise for me to save those experiments for another time, so that I don’t confuse my results.

2) Cutting a notch in the field point, in order to be able to place it on the string was problematic. I ended up splitting quite a few field points this way.

3) Plastic nocks aren’t durable enough for this ‘bass-ackward’ approach, in my limited experience so far. When they didn’t explode on impact, I would lose them in the target when I attempted to pull the arrow out. I’m thinking about approaching a few manufacturers with an idea for a new, much more durable nock for these kinds of setups. Fletching also seems to limit penetration.

I don’t expect this idea to gain a lot of acceptance, at least not yet. But I think it’s interesting to stretch the limits of what’s possible, and what has become clear to me is that a lot of it just comes down to properly tuning the arrow to the bow.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Anyone Experimented with EAOC? #33207

Thanks, Doc – you’ve added a lot of ‘food for thought’ to this conversation!

We did bareshaft the EAOC arrows, and they didn’t porpoise as much as I thought they would at all. But like I was saying above, I find that nock adjustment is really important – if you leave the nock at a typical height for a normal arrow that has weight forward of center, you will definitely get porpoising. However, raising the nock point significantly (we found that 1-1/2 to 2″ above normal produced the best results) seems to compensate for the tendency of the arrow to leave the shelf with the nock end low (due to the additional aft weight). As the EAOC arrow leaves the shelf, after being released from a much higher nock point, it essentially ‘lifts’ the nock end of the arrow after clearing the bow and then travels dead straight. But I can’t emphasize enough that this adjustment in nock point is critical to successful flight with this type of setup.

But thanks for all of your input – I’m hoping to get out this afternoon and experiment a little more, taking your feedback into consideration as I tweak this experiment.

More to come…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Anyone Experimented with EAOC? #33173

Doc –

You bring up an important issue with effects on spine. I’ve had decent luck by simply going lighter on the point weight to compensate for the additional weight in the rear, and that seems to keep the spine within reasonable tolerances. But I think that if you were going to go to extreme aft weight, you’d need to bump up the spine for sure.

I’ve been racking my brain to come up with a better way to explain this whole thing, and I keep coming back to the common phrase used in EFOC conversations – that the additional weight in the front of the arrow creates an effect much like a “dart” that has weight forward. But if you actually take a close look at a dart, this analogy isn’t really accurate. A dart has a long, skinny needle in the front which is very lightweight (obviously). The actual weight of a dart is not in the front at all, but towards the middle or even toward the aft end of the dart. Take a typical dart, find the mid point, and see where the dart actually balances. If the EFOC argument were true, the dart’s balance point would be well forward of center, but I’ve never found a dart that demonstrates that at all, has anyone else? Instead, the EAOC model is more like what a dart truly is – very light in front, with significant weight behind it, pushing it along, and therefore creating better stability in flight and better penetration – just like a real dart.

I hope that helps.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: The Bow that Surprised You #33085

You clowns need to get out more often…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: What ya got goin? #33082

Nice, Cameron! Bow building is becoming the family tradition, eh?

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: The Bow that Surprised You #32355

Doc Nock wrote:

I admit, Bruce, I’m too ignorant to know what an ASL style bow is!! ❓

Doc –

ASL = American Semi-Longbow

Also referred to as a “Hill-style” longbow.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: The Bow that Surprised You #32217

Thanks, Doc. I just think it’s interesting to observe how sometimes the bow that catches our eye, or the one we think we’ll like, isn’t the bow that ultimately connects with what works best for your hand and your brain.

Another thing I’ve learned in this proces – I used to think that it was possible to shoot any bow basically the same way. Shooting ASLs has taught me that this isn’t true across the board. While everyone might not agree, I really do think these bows require a specific shooting style to take advantage of their virtues. But once that style is learned, it’s a very quick, instinctive style that I believe works quite well for hunting. Which is probably why Hill, Schulz, etc. adhered to it over more static, ‘target’ styles of shooting. Just some randon musings…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: The Bow that Surprised You #32065

For me, it’s been the Robertson ‘Primal Styk.’

Since I first got started in traditional archery, I’ve always had a fascination with Dick’s longbows, for some reason I couldn’t really put a finger on. I guess I just had a lot of admiration for the guy, and his long history of building exceptional bows. But along the way I got sidetracked by various recurves and D/R bows, and only finally decided to get a Primal Styk last year. It’s funny, because even though I had this notion of wanting one for a long time, I really wasn’t sure how I was going to like it – ASLs have a reputation for being slow, I didn’t know if I’d like the grip, which is quite different than the more pronounced locator grips on all the bows I’d owned previously, etc.

All of which is to say that I was a little tentative about this bow when I first got it. There were times when I struggled with it, and went back to my familiar D/R bows for a while, only to return to the Primal Styk again. As I adapted my shooting style to suit this type of longbow/grip, one ‘light bulb’ after another started to go off, and my accuracy improved. While I still have my ‘off’ days, when I’m ‘on’ this bow it is the most fluid, natural and intuitive of any bow I’ve ever shot. So much so that when I pick up any of my other bows now, they feel weird and it takes me a while to adjust to them again. And even then, I don’t think I shoot them any better than the Primal. It’s no slouch in the ‘speed’ dept. either. Learning to shoot this type of bow has taught me a lot.

I really never imagined I would like “ASL-style” longbows so much, and now they are pretty much all I want to shoot. Go figure…

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Planning an Elk Hunt #32030

I’ll take a stab at answering your question, with the qualifier that there are obviously no ‘hard and fast’ rules to any of this – as sure as one person says they don’t recommend doing a certain thing, someone else will say that they had success doing exactly that.

I’m not familiar with the term “wolfing” elk (it might have a different meaning in Idaho..:wink: ), but personally I would not choose to camp right among elk that I am hunting during the day, nor even particularly close them. I think it’s better to back off and give them some space at night. I’d be worried that the smells/noise of camp would drive them off. I find that most times, if you can “put them to bed,” so to speak, they will likely not move too far during the night, unless they have a really good reason to. When elk do have a reason to move (such as excessive human presence nearby) they can, and likely will, move a long way before settling down again.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: New books #31207

I finished up “Out On a Limb” which I enjoyed even more than I expected. A very thought-provoking read, for sure. I’ve now handed it off to the Better Half who is keen to read it as well.

And now I’m scratching an itch to go back and re-read this classic:

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Stump Shootin' Days #31000

R2 wrote:

Never think about the shot, just think about the spot [u]you’re gonna hit[u]. Works better.

Ain’t that the truth. When I let me brain get in the way of my shooting, everything falls apart. Look at what I want to hit, push the bow straight it, get ahold of that grip, don’t over-analyze it, and it all comes back together.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Looking forward to Chamberlin Ranch #30866

Kiwigrant54 wrote: … a trad shooting weekend in the middle of CA wine country, what could be better.

Sounds like a blast! Have a great time, good luck on the hunt and be sure to report back with pics!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Too much, not enough, had enough #29947

dwcphoto wrote:

Smithhammer, comments are well taken. The experience can be enjoyed and so can the gear, but.. I know, as a photographer, and as a cyclist (more in my past) that while we do things for the experience the gear can take on a life of its own. What started out as a wish for a ride on a nice fall day becomes about titanium rims and clocking cadence…..

Absolutely, and I totally agree. It can be a slippery slope and its easy to lose sight of why you’re actually doing something when you’re trying to keep up with the latest gear technologies. Many outdoor sports have become dominated by this continual pressure to keep updating all your gear to the ‘latest and greatest.’ But we’re traditional bowhunters, which means that on some level, we’ve all made a decision to get off that train, to some extent, by the very nature of the thing. Do we still continue experimenting with different things, trying this arrow material vs. that one, or this bow design vs. another? Of course – but I’m fairly confident that has characterized archery since the beginning. And really, when I look at the prevalence of “gear-headed” culture – I wouldn’t put traditional bowhunters on the list of those contributing to the phenomenon, by any means.

Of course, the example from the opposite extreme of the spectrum would be the person who heads out into wild country entirely focused on wanting to have a ” wild experience,” but lacking the skills, and the equipment necessary to execute those skills, for that environment. And the consequences in these cases are often more catastrophic than simply a loss of perspective.

As in just about everything I find, there’s an ample middle ground. But even friendly debates of this nature tend to offer up the extremes as the examples to make their point. A healthy blend of skills, preparation and ability to appreciate the experience seems like a completely achievable approach, and one which I think is still fairly easy to find in our little sub-culture. In fact, we may be one of the better cultures to still find it in, these days.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

in reply to: Traditional Snowshoes for Hunting #29829

I shoot all my vids with a little Pentax point-and-shoot camera. Someday I’d love to get a dedicated video camera, but for now, and for my simple needs, the Pentax (and iMovie) are a pretty good solution.

It’s also good to clarify – modern snowshoes with ‘teeth’ are better for steeper terrain in icy/hardpack conditions (but I’m still going to experiment with some bottle caps for traction 😆 ). For powder and softer snow, I’ve had no issues with climbing in trad shoes. But snowshoes aren’t arrows – sometimes the fastest path from A to B isn’t a straight line…:wink:

[Author]

Posts