Anyone watching archery from the outside barely notices it, but for the recurve archer the clicker sits at the centre of everything. It is a thin blade of metal or carbon, fixed to the riser just in front of the arrow point. During the draw the arrow slides underneath it, and the moment the point clears it the blade snaps against the riser with a crisp click. It would be easy to write it off as a trivial object, except that the finer mechanics of the whole shot turn on that little snap.
There are more measurements of that snap than most archers would guess, and they do not back everything that is taught on the shooting line. Between the click and the string leaving the fingers, a trained archer takes between 0.15 and 0.2 seconds, and experts take less time than beginners; among archers who are already good, though, the length of that interval counts for little in the score, while keeping it the same from one arrow to the next seems to count for more. Whether the release is a reaction to the sound at all is less certain than people say, because in one study of national squad archers the movement seemed to be under way before the snap arrived. And on the question many archers ask once the clicker starts causing trouble, whether taking it off costs draw length, the only experiment on experienced archers saw no change in draw length. These are the points I work on with my athletes whenever a shot goes off late or gets snatched.
What the clicker is, and what it is for
The clicker was designed to solve a simple but decisive problem: consistency of draw length. If an archer draws one arrow a few millimetres longer or shorter than the last, the energy the bow passes to the arrow changes, and with it the speed, the trajectory and the height at which the arrow lands. The clicker gives those millimetres a fixed reference: when the point clears the blade and it snaps, the draw length is the one that was set, shot after shot. That is why practically every Olympic recurve archer uses one.
The clicker also has a second function, and it is the one research has concentrated on: its snap doubles as the release signal. As it is usually taught, the archer does not decide in advance when to let go of the string, but keeps expanding until the click is heard and lets the shot go at that point. In a single action, then, the clicker brings together two things that would otherwise be separate, the control of draw distance and the moment of release.
How long it takes from click to release
The interval between the snap and the release is called clicker reaction time, and it is one of the few points in archery on which independent laboratories come up with similar figures. Timed to the moment the string leaves, with a microphone, a sensor on the bow or high-speed video, in trained archers it lies between 0.15 and 0.2 seconds: around 180 milliseconds in the measurements of the 1980s and 1990s, and between 140 and 165 in those made since 2010. In the largest sample, 39 elite archers measured before a World Cup stage, the average was 163 milliseconds, and it varied by only 10% from one archer to another.
Electromyography, which records the electrical activity of muscles, lets you look a little earlier, at the moment the forearm muscle that opens the fingers comes into play. A Turkish study used it to compare ten national team archers, ten club beginners and ten people who had never shot: the finger extensor peaked about 100 milliseconds after the snap in the elite archers, about 200 in the beginners and about 300 in the non-archers. The signal was averaged over 100-millisecond windows, so the values are rounded to that step and give the order of magnitude of the difference.
Other groups also find that experts react sooner than beginners: in 27 recurve archers measured on a force platform the interval was 112 milliseconds in the elite group, 140 in the intermediates and 167 in the beginners, although the study did not put the difference to a statistical test. Among archers who are already good, by contrast, the difference disappears: in seven archers from the German national squads the average time was not linked to score, and in 15 French recurve archers it did not separate the elite from the intermediates. That is why, in the registry, the claim that the best archers have shorter and more consistent reaction times is contested: it holds in the step from beginner to expert and fades when competitive archers are compared with each other.
The most common reading of these figures is that a short reaction is the mark of an automatic release, built over thousands of repetitions, and that a long one betrays conscious processing, an archer who is still deciding. It is a plausible reading, but it remains a reading, because these are all comparisons between people at a single point in time, and nobody has followed the same archers over the years to watch the interval shrink as the movement becomes automatic.
What fills that tenth of a second
On the shooting line it is taken for granted that the release is a response to the sound of the clicker. A German group tested this with a simple comparison: in nine recurve archers from the national squads it measured the interval between the snap and the release and, separately, each archer's reaction time to an acoustic signal. If the release were a reaction to the click, the two times should be similar; instead the shot interval was shorter, in all nine archers when the reaction task resembled shooting, pressing and releasing a button while holding a laser dot on the gold, and in seven out of nine with the simplest task. The authors conclude that in expert archers the release is not a reaction to the snap: by the time the click arrives, the movement is already under way.
In the registry the claim is reported and no more than that, because there is only one study and its weak point lies precisely in the simplest task, where two of the nine archers were not quicker. The other figures pull in two directions. Intervals of 140 to 180 milliseconds, so uniform from one archer to the next, are close to a simple auditory reaction time and sit comfortably with the classic reading; on the other hand, eight people who had never shot, using a simulated draw, took an average of 318 milliseconds to release after a visual signal, roughly twice as long. The comparison that would settle it, on the same archers and with the sound of the click, has not been repeated, and for now the data fit both a reaction and the tail end of a movement already under way.
The brain, meanwhile, does register the snap. A Turkish laboratory had 15 high-level recurve archers, with best 70 m scores between 602 and 661, shoot 1,070 arrows at 18 m wearing EEG, with a switch under the clicker marking the exact instant of the snap. The click produces the classic auditory response, with two waves called N1 and P2, and the first was larger on arrows that landed close to the centre of the archer's group than on those that landed further out. The result only holds, however, when the good zone is drawn tightly, in the first four of the ten ways the authors defined it, and it vanishes as soon as the zone is widened; the second wave and the timing of the response never separate the good arrows from the rest. In the registry, the claim that the brain's response to the snap is larger on arrows that go to the centre is therefore contested, and what it means is still open: nobody knows whether a larger N1 reflects more attention to the snap or is simply the mark of a shot that was already going well. For the archer, the result says at most that the snap does not go unnoticed by the brain, and that its response may have something to do with the arrow that follows.
What the forearm muscles do
The Turkish study that timed the reaction with electromyography also looked at how the string hand opens, and the picture that emerges differs from what is usually taught. In all three groups, including the people who had never shot, after the snap the finger extensor, the muscle that opens the fingers, contracted actively, while the flexor, the one that had been holding the string, gave way gradually. The difference lay in the timing: in the elite archers the flexor relaxed more quickly, and 200 milliseconds after the snap its relaxation separated the elite from the beginners. The people who had never shot showed instead a preparation phase with a lot of extensor activity before the release, which was absent in the archers.
Even among the strongest archers there is no single way of opening the hand. In 15 archers from the US national team the release fell into two stable patterns, eight in which flexor and extensor dropped together just before the release and seven with a brief burst of extensor activity, and each archer always repeated their own; the average scores for the year in the two groups were 1,209 and 1,213 out of 1,440. That is why the rule calling for a passive release, with the fingers relaxing rather than opening, is refuted in the registry: it describes the shape you see from outside, with the fingers staying curled as the string slips away, not what the muscles are doing, and it does not separate those who shoot better.
Clicker reaction time and the score
If the reaction to the clicker separates the beginner from the expert, the question is how much it weighs on the score of someone who already shoots well. In the largest sample, the 39 elite archers measured at a World Cup with ten arrows each at 70 m, three variables were linked to the score of individual arrows, and together they accounted for about 40% of the differences from one arrow to the next.
-
Postural stability
How much the body moves around the release: in the study what counted was the peak sway speed just after the release, which is already signalled by the speed at the moment of release itself, while the sway in the second before did not enter the model. In the registry, the claim that the less the body sways while aiming, the better the shot is reported, and postural stability has an article of its own.
-
Clicker reaction time
A shorter reaction went with better arrows, but the spread between archers was only 17 milliseconds, so between the quickest and the slowest in the group the difference was worth about half a point.
-
Draw weight
As reported by the archers, 24.55 kg on average, about 54 lb. Heavier bows went with slightly higher-scoring arrows, but the effect was small, again about half a point, and the authors themselves consider it too simple to turn this into advice to raise draw weight, not least because of the risk of shoulder injury. In the registry, the claim that a heavier draw weight leads to higher scores is reported.
The other studies point in different directions. In four elite athletes from the Turkish national team, over 108 arrows at 18 m, the time was practically identical on arrows scoring 8, 9 and 10, at around 143 milliseconds, and in seven archers from the German national squads the average time did not explain the score. In eight high-level French recurve archers, over 549 arrows at 70 m, the reaction was longer on arrows scoring 8 or less than on tens, but the difference showed up only when the group was taken as a whole, and in none of the eight archers taken individually. Putting it all together, the claim that a quicker reaction to the clicker leads to better shots is reported, with a small effect, and nobody has tried shortening that time through training to see what happens to the score. The authors of the World Cup study actually advise against chasing times shorter than the lowest values seen in archers, about a tenth of a second, because values that low may mean the archer is anticipating the click rather than hearing it.
Among good archers, what seems to matter more is how consistent the reaction is. In the seven German archers, timed with a microphone over 30 arrows at 18 m, the interval varied from one arrow to the next with a coefficient of variation between 3.94% and 7.25%, about 6 to 12 milliseconds, and none of the seven repeated the same time on every arrow. That variation, and not the average time, explained 66% of the differences in average score: the archers who varied least scored most. With seven people this is a pointer rather than a measurement, and it is an association between different archers, but it is the same reading a systematic review of performance studies arrives at.
What happens if you take the clicker off
When the clicker becomes a problem, because the release will not go or goes before the snap, it is natural to wonder whether to take it off for a while, and the most common fear is losing draw length and consistency. For experienced archers there is one experiment that measured exactly this. Nine Korean recurve archers, all women, with more than ten years of shooting and some from the national team, shot 40 arrows at 8 m with their own bows, 20 with the clicker and 20 without, in random order; without the clicker they had to release when they felt for themselves that the moment had come. Draw length, measured just before the release, did not change between the two conditions, and that is why the claim that without the clicker you lose draw length is contradicted in the registry.
Without the clicker two other things did change: the draw was completed sooner, and the aim at the moment of release was tighter. A laboratory experiment on eight men who had never shot, using a simulated bow, points the same way: releasing when they decided for themselves, their virtual shots grouped more tightly than when they released on a signal, and while they waited for the signal the ankle stiffened and the body swayed more forwards and backwards. In the registry, the claim that releasing when you decide for yourself groups better than releasing on an external signal is reported, with clear limits: in the Korean archers accuracy was calculated from the orientation of the bow at release rather than from impacts on the target, and the score of the arrows was not measured.
The authors of the Korean study write that their result does not mean shooting without a clicker is better, and they see the clicker's value in taking one of the many things an archer has to control off the list. Their experiment also has clear limits: a single session, indoors and at short range, with archers who have used a clicker for years and know its snap almost by heart, published in a regional journal. The archers who would really risk losing draw length, those still learning or those who shoot without a clicker for weeks, were not measured, so the result applies to experienced archers and to a single session.
Anticipating and forcing the clicker
On the shooting line there are two clicker problems I see more than any others. The first is anticipation: the archer stops expanding towards the snap and starts predicting it, letting the shot go at the instant they think the click will come. Sometimes the string leaves before the snap, and then the arrow goes off with a shorter draw length than the one that was set, which is exactly the error the clicker was meant to prevent; at other times the release overlaps the click and the time between them drops below the archer's usual one, the case the authors of the World Cup study had in mind. Rhythm suffers too, because a release that is trying to guess the moment never goes off with the same timing, and in the seven German archers it was precisely the regularity of that timing that went with the higher averages.
The second is forcing it, when it should be expanded through. Rather than continuing to open with the back to bring the point past the edge, the archer pulls with the hand and the drawing arm, or lets the arrow creep forward a few millimetres and then snatches to win them back. In the first case the shot goes off tense, with the tension shifted into the fingers; in the second, the point moves back and forth under the blade, and the draw length the clicker was supposed to make identical on every arrow gets there by a different route each time.
How to train the release through the clicker
That release timing can be trained rests on a single Ukrainian experiment with intermediate archers. One group trained with a device that measured the time between the snap and the string leaving, comparing their own feel with the number after every arrow, and by the end that time had become more regular, while the average had not moved and the score had risen just above the threshold of statistical significance. The paper does not say how many archers took part, so it is a pointer, but it goes the same way as the studies on score, which reward consistency more than speed. The exercises below are the ones I use most often, and they all work on regularity.
The first is blank-bale work at close range, with no target face, eyes closed or nearly so, to separate the release from any worry about the score. With no target to distract, the archer can focus on the sequence alone: expand, hear the click, let go. It is the most direct way I know of making the movement repeatable.
The second is rhythm. A shot with a constant tempo, without dwelling and without rushing the final phase, creates the conditions for the release to settle, whereas long holds at full draw, with the point sitting still under the clicker for seconds at a time, are where anticipation grows: the longer you wait, the more time the mind has to start guessing.
The third is to keep your attention on the expansion and not on the snap. In my experience the archer who thinks less about the clicker and more about continuing to open with the back is the one who handles it best, because the click then arrives as an expected surprise rather than a finish line to be chased. It fits what was seen in the Korean archers shooting without a clicker, where a self-paced release gave a tighter aim, although an attention cue and shooting with no clicker at all remain two different things.