Aiming with a band sight. Is it more accurate?

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
I read on another thread, that aiming with a band is more accurate than the knuckles; or at least it was considered to be an advantage.
One reason offered was that with the knuckles or arrow, any variation in the hand position on the bow would change the impact point of the arrows.When using a band, the band stayed in place shot to shot.
But, if the archer has a variable hand position and uses knuckles or arrow for aiming, then decides to use a band for a sight, the hand position will still vary, as that fault isn't addressed by adding a band sight.
If I relate this to recurve archery as I know that better, the variable hand position, moves the arrow as if the arrow rest was moving up or down. Aiming with the hand or arrow at least compensates for the hand movement as regards sighting. Aiming with a band, means the arrow is moving up/down in relation to the band,but with no compensation.
Am I missing something?
 

WillS

New member
I would IMAGINE that yes, there are variances that occur even with the rubber band. If you put the bow down for a second, or shift your grip then things will change. There's no arrow rest on a longbow so the only consistent shelf (which of course is crucial for consistency and reliability) will be your hand. I think that's one of those little things that makes shooting a longbow more interesting to some. It's not regular like a machine, it's got some personality and character and movement and that possibly could be argued to take more skill than using things like release aids, shelves and so on.

The trouble is, if people start thinking "Ahhh... that's a good point. I've spent ages setting up the range with this sight band, and I've just realised that if I put the bow down and pick it up again the position might change in accordance to my knuckle... Hmmm.. I need to find a way to secure the arrow in the same place each time..." and all of a sudden, we're looking at shelves, or more marks, and so on. And at that point we might as well shoot recurve ;)
 

geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Cheers, WillS.
What I am thinking, is that if the hand moves on the grip section, then at least the aiming from knuckles will compensate as far as what is seen as the aiming.If, for example the hand is lower, the knuckles will still be raised to the same aiming position in relation to the target or gap. Any impact on the bow( tiller?) by holding lower down, will be there even if a band was in use.But the band won't cancel the fact the arrow would be aimed lower using the band.
I can see what you mean about not wanting to build on arrow shelves etc etc to make the shooting more accurate. Keep the bow and arrows as they used to be. I can also see, that anyone who lived by the bow, might just use ideas that they felt would add to their accuracy. I could imagine that I would try a shelf or rest of some sort. I could still make my own bow; whereas making a recurve might not be what I would want to tackle.
 

Simon Banks

Active member
I think that having a "Mark on the bow" is an advantage is clear, if it were not an advantage why would people use it?
If it offers no advantage then it should not be a problem shooting without one.. ;-)
 

WillS

New member
Cheers, WillS.
What I am thinking, is that if the hand moves on the grip section, then at least the aiming from knuckles will compensate as far as what is seen as the aiming.If, for example the hand is lower, the knuckles will still be raised to the same aiming position in relation to the target or gap. Any impact on the bow( tiller?) by holding lower down, will be there even if a band was in use.But the band won't cancel the fact the arrow would be aimed lower using the band.
I can see what you mean about not wanting to build on arrow shelves etc etc to make the shooting more accurate. Keep the bow and arrows as they used to be. I can also see, that anyone who lived by the bow, might just use ideas that they felt would add to their accuracy. I could imagine that I would try a shelf or rest of some sort. I could still make my own bow; whereas making a recurve might not be what I would want to tackle.
I think you're right on all points, Geoff. It almost seems as if using a band is a disadvantage, as there will be a bigger gap if the hand shifts slightly, and if the archer doesn't realise this fact then range will be different. I don't think people move their hands enough on the grip for it to be a real issue however. Worth thinking about though.


I think it was ghound that mentioned a while ago that he believed it likely that "primitive man" using bows might scratch marks on the bow to help with aiming. On the one hand, it makes a lot of sense - those guys weren't mucking about getting scores they just wanted to get food as quickly as possible without wasting ammunition. On the other hand, not a single bow ever found (and at this point there have been lots) have shown any signs of scratches, bands, marks and so on, and definitely no shelves. Even the most "modern" traditional bows found (the hundreds of Mary Rose bows) were as simple as it gets in terms of function - one stick, one string. No marks, no shelves, no bands, no notches or anything. And these are bows built hundreds and hundreds of years after primitive men were hunting with bows. It does seem at this stage that sighting aids such as bands or markers and so on are very, very recent.


That's not to say however that there should be some discontent regarding modern additions. Compound bows are sensationally well designed and take this simple stick to whole new levels - they really are incredible machines that achieve the same (or better) results far more efficiently. I don't doubt that if Mr Caveman had access to compound bows, or Henry V's retinue were able to use Olympic recurves they would have done!
 

ghound

Member
I read on another thread, that aiming with a band is more accurate than the knuckles; or at least it was considered to be an advantage.
One reason offered was that with the knuckles or arrow, any variation in the hand position on the bow would change the impact point of the arrows.When using a band, the band stayed in place shot to shot.
But, if the archer has a variable hand position and uses knuckles or arrow for aiming, then decides to use a band for a sight, the hand position will still vary, as that fault isn't addressed by adding a band sight.
If I relate this to recurve archery as I know that better, the variable hand position, moves the arrow as if the arrow rest was moving up or down. Aiming with the hand or arrow at least compensates for the hand movement as regards sighting. Aiming with a band, means the arrow is moving up/down in relation to the band,but with no compensation.
Am I missing something?
Never thought about it like that, makes sense to be using the point of arrow.
 

Simon Banks

Active member
Made me chuckle the idea about cavemen using sights. Instinctive aiming is for bow hunting and on battle field it's a quick and accurate way to shoot. It would just be too slow and unrealistic to expect your prey to not move at a known ranges.

That said to shoot a target consistency at 100 yards is a feat of skill and perseverance that is extremely impressive, my hat is off to target archers that mange thus feat. .

My own personal preference is to shoot primitive bows like the ELB using heritage skills that have been used by mankind for 30000 years. Won't hurt when I win a few comps as well mind you ;-)
 
D

Deleted member 7654

Guest
It is blindingly simple.
Try it, if it helps you it is an advantage if it doesn't it isn't.
My personal experience is limited to trying it at 10 yards where it completely ruined my shooting.
Conversely I know a clout shooter who uses a band to great effect for clout.
You pays your money you makes your choice... especially with the current international price of rubber bands being pretty low I feel you could risk the small investment and see how you get on ;)
Del
 

WillS

New member
My own personal preference is to shoot primitive bows like the ELB using heritage skills that have been used by mankind for 30000 years.
Ahem. You mean modern laminated bows. A primitive longbow would be very different. You'd find it a lot less stable, more quirky and not as fast on release. Just sayin'. Not sure you can call exotic combinations of superfast lightweight woods with a super superfast Kevlar-based string "primitive" ;)

We don't know what other generations used. We just haven't found any evidence. Doesn't mean they didn't. Nobody's seen Johnny Caveman shooting so nobody knows. As del said, whatever works. Simon, if you were to shoot a genuine primitive bow, you might suddenly find your technique doesn't work at all. You might decide as a result to use a band. You won't know, until you try it. You've adapted what you believe is both a sensible and yet comfortably traditional method that works with a modern longbow.
 

WillS

New member
Here's what I think about rubber bands - I don't think they make much difference when you really think about. Whether you use knuckles, arrow point or rubber band it's all a fraction of a second to line it up with whatever and take the shot. I actually think it's more a psychological thing. Archers probably prefer knowing they have something legal that gives them a little extra step-up when it comes to achieving high scores. If it makes them relax more, almost like a superstition factor, so they can enjoy shooting knowing they're doing the absolute most they can do therefore everything else is down to being focused and relaxed just like a top athlete, then I don't see a problem with it. You won't find rubber bands at primitive/traditional shoots that often I would imagine, in the same way that you wouldn't find the equivalent sporting equipment at a junior rugby match (I have no idea what that might be, but you get my point.) It's just a little extra that some people like to have. Whether it's historically correct is irrelevant, because unless you're shooting a self-bow made of an indigenous wood species and using string made from linen or hemp, you're not being in the slightest bit traditional anyway.

Also, to scoff at it is just plain daft. You wouldn't scoff at a soldier using his gun sights to shoot on the front lines, while you stand there just about hitting what you're aiming at "instinctively" just because of a fervent belief that "back in the day" soldiers didn't have electronic scopes. I bet if you went back in time to 1346 and gave all the guys at Crecy a sight marker and band to use, telling them it would make them more accurate every single one of them would bite your arm off to get it.
 

Simon Banks

Active member
Interesting points but we know that even now instinctive archery techniques are used by bow hunters and so called "primitive" tribes to hunt.

I feel confident that I could pick up any modern, traditional or primitive bow and shoot it effectively and accurately within a dozen arrows.. Same goes for arrows... It's lovely to see the arrows automatically track in after about 2-3 shots..

But I will concede that when dealing with marked distances (aka target) it's a lot harder than other target techniques... e.g. A sight or POA..

Let's hope I get a chance to return to target and see how far I can get.. :)
 

WillS

New member
Interesting points but we know that even now instinctive archery techniques are used by bow hunters and so called "primitive" tribes to hunt.
How do we know that? Do you mean we just don't see them using rubber bands? We can't tell if "primitive" hunters are using gap or POA. There's no visible difference. I would imagine they do anything they can possibly do to bring home food. I don't think they'd give a hoot if they were being "traditional" or not, because they gain nothing from doing so. Supply an primitive tribe with compounds and modern crossbows and they'd thank you kindly and take over the world, chucking their wobbly sticks to the floor.

Anyway, what Geoff is asking is whether the band itself is more accurate. Not "please, let's have another thread where the instinctive archers scoff and chuckle at those who use them while they themselves pretend to be Robin Hood with their half-a-grand Brazilian-wood-import longbow" and personally I think there isn't enough advantage using a rubber band over not using one to be an issue. Lifting the bow up to bring the rubber band to bear on a tree stump, or raising it 2" higher to use a knuckle is such a small difference.
 

WillS

New member
No idea. That's why I'm not scoffing at it. None as far as I can tell. What historical basis is there that tribes from Papua New Guinea use their knuckles to aim at prey items?

The point I'm making is that none of us are close to traditional archery. You're not, with your laminated bows, and I'm not with my FastFlight strings. So to turn down a simple method of achieving higher scores (when all you're doing with your archery is trying to score points - be that target or field) because it doesn't fit in with what you consider to be traditional is daft. And to link this to Geoff's question, I don't think a small band takes away skill from those who use it either. It's not advantageous enough to discount archers who use them.

Does that make sense? I'm not trying to cause a row.
 

Dr. B

New member
Interesting discussion.
As a recurve archer who shoots a horsebow occasionally and has just got a longbow (shot it once so far!), I'm obviously thinking about how to shoot better without sights.
I won't be using a band, because I have my recurve for pinpoint accuracy :eek:ptimist:
But I am surprised and amused by the band/no band debate. If there are two longbow archers shooting at the same time, the one without the band will ridicule the one with. Fact. Is this in the rules of longbow archery? :scratchch
Anyway, as an unsighted novice my technique (such as it is) consists of raising my bow arm slightly above horizontal, lowering it and seeing the the arrow point is in line with the gold left-right, kind of guessing on the elevation, then drawing and loosing.
If it goes high, I think "must aim lower" then try to remember what I was doing previously but I'm not using point of aim for elevation, more like angle of aim.
That said, I'm not very good, although hitting 6 times out of 6 at 30y consistently for several dozen ends was fairly pleasing.
As I "improve" maybe I'll pay more attention to gap or POA, who knows!
 
D

Deleted member 7654

Guest
Cheeses, you two boys are as bad as each other ;)
If you don't behave I'll climb into this monitor (Like Alice through the looking glass) and bang your heads together...
"Contariwise" said Tweedledum... or was it Tweedledee...
Del
 

Dr. B

New member
Just a thought, do the "elite" longbow archers use sight aids (bands)?
I mean the guys who win the big comps, score the record scores, etc.
Because if they do, then I imagine they do help with accuracy.
 
Just a thought, do the "elite" longbow archers use sight aids (bands)?
I mean the guys who win the big comps, score the record scores, etc.
Because if they do, then I imagine they do help with accuracy.
I think a lot of the very best longbow target archers actually use ground markers rather than a mark on the bow. ie. they line up the pile with an aiming point they have placed some way in front of the target. I'm told that it helps you concentrate on the shot, rather than worrying about hitting the target. But I think you have to be really consistent to use that technique effectively, I could never get on with it.

I knew a few very good archers who used pen lines drawn on their knuckles. They would line up the pen line with a point on the target next door to the one they were trying to hit.

Its also a mistake to think of a rubber band as a sight in the recurve sense of the word. You don't place the rubber band on the gold (unless your arrows are differently spined than mine). Normally its someway to the right of the target. So it adds detail to your sight picture - more like the spirit level in a compound sight.

I don't think there is any doubt that these techniques will aid accuracy in certain circumstances, i.e. when you are aiming "pile under" and trying to get consistent arrow placement in a featureless green target field, or in clout when there will be no point of reference to aim the pile at.

I don't think it would help much in unmarked field shooting where the distances are relatively short, every shot is different and there are usually plenty of other visual clues in your sight picture.
 

WillS

New member
Plus don't you need to KNOW the distance, in order to set the band the right distance from the grip etc? It's clearly an aid in target archery, but so what? Is that a bad thing? I don't use 'em, can't be #####, but I can't see a problem with those who do.
 

WillS

New member
I can't actually work out how it's an advantage in target archery over just using the arrow point, but I can see it's advantage in clout. I shot with a guy recently (John Hayes, if it matters, ranked somewhere up high in the UK) and he was using the rubber band to put on the horizon which (having previously worked out where the range should be) gave him really solid distances every time. I tried it, and hated it. Couldn't get my head into the space of not looking at the target area itself as I'm an instinctive archer so looking at anything close by while shooting was horrible - whether that would be bow, arrow point or knuckle, but I can totally see how it's useful in that situation because everything else that would normally be used for reference (arrow point, hand etc) is now pointing into the sky somewhere. For target however - it's absolutely no different in my eyes as using an arrow point or knuckle except for the very fact Geoff has focused this thread on (or at least tried to, if we hadn't derailed it completely) that once the hand moves, the band is less accurate.
 
Top