Stabilisers improve shooting accuracy

The summary today

The question is forty years old and still has no answer. The first measurement, in 1987, does not look at the target but at the bow: with soft torque compensators the bow moves sideways slightly more than with hard ones, 0.84 against 0.70 mm, although more repeatably. The only direct with-and-without comparison in the bibliography dates from 1990, in seven elite archers who had never shot without stabilisers: the authors find no significant difference in accuracy, while their per-archer table shows higher values with stabilisers in most cases, without stating the scale, and the sample is too small to rule out an effect. In 2023 an engineering study tried to look at the score and ended up explaining why the gap persists: with thirty arrows per configuration the scores nearly all fall inside the range expected by chance, and telling two set-ups apart would take between 900 and 1,050 arrows each. Meanwhile we know that the bow moves less during aiming on the better shots, but none of those studies varied the stabiliser: the step from the kit to the score has yet to be measured, which is why the status is "Not studied".

Also phrased as: "stabilisers make the bow more accurate"; "a stabiliser helps you score more"; "stabilisers keep the bow steadier while aiming"; "what does a stabiliser do in archery"

Evidence

• 1987
  Context Equipment tests Published later

  One Italian national-team archer, three configurations tested over fifteen shots each, lateral bow displacement derived from accelerometer measurements: with soft torque compensators the mean displacement is 0.84 mm with a standard deviation of 0.20, with hard ones 0.70 and 0.25. It measures how the bow moves, not where the arrow goes, and in a single archer.

  Reduction of Lateral Bow Displacement Using Different Torque Flight Compensators and Stabilizers in Archery · L. M. Leonardi, C. Gallozzi, A. Pace, A. Dal Monte

• 1990
  Context Archers Published later

  Seven elite archers, who had never trained or competed without stabilisers, shot 9 arrows with and 9 without at 70 and 90 m, in random order and with their own bows: EMG activity was lower without stabilisers, except in the bow-arm brachioradialis, and the authors found no significant difference in accuracy; the per-archer table, which does not state its scale, nonetheless shows higher values with stabilisers in most comparisons.

  Muscular Activity of Different Shooting Distances, Different Release Techniques, and Different Performance Levels, with and without Stabilizers, in Target Archery · J.P. Clarys, J. Cabri, E. Bollens, R. Sleeckx, J. Taeymans, M. Vermeiren, et al.

• 2020
  Context Archers Published later

  Eight national-level recurve archers, 6 arrows at 13 m: in the lowest-scoring shot the bow's path and the centre-of-pressure displacement during aiming were larger than in the best one. The stabiliser was not varied.

  Relationship between bow stability and postural control in recurve archery · Karine Jacon Sarro, Thaynã de Castro Viana, Ricardo Machado Leite de Barros

• 2023
  Context Archers Published later

  Seven barebow archers, two intermediate and five advanced, rated eleven weight configurations blind on an instrumented bow. Only one of them, an advanced archer, shot for score: thirty arrows at fifty metres on a 122 cm face per configuration, giving results from 242 to 262 out of 300, inside the range expected by chance, 244 to 269 in the authors' simulation (mean 256.35, standard deviation 6.15), except the bow with no weights at 228. The authors calculate that 900 to 1,050 arrows per configuration would be needed.

  Analysis of preferred weight configuration for barebow shooting style · Francesco Pietra, Philip Loveday, Robert Reid

• 2025
  Context Review Published later

  Systematic review of 16 studies on archers: smaller centre-of-pressure displacement goes with better scores, and the few studies available suggest the same for bow sway. It deals with stability, not equipment.

  Relationship Between Shooting Performance and Biomechanical Parameters Associated with Body Stability in Archery: A Systematic Review · João Santos, Joana Barreto, Tiago Atalaia, Pedro Aleixo

Status history

1. 1987 Not studied The first time anyone measures stabilisers, what gets measured is not the target but the bow. In one Italian national-team archer the bow moves sideways by an average of 0.84 mm with soft torque compensators against 0.70 mm with hard ones, though with a smaller spread. Nothing is known about the score, so the question opens unanswered.
2. 1990 Not studied In the registry's bibliography the only with-and-without comparison, in seven elite archers who had never shot without stabilisers, gives no direction: the authors find no significant difference in accuracy, while their per-archer table shows higher values with stabilisers in most cases, without stating the scale.
3. 2020 Not studied Thirty years later something closer appears: in eight national-level archers the lowest-scoring shot shows a wider bow path and more body sway than the best one. The stabiliser was not varied, though, so the measurement is about the archer's steadiness rather than the kit, and the status does not move.
4. 2023 Not studied The most serious attempt to reach the score mostly shows how hard the question is. One advanced barebow archer shot thirty arrows at fifty metres for each weight configuration: the scores, from 242 to 262 out of 300, all fall inside the range expected by chance, between 244 and 269, except the bare bow with no weights, which sits below at 228. The authors work out that telling two set-ups apart would take between 900 and 1,050 arrows each. That number is what explains the gap, and the status stays "Not studied".
5. 2025 Not studied A systematic review of sixteen studies confirms that a steadier body goes with better scores, and that the few data available say the same about bow sway. It deals with steadiness, not with stabilisers: after almost forty years there is still no comparison holding set-up and score together, and the status is the same as in 1987.

Related

Related articles

• The parts of an Olympic recurve bow, one by oneThe parts of an Olympic recurve bow, from riser and limbs to arrow rest and clicker: what each one is called, what it does and what the rules allow.
• Does better equipment put points on the scorecard? What shooting machines and archers showShooting machines, archers handed a bow that is not theirs and blind ratings: what the studies say about how much equipment counts towards your score.
• Stabilisers in archery: what they actually do, beyond the folkloreWhat research has measured about stabilisers: how the bow moves at release, muscle work, vibration, barebow weights and accuracy.

Research lines

• 48 studiesBow stability and aiming time: research since 1971
• 54 studiesMovement variability and individual technique since 1971

Other claims in this domain

• CorroboratedAlong its flight the arrow loses an appreciable part of its launch speed12 studiesStatus since 2011
• CorroboratedAs it leaves the bow, the arrow flexes and snakes around the riser instead of leaving straight19 studies · 47 archers measuredStatus since 2012
• ReportedA camera-based scoring system misreads some arrows: the ones barely sticking out and the ones that shift the target face7 studies · 2 archers measuredStatus since 2017
• ReportedA chest band with fibre optic sensors measures breathing and mean heart rate with small errors, and an archer can wear it while shooting2 studiesStatus since 2019
• ReportedA compound bow stores between 70 and 100 joules and sheds about two thirds of the force at full draw4 studiesStatus since 2015

See all claims on equipment and tuning