Editor Forest and Stream:
I was much impressed by the logic and fairness of Dr. Calvin Case's article in your Oct. 25 issue, entitled "The Point of Aim and Other Mechanical Expedients." I was present at the last national tournament, in which Dr. Case used a mechanical point of aim, and am the party referred to in his article who used a similar expedient.
Anyone who is at all fair must acknowledge that in the sport of archery, the element of luck must be reduced to a minimum. Particularly should this be the case in a national tournament. But under the existing method of shooting, this is not the case. If a fellow happens to be lucky enough to find a clover leaf, or some other more or less prominent point at just the proper distance for his point of aim, he has an advantage over his competitor who is obliged to estimate the proper distance, because such a point of aim is not available. To me this seems entirely unfair, and although there are no specific rules, as I understand it, prohibiting the use of a mechanical point of aim, an archer at the present time is more or less looked down upon if he resorts to such an expedient. I am glad that Dr. Case has brought the matter up into the limelight by means of his article in Forest and Stream, and I hope that the subject will be threshed out once and for all, and settled in the only logical fashion. It is only necessary to establish the fact that the consensus of opinion is that a mechanical point of aim may be used, and I believe that a good many more archers will employ this obvious help in their shooting.
Let us hear what the opposition has to say.
Earle L. Ovington.