hi Phil, accuracy to me is a case of you-got-it-or you--don,t..some people can hit a baseball like you wouldn,t believe and some hit it like me..i have very poor hand to eye coordination, always did..i think that,s why i like fly casting..i can get a better measure of distance with a false cast or two..i,m not going to blame it on my tools..lol..i have /had shooting accuracy but there is no hand-eye coordination needed for that..lol.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2021 05:39PM by ben belote.

Joe Vanfossen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a lot to unpack in this thread.
>
> Accuracy refers to the weighted center of a
> grouping of data points and that precision refers
> to the standard deviation of the data points. In
> Aaron's description, replace consistent with
> precise. A firearm shoots in the direction that
> the shooter points it. The shooter is responsible
> for the accuracy. Just like a good caster can
> locate casts with great accuracy, a great shooter
> can locate shots with great accuracy. With an
> inadequate firearm, that grouping may have 0 shots
> in the bullseye, but the center of the grouping
> will be demonstrating accuracy. A great shooter
> with a great firearm and the appropriate ammo will
> have the center of the grouping in the bullseye as
> well as all of the shots tightly clustered.
> Simply put in scientific terms, if the accuracy is
> off, you calibrate your instrument, if the
> precision is not adequate, you change the tool.
>
> Watching that video back, I almost half-wonder if
> Gary intentionally provided just enough fodder for
> both sides of the spine debate to walk away and
> say "Hey look, my interpretation of the problem is
> correct!"
>
> Kent, we tend to agree on many ideas when it comes
> to rod building, but where the spine goes may be
> one where we agree to disagree. My question for
> you is when you spine your blank, are you using
> the axis of least resistance, as Gary demonstrates
> in the video, or are you using the 'natural'
> curvature of the blank? Gary contradicts himself
> in the video. He demonstrates the technique of
> finding the spine of the blank that is used by
> spine finders. He then goes on and says that, and
> I'm paraphrasing here, 'If the blank has a curve,
> it will be along the spine.' The latter is simply
> not true. Tom's data, and my anecdotal experience
> with blanks, indicate that the spine, the location
> of which is demonstrated by Gary in the video, and
> curvature of the blank are rarely, if ever, on the
> same plane.
>
> Given your other comments, it sounds to me that
> you are using the 'spine' in the sense of the
> stiffest axis, i.e. the straightest axis, to
> locate your guides, as you indicate that you are
> using the latter definition of 'spine' that Gary
> talks about. In addition to alluding to your
> definition spine and the straightest axis are the
> same thing. Unfortunately, in the jargon of rod
> building is, as I interpret it, the spine
> essentially refers to the part of the rod that is
> on the outside of the bend when the rod is flexed
> along the weakest axis. The problem is that the
> stiffest and weakest axes are not typically
> parallel to one another, hence the dichotomy in
> the terms spine and straightest axis.
>
> Personally, I've settled on the fact that torque
> determines how the rod will flex, and build on the
> straightest axis. If how the rod flexes during
> the backcast is that critical, I would opt for
> guides on top (both casting and spinning), as I
> would be assured that the tip will not rotate one
> direction vs. the other on the backcast. Using
> this logic, a "Simple Pass By" wrap would become
> the optimal configuration for casting a spinning
> rod. However, I opt of a slow spiral wrap, not
> too dissimilar from the Cagey Wrap, for my casting
> rods and keep the guides on the bottom of the
> spinning rod to make use of the stability once the
> fish is hooked.
>
> While we are on the topic of semantics, Gary uses
> a very incorrect term in the video when he talks
> about the rod dampening. Unless the sprinkler
> system is on in the room, the rod is not dampening
> as it comes to rest, but it is damping
> oscillations as it comes to rest.
>
> We can quibble over the semantics of terms used in
> rod building, but there are quite a few instances
> where the definition of the jargon do not align
> with the physics definition of the terms (action
> uses terms related to velocity, etc.). Heck, even
> in physics we have some strange definitions.
> After all we still define electric current as the
> direction positive charges flow through a circuit,
> even though we have well over 100 years of
> evidence that it is the negative charges that
> actually flow through the circuit.


A rifle built for sport big game hunting, like the Remington 30-06 carbine, model 740 was good for 3 shots. The barrel was thin, and would start wandering from heat. My son paid handsomely for a brand of barrel, and rifle that was supposed to give very tight groupings. He used premium match grade bullets, as well as loading his own, and found the rifle lacking. High price is no guarantee of accuracy, or tight groups. On the other hand, if your weapon is consistent, you can, as a shooter, adjust for inaccuracy. I had a Red Ryder BB gun as a boy, that shot just a bit to the left. From 40 feet, I could put BB's through the same hole in a target. With my bow, with imperfect fletching, I could put 10 arrows into a 3 inch square from 60 yards.

The same is true of a fishing rod. If you spend time with it, and cast it, a lot, you will learn to make it do what you want it to do, within its limits. That being said, I know my rods are better than what I can purchase at big box stores.. For those that want that higher quality, they are going to pay more, because it costs me more for all it takes to build the rod. For those that are merely dunking worms, or fishing minnows for panfish, buy an Ugly Stick. It's a lot cheaper and will pull in most fish.

Tight Lies and frisky fish

RJF

It's getting deep .....

Robert Flowers.

"Buy an Ugly Stick. It's a lot cheaper and will pull in most fish"



There are a lot of people out there that judge rod performance and overall quality on the size fish it is able to land which I have always thought was absolutely ridiculous for judging rod performance . An Ugly Stik with the appropriate power rating will land just about anything because it's built for ultimate durability.

Whenever I hear rod and blank manufacturers push the ultimate durability claim I cringe because I know in most cases that typically means a rod or blank that's heavier and more sluggish in nature than rod's and blanks built for ultimate sensitivity and performance .I'm not saying this is the case all the time but more often than not in my experience .

RJF , please don,t disparage ugly sticks..the glass tip can be tuned to make it a most dangerous cranking rod especially for spinner baits..i,ve had some great days of fishing for largemouth, especiaally when the water gets down to the lower fiftys..the spinner bait is a great lure in cold water but a tuned rod makes it so much bettter..you can,t tune any other rod like you can an ugly stick..i learned this from a good fishing buddy and he gets very upset when i talk it up so i best shut up..lol.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's getting deep .....

It may look deep, but every word is true. I received my first BB gun at age 8, my first bow at age 7. I terrorized squirrels, and copper-bellies in the forests surrounding where we lived. Go ahead and spend 2 to three hours a day honing your shouting skills. You will be amazed what you can do. I was lousy at team sports, and so put my efforts into learning to shoot things. Of course, the intensive training occurred as as a teen, when I was cutting grass for money, and in summer, when I had lots of time. Believe me, there are people who can out shoot me by a wide margin.

And as far as ugly sticks go, I think they are a great product for their intended use.

Tight Lies and frisky fish

RJF



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/07/2021 08:18PM by Robert Flowers.

The progression usually goes from bow to gun. Don't shoot your eye out.

I pretty much grew up with a bow and arrow in my hand. First bow at age 5. I shot tournament archery for 8 years. I shot instinctive. Well, 3 fingers under actually, and got pretty good at it. I got 13 chipmunks over one summer with my target bows. A Bear HC 300, and a Wing Presentation 2. Longest shot on a chipmunk was 30 yards. I can tell you, when you chipmunk hunt with your target arrows, you get very good at straightening arrows. lol

Compound bows were just coming out as I was getting out of competitive shooting. If you shot a compound, you were automatically put into the open class at tournaments. There was no such thing as mechanical releases back then. It was the cow hide tab, or one of those horrible glove things. lol The only compound I've ever owned is the first compound my dad got. The first model that Precision came out with. He gave it to me before he died.

My dad was professional level. Shot with a sight, clicker, kisser button and peep sight in the string. the whole nine yards. We used to make our own arrows. Easton XX 75s were the shaft of choice back then. We got all our bows and supplies from Bednar's Archery in Sufffield Ohio. Bill Bednar was a great guy, and he and my dad were good friends. When I think back on those times, I can't help but remember the smell of Bill's pipe when you went into his shop. Bill was the only person I ever met that shot better than my dad. And Bill is in the Archery Hall of Fame.

Anyhow ..... definitely off subject for what the thread is about. Unless you want to discuss how you need to match the spine of your arrows to the bow you're shooting? Now there is something where spine makes a difference in accuracy. But with fishing rods? I'm not buying it.

My first bow was a Ben Pearson fiberglas 20 lb. pull. 2nd was an Ernie Root recurve, 35 lb. pull. Both were purchased by my Dad. My next bow, I purchased. I spent an entire paycheck on it, a Crrol Compound, 70 lb. pu;; with 20% let-off. It was the most powerful bow available in 1975, when I got it. Aluminum Easton arrows rated for the weight were used, with field points, blunts, judo heads, ang broadheads, depending on whether I was hunting, or target shooting. I had to pass that bow down to one of my sons, as I can't pull it back anymore. But it gave me 20 years of great shooting. I wonder if my fly rods will last that long. I could put a blunt through a car door with that compound. It was a beast.

Tight Lies and frisky fish

RJF

I used to build golf clubs and I had a spine finder, similar to the ones used for rods. Metal shafts had one spine and graphite shafts had two, one stronger and one weaker spine, just like rod blanks. In theory, we had choices of how we would install the shaft. We had four choices. 1. We could point the neutral side of the shaft towards the target, supposedly making easiest to hit a straight ball, and this also supposedly made the shaft the most flexible. 2. We could point the spine towards the ball, making it also hit straight, but with the stiffest flex. 3. We could position the spine pointing toward the golfer, making the shaft twist inward , promoting a draw. 4. We could position the spine out pointing away from the golfer to make the shaft twist outward promoting a fade. Later it was determined that this didn't matter and the golf shaft was too short to promote twisting at all to make an effect on the golf ball.. I continued to do it because it couldn't hurt to know where the spine was and to position it according to how you strike the ball. It's a mental game after all. I take the same stance in rod building, whether right or wrong, whether it has an effect on the cast, fighting the fish, whatever. I just do it because it's there and it certainly can't hurt to get it into position. If you choose not to, well, who will know?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2021 10:18AM by Fred Zimmermann.

Robert, I have no doubt that the shooter can compensate for quite a bit. However, the grouping analogy makes for a great system to describe the difference between accuracy and precision. My phd work ended in a null result simply because the generation of detector that we had available at the time lacked the precision to make the measurement we were after. When the next generation higher precision detector came online, the measurement was made. In my case, getting more precise results, literally meant changing the tool.

I know, I'm going back a few pages, but Kent thanks for elaborating.

Fred, that is a really interesting result that the orientation of the spine does not matter in golf clubs. The way a golf club loads, I would have fully expected the orientation of the spine to matter. It may well be that there is enough inertia in the head of the club to prevent the spine from mattering and causing any significant angular displacements during the time scales involved. Do you know of any video analysis links that demonstrate it? You've piqued my curiosity a bit.

Robert and Dave, I bet you guys would have liked our indoor archery range while I was in college at Baldwin Wallace College. We had a club called the Intercollegiate Sporting Association, and we would shoot trap, go on pheasant hunts, the occasional fishing trip, and our clubhouse on campus was an old abandoned aquatic center. We had targets in the bottom of the deep end of the pool, on the pool deck and on a raised platform on the deck. We could shoot from positions in the shallow end of the pool, the pool deck and from an observation deck. It was really cool, and you could do a fantastic job of replicating a lot of typical Ohio hunting shots in that facility. Unfortunately, the aquatic center was torn down when the college was executing its longer range master plan for campus and is no more. I've always been more of a casual participant in the shooting sports and archery, but had a lot of fun in my college days at the range.

My first bow was a stick bow: recurve, reflex, and deflex, hickory back, osage-orange belly, cut and sawn from local trees, cascofin glue, shaped and tillered. Made bowstrings from Barbour's flax and beeswax, shot carp with cedar shaft arrows fitted with a conical steel arrowhead shaped on a lathe and fitted with a barb. The bowl of an angel-food cake tin served as a reel, and nylon parachute cord served as a line. At the same time fiberglass rod blanks were becoming available, and I taught myself how to affix reel seats, wrap guides, and build rods. While bow and rod technology has improved greatly our waters and the fish in them have declined just as spectacularly.

Joe Vanfossen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Fred, that is a really interesting result that the
> orientation of the spine does not matter in golf
> clubs. The way a golf club loads, I would have
> fully expected the orientation of the spine to
> matter. It may well be that there is enough
> inertia in the head of the club to prevent the
> spine from mattering and causing any significant
> angular displacements during the time scales
> involved. Do you know of any video analysis links
> that demonstrate it? You've piqued my curiosity a
> bit.
>
Well, whether it matters or not can still be debated. In my mind it works and in golf, anything positive helps. Most of my set is built by me and I continue to tweak them as needed. Just like spining rods, many professional club builders swear by it. I don't know of any videos but, when I put my shafts in the "spine finder" it always jumps into the neutral position. Steel shafts always have a distinct spine that is easily located.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2021 11:48AM by Fred Zimmermann.

Joe, that archery set up you described at Baldwin Wallace sounds like it would have been very cool. Bednar's had an indoor range that we would shoot at from time to time, but it always felt odd shooting indoors. We belonged to Akoga Bowmen located in what used to be North Hampton, later annexed by Cuyahoga Falls. It had 5 practice buts at varying yardages and two 20 target courses that were spread out through the woods. It was a lot of work replacing bales and keeping the course nice, but it was also a lot of fun. Archery was big back then, and we used to travel around to a lot of different club's courses for their annual shoots. Man I loved it. You'd go out and shoot a section of the course and take your score card in and they'd post your scores. The next time in, you turn in your scores and check the board to see where you were at. Some of the shoots were actual targets with the yardage posted at the stakes, others were animal targets with no posted yardage. Those were my favorite ones.

Geauga County Bowmen used to have a 40 target 3D Safari shoot. All life sized animals. 18' tall Giraffe, 12' tall Bull elephant that you had to get ladders in order to pull your arrows. It was awesome !!! Our club had a Fall deer shoot. We all chipped in and made 30 life size 3D deer targets. The last target on the front course was a running deer that I made and set up. I used a bicycle, some pulleys, and a rope to make it work. We would tack up the tails of chipmunks on the bulletin board on the club house. lol Man those are some great memories.

Nothing so fancy where I grew up. We had a field range, and I made my own range in my parents back yard 9block long with Aspen, Poplar, and tag alders. I had to chop out tag alders, and pull the stumps. I had bales set at 20, 30, 40, and 60 yards, and an old dartboard hanging on a rope that I'd get swinging. One of my best friends was into archery as well. We competed against each other, and like I stated previously, shot 2 to 3 hours per day. I also hunted small game with my bow, until deer season rolled in. Good times, good memories.

Tight Lies and frisky fish

RJF