Rangeball

Jeff, you mentioned in another post somewhere that you couldn' t get the spring tension light enough to suit you with the NAP QT 3000. This is one of the rests I' ve been considering (if I go back fixed), and was hoping you could expand on this a bit... I assume it is a concern when flinging light arrows?

Any problems with fletch clearance on acc 3/49s to be concerned with?

Jeepnut

This is the rest that I' m currently using & I haven' t had any problems or complaints at all. But I' m not using a really light arrow either.

As for the fletch clearance on the ACC, just send yours to me & I' d be more than happy to check.

Arthur P

Rangeball, I' ve never used the NAP rest, but I' d suggest paying a little more and getting the GKF Golden Premier. They' re bullet proof, very accurate and simple to adjust.

Just like all prong rests, clearance depends on how much offset or helical you use. I doubt you' d have any more clearance problems with ACC' s than with any ICS type arrow.

Jason N

I love my NAP QT 3000. I' ve since moved on to a drop away. I didn' t have clearance problems with ICS 340' s if that' s any help to you. The QT 3000 comes with a carbon launcher that' s interchangable with the porngs....never used it though. It looks like a reptiles tongue....my best description anyway!

Arthur, I think both of those rests are top quality. A buddy of mine shoots a GKF Golden Premier and loves it. Several freinds of mine shoot the QT' s and love them as I do. Personal choice, I quess.

JeffB

RB,

You have the gist of it. The 3000 although possessing a dail for variable spring tension pretty much seems to have a " medium" & " heavy" spring tension. I' ve hd some difficulties getting it correct w/ light arrows on my 60 pounds bows.

Fletch clearance is always kind of tight on a 3-49. I' ve shot them w/ full helical feathers but it took quite a bit of tweaking the nocks, and I' m not sure it was worth the effort and hair-loss The gap between the base of the prongs is not big enough for heavy helical vanes though. A healthy offset/light helical works fine.

Hope that helps

Arthur P

Jason, quality is relative. You can make anything top quality according to it' s design parameters. In the case of two things with equal manufacturing quality, you need to talk about the design itself.

The GKF design is simpler and much more durable. A better quality design.

GKF' s look like they look like they were designed by machinists. NAP rests look like they were designed by engineers. (Machinists are the guys who have to spend hours looking at a blueprint, scratching their arse, trying to figure out how they' re going to make that engineer' s idiot idea actually work.)

Jeepnut

Art,
I' ll pretend that this idiot engineer didn' t read that last sentence. But maybe that' s why I like my NAP rest so much.

Arthur P

Jeepnut, ya know it' s true! You wouldn' t believe the number of ECO' s I was responsible for. Some of the questions I had to ask engineers over the years! Like, " How DO you cut a 12" long slot in a 10" long part anyway?" True story!

Jeepnut

You' re right on the money Arthur. You' ll notice I didn' t try to disagree because I knew I wouldn' t have a leg to stand on.

I' m a civil engineer but it' s all the same. We complain about having to create designs for the crazy things that architects dream up and the contractors gripe about having to figure out how to build from our designs.

The world would be one screwed up place if contractors/machinists/etc. built everything according to plan. I had a call from a contractor not long ago; " If we put this traffic signal pole where it' s shown on the plans the store owner won' t be able to get in his front door" .

At the last place I worked we had " Mr. Ego" (common in engineering for some reason) who knew his plans were perfect and refused to take questions from the lowley contractors. So they built his bridge exactly as shown on the plans and when they were done the road sloped one way and the bridge sloped the other.