In the last couple of years we've seen bow sights with more digital tech - no pins, red-dot style sights, angle compensation, yardages, combos of rangefinders and sights.

Tech advances almost everything. We all could get by with recurves and stick bows. They worked for millennia. But 60 years ago some smart folks put wheels under tension on a bow and we had the "compound." From there we've advanced with bows and crossbows to quite the variety today.

Tech sights are the next frontier to continue advances.

Are they too much?

Shoud we stick with pins - even lighted fiber optic pins - and that bit of challenge and required skill to decide, hold and shoot?

Or is tech OK because it's the next step to being more accurate on distance and, possibly, making a better shot or decision? Unless you know the distance or use a rangefinder, in the heat of the moment you may misjudge the yardage. Digital sights would eliminate that possibility.


What do y'all think?

I like it

Digital is great until it's foggy or misty. Same thing with rangefinders is my understanding.
Anything to decrease wounded/boogered up deer that become coyote meat I'm all for.

They’re too much for me.

I doubt I ever own one but I say if you can justify buying it then go for it. I’ll probably shoot my bow tech experience til I die.

It takes the Fred bear out of it to an extent.same as crossbows

Did the regs used to limit a lot of this technology or was it just magnification type stuff on bows? Was thinking no electronics?

Regs have changed. Just about anything is legal now. The only thing I believe that is still in place is not being able to use a laser that projects a visible aiming dot onto the target.

You guys seen this where Fred wanted to use poison pods?

I knew that Fred Bear pushed the pods, but I am not aware that he used them.

What’s you all’s take in pods?


“We all know that the late great Fred Bear was a highly accomplished bowmaker and bowhunter. What is not generally realised, however, is that he was extremely unhappy with the effectiveness of the bow as a hunting weapon, specifically its performance on whitetail deer, the preferred quarry of the North American sportsman. Bear estimated that one animal was severely wounded and lost for every one that was recovered, thus unknowingly echoing the track record of the African Bushmen. As he saw it, that was just not good enough. And the larger the animal, the worse the problems became. Fred Bear shot four bears with his bow, but only recovered one. A gut-shot polar bear drowned. A gut-shot brown bear disappeared. Another brown bear was maimed but got away. These animals weighed heavily on his conscience.
Bear tried to remedy the situation by developing the Bear Razorhead for tipping his arrows. While the results were encouraging, they were not heartening enough. So in the early 1960s he turned to poison, specifically SCC (Succinylcholine chloride or Scoline), a muscle relaxant that in the correct dosage is a very effective tranquilliser. In an overdose, it kills. It comes in the form of a white powder and is placed inside a rubber tube or pod that slips over the arrow just behind the arrowhead. When the arrow strikes home, the rubber is folded back inside the wound, thus exposing the deadly powder to the wound area.
The effects of SCC (depending on dosage and arrow placement) seem to be along the lines that would result from French-kissing a mamba. It kind of takes your breath away, leaving you all choked up, but not for long. Depending on whom you listen to, death is either rapid and painless, or slow and agonising, but it most certainly involves not being able to breathe any more. The effects of the drug wear off rapidly, to the extent that enthusiastic CPR would be an effective antidote in the case of arrow wounds that would have been non-fatal in the absence of poison. It does not appear to make the meat of the victim inedible.
To distance Bear Archery from any political fall-out that could have occurred, Fred Bear used a certain Dr Herrington as a front man for the idea, while publicly suggesting that the archery fraternity keep an open mind on the subject. Even so, the outcry against the concept by the various archery organisations was so extensive that Bear Archery nearly went under as a result of the ensuing boycott. In the end, Fred Bear had to withdraw himself from the discussion in order to save his business. He continued, however, to believe firmly that the use of SCC would make the bow and arrow a better weapon and hence a more ethically supportable hunting tool. His great fear was that if the general public ever found out how ineffective the bow and arrow really was when not used in combination with a potent poison, the ensuing outcry would result in bowhunting being banned altogether." “

Fred Bear also hunted over bait.

Too much for me and useless in foggy conditions

In the south we say “yall’s”. 😉

I bought one of the Garmin Xero ranging/self adjusting sights this year. So far (on targets) I love it, we will see how well it does in the field next weekend. I've hunted with recurves and tricked out compounds and enjoy both. To me the advancements in tech just take a little guesswork out and maybe make it a tad more ethical. It's definitely not a for sure you're gonna kill deer if you have a tech sight kind of thing though, you still have to practice a ton. And even with a high tech sight I will still limit my shot range to 40 and under.

It's all great!! Until it don't work, then it's a boat anchor!
A longbow, string and an arrow with a really really sharp broadhead work as long as the computer between the ears work!

Garmin introduced the updated model of the Xero on Tuesday.

https://www.theoutdoorwire.com/releases/90402ba9-932c-4b50-a00f-7afd604b9493

I have not seen it or the original. If I bowhunted more regularly and in other states more frequently, I'd probably buy one of the new ones.

IDK it's very rewarding for to me to shoot a deer with long bow or recurve but Ive been shooting traditional archery since very young
After years of recurve shooting/hunting I finally graduated to compounds bows.which I know is opposite of alot of folks.
I have bow press,draw board and a pile of tools(arrows,sights,d-loop material,serving material,all sorts of chit) for working on and tuning bows for me and a few folks.
With that being said there's something that keeps telling me to sell my archery stuff and go back to a stick bow.cedar arrows and heavy points just like indians did it

I have a hankering for that, too, 3%, along with doing more fly fishing.

But I can't get past the immediate gratification of snatching a bass out of slop on braided line or having a compound, crossbow or rifle for hunting. It's easier, and immediate, and takes less practice.

However, that's IMO what makes traditional -- stick bow, flintlock, fly fishing - more appealing and gratifying to those who pursue it. It's more difficult and infinitely more gratifying.

Yeah your definitely right same here.if you hunt and fish alot you expect to be successful and start trying to find ways to get better.its great to go hunting and fishing but after not catching fish and shooting deer especially when you go alot you start figuring out how to get better or heck easier.corn, camera's,better green fields,on and on and on