hawkeye
19-09-05, 08:15 PM
I'm embracing bowhunting BIG time and getting a recurve regardless... however, with just only a 'jist' of the sport up my sleeve to date, it seems that the biggest advantage of a compound over a recurve for hunting is being able to hold a sight picture (arrow ready to go) for a long length of time with a compound? while with a recurve (and instimatic shooting) you need to draw and shoot rather quickly?
is this sorta so... ?? opinions appreciated (i'm not trying to start a bow fight - i'm just a honest ignorant novice).
and if so then isn't it easier/better bowhunting then with a compound? as from my hunting experience (rifles/guns) that MOVEMENT of drawing to shoot (instamatic) a recurve is gonna give less chance (more fright/notice to game) to pip the prize (kill the beast?) than a static long hold that a compound allows much more readily.
being able to hold for a long time certain has advantages when it comes to waiting for a good shot... or do i need to start doing weights in order to hold back a recurve for a fair length of time (and therefore NOT instamatic shooting?)??
i'm a bit miffed. :roll: :? :?:
is this sorta so... ?? opinions appreciated (i'm not trying to start a bow fight - i'm just a honest ignorant novice).
and if so then isn't it easier/better bowhunting then with a compound? as from my hunting experience (rifles/guns) that MOVEMENT of drawing to shoot (instamatic) a recurve is gonna give less chance (more fright/notice to game) to pip the prize (kill the beast?) than a static long hold that a compound allows much more readily.
being able to hold for a long time certain has advantages when it comes to waiting for a good shot... or do i need to start doing weights in order to hold back a recurve for a fair length of time (and therefore NOT instamatic shooting?)??
i'm a bit miffed. :roll: :? :?: