Compound Bow Tuning, where now?

Icarus78

New member
This aging archer with his Mission Rally has been plugging away at a mediocre 3rd class level, with the occasional 2nd, for some years - until yesterday when I had the offer of access to an indoor paper tune rig. Wow! A great 2 1/2 inch diagonal rip. A couple of hours spent nudging the rest down then left, left ,left until I had a very reasonable "bullet hole". Then, feeling quite smugly self satisfied, I put the bow back on the rest still with an arrow nocked. Ugh! Something was now obviously wrong, the arrow drooping and so far off to the left that the sight could never move that far. Time had run out so there was nothing to do but a quick return to a rough centre-shot position.
So where do I go from here? The cams are both "vertical" at rest and at full draw, the tiller is equal, both the stops hit at the same moment, my arrows are "optimum spline" (according to Archers Advantage's software); what is so obviously out of tune? Unless it's me?
Regards etc.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
My first question would be to ask about the diagonal rip. It would seem, from what you did next, that the rip was tail low( or point high) So you lowered the rest. And that the point was to the right so you moved the rest out to the left.
I would also ask if you shot any bare shafts, and if so did they produce the same tears?
If I were you, I would take fletchings off a couple of arrows and shoot those to see if they do the same as the fletched arrows.
I would also set the rest on centre and about square, a starting point that you can return to when or if things go wrong.
When you set centre shot how do you judge when that is on centre?
Have you looked for any signs of fletching contact with the rest? Which rest are you using?
Are you using a d-loop and release aid?
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
My first question would be to ask about the diagonal rip. It would seem, from what you did next, that the rip was tail low( or point high) So you lowered the rest. And that the point was to the right so you moved the rest out to the left.
I would also ask if you shot any bare shafts, and if so did they produce the same tears?
If I were you, I would take fletchings off a couple of arrows and shoot those to see if they do the same as the fletched arrows.
I would also set the rest on centre and about square, a starting point that you can return to when or if things go wrong.
When you set centre shot how do you judge when that is on centre?
Have you looked for any signs of fletching contact with the rest? Which rest are you using?
Are you using a d-loop and release aid?
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
the only paper tuning really worth while, is the size of groups in a paper target. The thing with trying to shoot "bullet holes" is that they only show you what the arrow is doing at that particular distance. It doesn't mean that if you move 3m further away you'll still have a perfect bullet hole.

I seem to recall it was Terry Ragsdale who cleaned Vegas for the first time, with a bow that was giving +2" tear through paper...
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
I must remember to post via 'go advanced' to stop duplicate posts... and repeat!!
 

Icarus78

New member
Thank you, Geoffretired, for your considered reply. Quick answers are that ,yes, I use a d-loop and release aid and a drop-down rest. As for the directions , I followed the guidance from seemingly authoritative sources after googling "paper tuning for compound bows", and I moved the rest in the lateral sense towards the point (which they accept iscounter-intuitive) yet, with a logic that escapes me, in the vertical sense toward the nock. Most of these sources were transatlantic, only an Australian one suggested the reverse lateral direction which I think was the direction you were assuming in your reply. If, in fact I corrected in the wrong direction it was amazing that it produced a good bullet-hole yet with an unusable bow! Back to the drawing board!
 

backinblack

Active member
Hi Icarus,

Have you checked that the drop-down rest is working as it should? I've always distrusted that this type of rest would be where it should be at the moment of release and most high-level compound archers seem to favour blade rests for ease of set-up and adjustment.
 

backinblack

Active member
Hi Icarus,

Have you checked that the drop-down rest is working as it should? I've always distrusted that this type of rest would be where it should be at the moment of release and most high-level compound archers seem to favour blade rests for ease of set-up and adjustment.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hi Icarus, I know the feeling when the tears end up as less than good. Or worse!!
I also know that sorting it out CAN BE a bit of a minefield; not always though. I have done paper tests and found that moving the rest the "wrong way" has produced bullet holes. That tends to happen when the tears were pretty good and I wanted perfect. I think it shows that I had determined what was centre shot and got it wrong and the correction worked because it moved towards the true centre shot.
You ask, "where now? " in your title and I think that means back to a sensible starting position despite the bullet hole. (at a certain distance a bullet hole is achieved just because the arrow happens to be in the right attitude at that single point in its flight. In the same way a slalom skier is going straight ahead at a point midway between two extremes in a zig zag course.
Set the rest to put the arrow just about level, or very slightly tail high. Set centre shot so the arrow is pointing straight ahead. That needs to be done without relying on the long rod which could be off centre. I stand directly above the bow looking down so the top limb is just hiding the bottom limb.With split limbs I use the inside edge of the limbs as they are almost on the same plane as the arrow. I look to see if the arrow is pointing parallel to the inside edge, when the bottom one is just visible and in line with then same edge of the top limb.
The arrow should now be in the position that is used by most archers. The results should be pretty good unless something is going wrong. I use bare shafts so fletching contact can't be to blame. First off shoot as close as possible to the paper, a bit further than long rod length. With so little room to move off line, the hole should be pretty close to a bullet hole. If it isn't, look for a reason. Perhaps the rest is dropping too soon. Perhaps the d-loop is too tight and pinching the nocks. Perhaps the string is too thick at the nocking point and making the separation too difficult. Perhaps you are plucking the release aid at the critical release time. Or the bow arm collapses/twitches. Maybe the string at your jaw, is bouncing off the side of your jaw.
Perhaps your bow hand on the grip is creating a torque that makes the bow flick across to one side... watch the long rod on some shots to see what it is getting up to at the point of release.
If you are using a rest that is made up of two long prongs; make sure the gap isn't too close to the actual diameter of the shafts.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hi Icarus, I know the feeling when the tears end up as less than good. Or worse!!
I also know that sorting it out CAN BE a bit of a minefield; not always though. I have done paper tests and found that moving the rest the "wrong way" has produced bullet holes. That tends to happen when the tears were pretty good and I wanted perfect. I think it shows that I had determined what was centre shot and got it wrong and the correction worked because it moved towards the true centre shot.
You ask, "where now? " in your title and I think that means back to a sensible starting position despite the bullet hole. (at a certain distance a bullet hole is achieved just because the arrow happens to be in the right attitude at that single point in its flight. In the same way a slalom skier is going straight ahead at a point midway between two extremes in a zig zag course.
Set the rest to put the arrow just about level, or very slightly tail high. Set centre shot so the arrow is pointing straight ahead. That needs to be done without relying on the long rod which could be off centre. I stand directly above the bow looking down so the top limb is just hiding the bottom limb.With split limbs I use the inside edge of the limbs as they are almost on the same plane as the arrow. I look to see if the arrow is pointing parallel to the inside edge, when the bottom one is just visible and in line with then same edge of the top limb.
The arrow should now be in the position that is used by most archers. The results should be pretty good unless something is going wrong. I use bare shafts so fletching contact can't be to blame. First off shoot as close as possible to the paper, a bit further than long rod length. With so little room to move off line, the hole should be pretty close to a bullet hole. If it isn't, look for a reason. Perhaps the rest is dropping too soon. Perhaps the d-loop is too tight and pinching the nocks. Perhaps the string is too thick at the nocking point and making the separation too difficult. Perhaps you are plucking the release aid at the critical release time. Or the bow arm collapses/twitches. Maybe the string at your jaw, is bouncing off the side of your jaw.
Perhaps your bow hand on the grip is creating a torque that makes the bow flick across to one side... watch the long rod on some shots to see what it is getting up to at the point of release.
If you are using a rest that is made up of two long prongs; make sure the gap isn't too close to the actual diameter of the shafts.
 

KidCurry

Well-known member
AIUK Saviour
I think if it was me I would go back to bow setup and start from scratch. The process I use is below. It is not exaustive or the only method but it works to the point that my bow will quite happliy shoot GMB scores, when I'm in the mood to shoot them :) Note tuning will involve shooting the bow.

Bow Setup:

Remove sight
Remove Rest

Release limb nuts.
Wind limbs to maximum.
Wind out limbs equally to draw weight.

Measure nock to peep distance. Record ...........................

Measure ATA. Record (bow specification) ...........................
Set ATA to (bow specification) by adjusting cable and string.

Brace height measure. Record ............................

Check wheel lean and adjust yoke
Check cam timing (as per bow specification)

Fit rest
Set centre shot

Fit nocking point 3mm above tongue points
- lower nock set
- upper nock set
- D loop

Check cable bar and cable clearance 1/16th to 3/16"

Sight alignment


Tuning

Centre shot - modified French tune
Paper tune (advanced)
Yoke tune (advanced)
 

Andy!

Active member
I'd just like to point out that it's quite possible to get a bullet hole on paper with a bow in a shooting machine, and have the arrows spray on the target.
I'd also like to point out that what makes a bullet hole for one person, quite often doesn't for another.
Also, there are current world champion archers who don't bother to paper tune.

These actual facts should be enough to convince people who are capable of scientific analysis to conclude that if something gives false indications and is proven to be unnecessary, then it is a complete waste of time.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Andy! I like that post.
I can easily imagine, though, someone like me for whom it is too late....... because we did the shooting through paper yesterday.
Not totally too late; because I might have shot a bullet hole. In which case I accept the facts and think nothing more about paper testing and just get on with my archery.
But, what if I shot a tear that is far bigger than I would consider to be normal, or acceptable? My head would agree with all you have said, but my head would still want to know what is causing the big tears.
Arrow rest to fletching contact perhaps? Terrible release aid operator errors? Arrow rest malfunction? I might not use paper to try and discover the answers. I could try powder on the fletchings/ change the arrow rest/ have someone examine my release aid triggering/ shot procedure.Have someone else shoot my bow and may arrows.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Andy! I like that post.
I can easily imagine, though, someone like me for whom it is too late....... because we did the shooting through paper yesterday.
Not totally too late; because I might have shot a bullet hole. In which case I accept the facts and think nothing more about paper testing and just get on with my archery.
But, what if I shot a tear that is far bigger than I would consider to be normal, or acceptable? My head would agree with all you have said, but my head would still want to know what is causing the big tears.
Arrow rest to fletching contact perhaps? Terrible release aid operator errors? Arrow rest malfunction? I might not use paper to try and discover the answers. I could try powder on the fletchings/ change the arrow rest/ have someone examine my release aid triggering/ shot procedure.Have someone else shoot my bow and may arrows.
 

Andy!

Active member
Well yeah. There's a thing called "Really crap arrow flight" that you can see without paper tuning and it generally lasts quite a distance. It doesn't take much to move an arrow rest one way or another to see if it gets worse or not.

The thing is, contact may not necessarily show up in a paper test, where it WILL show up by using powder or lipstick. Excessive contact is typically pretty easy to see and generally hear.
A tail high exit can typically be beneficial to achieving clearance. This does not have a perfect bullet hole.

It's when recurve archers start paper tuning that you really need to slap them and tell them to sit down.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Yes! That's more or less what I think, too.
I also think that the idea of "tuning" is very deeply seated in the minds of many archers. Way back when I started there was no internet. We listened to other archers who had been shooting longer and had learnt a " thing or two". Nothing wrong with a bit of experience, but what can so easily happen, is the newer archer wants to get"into archery" and join in with the chatter. That rush can create a situation where they pick up a bit of the truth and pass on slightly less than they picked up. Some accidental "untruths" can become common practice to the extent that they are believed to be facts.
Tuning is one of those ,I feel. It is good to be told, that with a bit of tinkering, our failings can be put right and better scores will follow. We can even try the said tinkering and find it really does work.( for a while... but we ignore that side of it) When it doesn't; it is nice to know we "tinkered wrongly" and doing some more will get us to a higher level.
I have found it very difficult to accept that tuning is not all it's cracked up to be. Even when I realised; I still carried on tinkering. It's like playing safe, just in case.
I guess the more I think I know, the more there is holding me back from accepting a new truth. Too much invested in what is still in there.
It seems to me that the contrast between old and new needs to be explored. Much of the old is not simply wrong, it just needs tweaking. Tweaking properly though.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Yes! That's more or less what I think, too.
I also think that the idea of "tuning" is very deeply seated in the minds of many archers. Way back when I started there was no internet. We listened to other archers who had been shooting longer and had learnt a " thing or two". Nothing wrong with a bit of experience, but what can so easily happen, is the newer archer wants to get"into archery" and join in with the chatter. That rush can create a situation where they pick up a bit of the truth and pass on slightly less than they picked up. Some accidental "untruths" can become common practice to the extent that they are believed to be facts.
Tuning is one of those ,I feel. It is good to be told, that with a bit of tinkering, our failings can be put right and better scores will follow. We can even try the said tinkering and find it really does work.( for a while... but we ignore that side of it) When it doesn't; it is nice to know we "tinkered wrongly" and doing some more will get us to a higher level.
I have found it very difficult to accept that tuning is not all it's cracked up to be. Even when I realised; I still carried on tinkering. It's like playing safe, just in case.
I guess the more I think I know, the more there is holding me back from accepting a new truth. Too much invested in what is still in there.
It seems to me that the contrast between old and new needs to be explored. Much of the old is not simply wrong, it just needs tweaking. Tweaking properly though.
 

AndyW

Well-known member
And that's the problem geoffretired. Once you've got the fallacy of paper tuning in your head it sticks. Took me a long long time to break the mindset of shooting bullet holes. Simplify your tuning by just walking backwards until the nodes are in just the right alignment to shoot bullets, pop another one down there to check and walk away never looking back. Complete waste of effort.
I can shoot 500's at 27'' or 400s at 28'' out of the same bow but with different rests with equal confidence - neither of them paper tune, the 500s don't even bareshaft because they're way weak but pop some fletchings on and you're good to go. Practice for the same amount of time with a bow that's close will bear more fruit than a perfect tune.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hi AndyW. Yes indeed.
I think the problem may be wider than just paper tuning or not. A range of things related to archery that we pass on by word of mouth. Outdated "truths". Sometimes we pass them round on here but that gets noticed and corrected; usually. Word of mouth goes on unchecked more often, I suspect.
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hi AndyW. Yes indeed.
I think the problem may be wider than just paper tuning or not. A range of things related to archery that we pass on by word of mouth. Outdated "truths". Sometimes we pass them round on here but that gets noticed and corrected; usually. Word of mouth goes on unchecked more often, I suspect.
 
Top