What Do You Think Your Effective Range Is?

[chrisw]

effective range is a relative term... i have seen guys in the bow shop group arrows out to 5 inches and say they are sighted in. if my fletchings are not touching at 20 yards something is wrong IMO.

I shoot my bow to 100 yrds and keep 2-3 groups is it effective? up to who you ask...i would be willing to bet there are bow hunters that cant do that at 20 so how is his or hers 2-3" groups effective at 20 and mine are not at 100?

My old 80 lb hoyt would blow through targets at 80 yards...my longbow wouldnt do that to the same target at 15 I dont see ppl bashing traditional hunters taking 15 yrd shots>?

I understand the arrows passes more twigs and trees at 100 as apposed to 20 yds but if someone takes a shot at a deer in a field does it matter?

Personally i think it is a jealousy thing... i read all the post here about people setting up their bows and asking why this why that? why not bring it to a great pro shop pay a few bucks and do your due diligence as a hunter to make sure things are correct? if you cant afford to have your bow set up correctly you can not afford to hunt sorry!

Don't take this as a jab, but... 2-3" groups at 100 yds is impressive, I don't know you and haven't seen you shoot but, I can also shoot .5" 3 shot groups with one of my rifles off of a bench, put me in a tree stand wearing hunting clothes while its 10° and I can assure you my groups would not be even close to that. How do your groups change at 100yds from a treestand, being elevated, wearing a safety vest and 3 layers of clothing. We can all stand at a 3D range and report our best groups but its not practical in the field accuracy. Hell even the weather will affect a bows performance, you don't think your bow will perform a little different during the summer when its 75° versus 30° in the fall? Again this is not a personal jab... Just a thinking point.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[Adkhunter1590]

Don't take this as a jab, but... 2-3" groups at 100 yds is impressive, I don't know you and haven't seen you shoot but, I can also shoot .5" 3 shot groups with one of my rifles off of a bench, put me in a tree stand wearing hunting clothes while its 10° and I can assure you my groups would not be even close to that. How do your groups change at 100yds from a treestand, being elevated, wearing a safety vest and 3 layers of clothing. We can all stand at a 3D range and report our best groups but its not practical in the field accuracy. Hell even the weather will affect a bows performance, you don't think your bow will perform a little different during the summer when its 75° versus 30° in the fall? Again this is not a personal jab... Just a thinking point.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You have a valid point on this. But at the same time don't you practice from a stand and in different weather situations? I do. My buddies backyard is the ultimate setup range. We have 5 different stands set at all different ranges and heights to practice from. We shoot all year long with the exception of the nastiest cold weeks in the dead of winter. I raced motocross for over 12 years at a highly competitive rate and never just practiced on sunny days. Same goes for shooting my bows. If it's raining that doesn't mean I stay inside and crack a beer. I was just out this morning in the pouring rain taking a couple shots at 40-50 yards quick before heading out to run some errands. If your serious about doing something then you sure better be serious about your training/practice.

[chrisw]

You have a valid point on this. But at the same time don't you practice from a stand and in different weather situations? I do. My buddies backyard is the ultimate setup range. We have 5 different stands set at all different ranges and heights to practice from. We shoot all year long with the exception of the nastiest cold weeks in the dead of winter. I raced motocross for over 12 years at a highly competitive rate and never just practiced on sunny days. Same goes for shooting my bows. If it's raining that doesn't mean I stay inside and crack a beer. I was just out this morning in the pouring rain taking a couple shots at 40-50 yards quick before heading out to run some errands. If your serious about doing something then you sure better be serious about your training/practice.

Yes I do practice in realistic scenarios as I hope everyone does. But I realize that for me, I have no problems whatsoever keeping in a deer's vitals at 70-80 yds while I'm practicing but I'm going to factor in a breakdown in form, adverse weather, spooky deer, an unseen branch, my adrenaline. That's why for ME I don't like to shoot past 40 at an animal. To each their own and ultimately we all have to face the consequences of our actions. I've lost 3 deer out of 49, 2 with bow. I'd like to think that my self imposed restrictions have had a part in that low loss rate. Could I have killed more deer if I'd taken some further shots? Absolutely. But I bet both numbers would have risen. On a side note that sounds like an awesome range, I'm jealous.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Yes I do practice in realistic scenarios as I hope everyone does. But I realize that for me, I have no problems whatsoever keeping in a deer's vitals at 70-80 yds while I'm practicing but I'm going to factor in a breakdown in form, adverse weather, spooky deer, an unseen branch, my adrenaline. That's why for ME I don't like to shoot past 40 at an animal. To each their own and ultimately we all have to face the consequences of our actions. I've lost 3 deer out of 49, 2 with bow. I'd like to think that my self imposed restrictions have had a part in that low loss rate. Could I have killed more deer if I'd taken some further shots? Absolutely. But I bet both numbers would have risen. On a side note that sounds like an awesome range, I'm jealous.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

ever missed or wounded a deer inside 40?

[chrisw]

ever missed or wounded a deer inside 40?

Yes I have. Both were inside 40.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Yes I have. Both were inside 40.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

At what distances? based don the comments here wouldn't inside of that distance at some point be your effective range? It appears that many believe the definition is where there is zero margin for error.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Culvercreek hunt club

[chrisw]

At what distances?

One at 32, one at 16. One low brisket hit, the other a shoulder blade hit.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[chrisw]

At what distances? based don the comments here wouldn't inside of that distance at some point be your effective range? It appears that many believe the definition is where there is zero margin for error.

There is never a zero margin for error. Ever. So you don't believe that the margin for error increases with distance no matter the skill of the archer?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[Culvercreek hunt club]

There is never a zero margin for error. Ever. So you don't believe that the margin for error increases with distance no matter the skill of the archer?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

oh I do. Just like any weapon. But if there is an increase and we all acknowledge that nothing is a given in this sport, what is an acceptable wounding rate or miss rate? how many deer have you taken to have two wounded with a bow? (not meant as a jab but an illustration of the point)  after all, It is the results we are all talking about. I have seen guys shoot that I would much rather see take a 60-70 yard shot that some of the ones that I have seen shooting at 20.

.

[chrisw]

oh I do. Just like any weapon. But if there is an increase and we all acknowledge that nothing is a given in this sport, what is an acceptable wounding rate or miss rate? how many deer have you taken to have two wounded with a bow? (not meant as a jab but an illustration of the point) after all, It is the results we are all talking about. I have seen guys shoot that I would much rather see take a 60-70 yard shot that some of the ones that I have seen shooting at 20.

.

I have taken 21, lost 2 (I had to go through my photo album for that one). There is no ACCEPTABLE wound/loss rate to me. But its going to happen. Its everyone's duty to lessen the probability of a wound/loss. There isn't a bowhunter out there with a career with no losses, not going to happen. If you do something long enough you will make mistakes regardless of skill/confidence level, but mistakes can be minimized by avoiding high risk and you can't say that the longer the range doesn't equate to an increase in risk, its a sliding scale. Its common sense, I'm sorry if you can't see the logic.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[phade]

I have taken 21, lost 2 (I had to go through my photo album for that one). There is no ACCEPTABLE wound/loss rate to me. But its going to happen. Its everyone's duty to lessen the probability of a wound/loss. There isn't a bowhunter out there with a career with no losses, not going to happen. If you do something long enough you will make mistakes regardless of skill/confidence level, but mistakes can be minimized by avoiding high risk and you can't say that the longer the range doesn't equate to an increase in risk, its a sliding scale. Its common sense, I'm sorry if you can't see the logic.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

 

What do you do when it happens then? Not accept it? Do you decline and ask/demand the deer to come back for a follow-up shot?

 

If risk is inescapable and will be realized, there is an acceptable level of risk. It's impossible to not accept a known risk that cannot be avoided. In this case, the risk is set by the hunter when abiding by the legal constraints and no other hunter can determine that for them.

 

The only way to guarantee a zero loss rate is to not hunt. Therefore, you have accepted it because you hunt. And, you have realized it, twice.

[chrisw]

What do you do when it happens then? Not accept it? Do you decline and ask/demand the deer to come back for a follow-up shot?

If risk is inescapable and will be realized, there is an acceptable level of risk. It's impossible to not accept a known risk that cannot be avoided. In this case, the risk is set by the hunter when abiding by the legal constraints and no other hunter can determine that for them.

The only way to guarantee a zero loss rate is to not hunt. Therefore, you have accepted it because you hunt. And, you have realized it, twice.

What I am saying is I don't believe there should be a formula to figure out if your within the guidelines of being a hunter... Don't be unrealistic. And yes I do think 1 is unacceptable for me, I hold myself to a very high standard and it truly bothers me when I don't perform to the level I'm capable of... Do I honestly think any deer loss is unacceptable, obviously not or I wouldn't hunt or condone hunting. When I do screw up I go through the scenario a million times and learn from it, as anyone should. I know people who lose deer every single year and see nothing wrong with that, maybe I just hold myself more accountable than most. If you're OK with losing deer then I have no desire to accompany you in the woods.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[phade]

What I am saying is I don't believe there should be a formula to figure out if your within the guidelines of being a hunter... Don't be unrealistic. And yes I do think 1 is unacceptable for me, I hold myself to a very high standard and it truly bothers me when I don't perform to the level I'm capable of... Do I honestly think any deer loss is unacceptable, obviously not or I wouldn't hunt or condone hunting. When I do screw up I go through the scenario a million times and learn from it, as anyone should. I know people who lose deer every single year and see nothing wrong with that, maybe I just hold myself more accountable than most. If you're OK with losing deer then I have no desire to accompany you in the woods.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

Thanks, you finally said it.

 

Let's stop with this holier than thou approach about effective range, whether long distance shooter or up-close preference.

[chrisw]

Thanks, you finally said it.

Let's stop with this holier than thou approach about effective range, whether long distance shooter or up-close preference.

OK you win... Not sure what but... At least we both agree this thread will end up where it started. Nobody changed their minds...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

[steve863]

Everyone can obviously choose to do what they want, but I have as much faith in ANYONE attempting to kill a deer at 50 yards or more with a bow, as I do someone attempting a 500+ yard shot with a rifle.  I don't give a crap how much you practice either.  Sure, you can connect on that Hail Mary shot, but I'd almost guarantee you'll screw up on at least 7 out of every 10 attempts.  Way too many things that could go haywire with shots like that.  If you do make a kill, you better thank Jesus (and Mary) for it, because there most likely was way more divine intervention at play than any shooting skills you think you have.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2015 by steve863

[Adkhunter1590]

Everyone can obviously choose to do what they want, but I have as much faith in ANYONE attempting to kill a deer at 50 yards or more with a bow, as I do someone attempting a 500+ yard shot with a rifle. I don't give a crap how much you practice either. Sure, you can connect on that Hail Mary shot, but I'd almost guarantee you'll screw up on at least 7 out of every 10 attempts. Way too many things that could go haywire with shots like that. If you do make a kill, you better thank Jesus (and Mary) for it, because there most likely was way more divine intervention at play than any shooting skills you think you have.

Well your figuring sucks and your dead wrong. Typical nay sayer. Just cause you can't no one can right? so practice means nothing? Tell that to every professional athlete. They wasted their lives training and practicing to be the best of the best because it means nothing right? Army snipers shouldn't ever take 1500 yard shots because 7 out of 10 times they'll miss and all the years spent training was a total waste of tax payer dollars right? Sorry but your plain ignorant. You'd think centuries of human existence would have proven practice to be a waste of time if you think it is such.

[PeltHunter]

I've shot 6 deer with my bow lost 2 due to deflected high shoulder shots. 11, 35, 40 and 50 yards were the deer that I recovered 40 and 50 were from the ground. The deer I made bad shots on were both similar shots from the ground at about 6-7 yards both times. I think, through my experiences, that on longer shots you will take more time to make sure that your shots are perfect and not make quick shots due to the shot being "impossible" to mess up.

[steve863]

Well your figuring sucks and your dead wrong. Typical nay sayer. Just cause you can't no one can right? so practice means nothing? Tell that to every professional athlete. They wasted their lives training and practicing to be the best of the best because it means nothing right? Army snipers shouldn't ever take 1500 yard shots because 7 out of 10 times they'll miss and all the years spent training was a total waste of tax payer dollars right? Sorry but your plain ignorant. You'd think centuries of human existence would have proven practice to be a waste of time if you think it is such.

 

 

No, you are the ignorant one.  For an army sniper at 1500 yards, it probably don't matter if he clips someone in the arm, leg or some other spot that would be a non-lethal hit on an animal.  All he has to do is connect somewhere.  Big difference and bad example on your part.

[phade]

No, you are the ignorant one.  For an army sniper at 1500 yards, it probably don't matter if he clips someone in the arm, leg or some other spot that would be a non-lethal hit on an animal.  All he has to do is connect somewhere.  Big difference and bad example on your part.

 

Pretty sure the sniper wants the target dead, and is inarguably much more important than a deer. Sorry, bad response on your part.

[steve863]

Pretty sure the sniper wants the target dead, and is inarguably much more important than a deer. Sorry, bad response on your part.

 

 

He wants the target immobilized at a distance such as 1500 yards.  A shot in the arm, leg or ass from a high powered rifle will put a human down.  Tell me if a shot like that will put a deer or elk down?  No need for a reply, thank you.

[LuckyPickle123]

I think it's pretty easy to justify that 60, 70, 80 yards plus is a risky shot with a bow. One that a lot of people won't support.

Put distance of shot on the horizontal axis, and risk on the vertical axis. Draw a line staring at zero and go straight up with it.

Sorry but a 20 yard shot is inevitably a lot less risky than 80. Can't argue with that.

How mad would you be if someone in your hunting party took a shot at your numero uno at long range and wounded him?

[Jeremy K]

I saw Levi Morgan shoot a deer at 70 yards in the woods , he never thought twice about taking the shot.

[phade]

He wants the target immobilized at a distance such as 1500 yards. A shot in the arm, leg or ass from a high powered rifle will put a human down. Tell me if a shot like that will put a deer or elk down? No need for a reply, thank you.

i dont think they aim to simply immobilize. They want death.

[Adkhunter1590]

No, you are the ignorant one. For an army sniper at 1500 yards, it probably don't matter if he clips someone in the arm, leg or some other spot that would be a non-lethal hit on an animal. All he has to do is connect somewhere. Big difference and bad example on your part.

Lol you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed are ya? Listen up boys. The military no longer shoots to kill. If you seriously think anywhere someone is shot that they are automatically dead you really need some more education. If this was true there wouldn't be a single gun shot survivor in the world! Regardless of what you think you may know...our troops don't shoot to wound. They wouldn't waste the lead.

[phade]

I think it's pretty easy to justify that 60, 70, 80 yards plus is a risky shot with a bow. One that a lot of people won't support.

Put distance of shot on the horizontal axis, and risk on the vertical axis. Draw a line staring at zero and go straight up with it.

Sorry but a 20 yard shot is inevitably a lot less risky than 80. Can't argue with that.

How mad would you be if someone in your hunting party took a shot at your numero uno at long range and wounded him?

So a 20 in thick brush vs. open long shot?

All else is never equal.