For my final post, I decided to test author and experienced archer Brian J. Sorrells theory of shooting arrows from different planes. According to Brian J. Sorrells, he explains, "Canting, or tilting the bow to the side gets the upper limb out of the line of sight for normal shooting" (Sorrells 52). What Sorrells is explaining is that the more tilt you have in your bow, the increased chance of hitting your target (because nothing is blocking your view). Another plane Sorrells suggested was, "When bare shaft tuning, do not cant (tilt) the bow, but hold it as close to vertical as possible" (Sorrells 52). Unlike before, Sorrells is telling the reader that you can shoot with your bow being vertical, however he doesn't elaborate on whether or not it is better than the first method suggested.
To test these ideas, I decided to shoot arrows with my bow being on horizontal and vertical planes. I chose a horizontal plane because at that angle, no part of the bow is blocking your view of the target. While I was testing these methods, I noticed that the horizontal plane had more arrows scattered throughout the target and a greater distance from the bull's eye than the vertical plane. The conclusion I drew from this test was that the vertical plane gave me a better chance of hitting the bull's eye than the horizontal plane. What do you think the author's purpose was for including the cant (tilt) method if it didn't work?
Horizontal Plane Results
Vertical Plane
i think this is really cool how you are doing archery for your project. Also i think that the author included the method so that you would have more options when shooting your bow or perhaps the method only works for certain people.
ReplyDeletei think this is really cool how you are doing archery for your project. Also i think that the author included the method so that you would have more options when shooting your bow or perhaps the method only works for certain people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zack. Maybe the author included the method for his own type. You're pretty tall and the author may have been shorter. Could height be the issue? Then again you did mention that the author's technique's were a bit useless in previous posts.
ReplyDelete