question on spine designation
08-03-2015, 08:15 AM
#2
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 12,746
Nevermind. I went right to the horse's mouth and called Gold Tip. Their CS told me that they switched from their 4 digit spine designation (i.e.: 3555, 5575, 7595) and went to the standardized 3 digit designation (250, 340, 400, etc.)
08-04-2015, 02:56 PM
#3
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Illinois
Posts: 282
I just ran into that a while ago - someone else was asking me about GT's spine designation. Its good that they dropped the old 4 digit numbers, too. They were really confusing, and they weren't consistent. In one series of arrow shaft, the 7595 were a .300 spine, and in another series 7595's were actually .340. As confusing as they are, at least Easton's aluminum spine numbers are fairly consistent. I think they're gonna save people a lot of headaches by switching to the straightforward 3 digit spine numbers.
08-11-2015, 10:56 AM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,903
Like CJ mentioned, the old system was FAIRLY consistent, but wasn't perfectly clean.
Even for the new system, watch your tail. A LOT of the bows on the market today will over run the cross-reference chart. The instructions generally say "go down and over to the right at least one block if your bow is XXXfps," more often than not, I find that doing so is necessary. Even for my wife's Jewel - a 50lb bow - she had to go up a spine to get proper tears compared to what the reference chart suggested. My Destroyer 350, my Monster, and my Outlaw did as well.
The good news is that they're making more offerings in the .300 and .250" classes now, to accommodate these high performance bows. It was rough ~4yrs ago when I got my Monster to find a reasonably weighted 300.
Even for the new system, watch your tail. A LOT of the bows on the market today will over run the cross-reference chart. The instructions generally say "go down and over to the right at least one block if your bow is XXXfps," more often than not, I find that doing so is necessary. Even for my wife's Jewel - a 50lb bow - she had to go up a spine to get proper tears compared to what the reference chart suggested. My Destroyer 350, my Monster, and my Outlaw did as well.
The good news is that they're making more offerings in the .300 and .250" classes now, to accommodate these high performance bows. It was rough ~4yrs ago when I got my Monster to find a reasonably weighted 300.
08-16-2015, 08:08 AM
#5
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 12,746
Like CJ mentioned, the old system was FAIRLY consistent, but wasn't perfectly clean.
Even for the new system, watch your tail. A LOT of the bows on the market today will over run the cross-reference chart. The instructions generally say "go down and over to the right at least one block if your bow is XXXfps," more often than not, I find that doing so is necessary. Even for my wife's Jewel - a 50lb bow - she had to go up a spine to get proper tears compared to what the reference chart suggested. My Destroyer 350, my Monster, and my Outlaw did as well.
Even for the new system, watch your tail. A LOT of the bows on the market today will over run the cross-reference chart. The instructions generally say "go down and over to the right at least one block if your bow is XXXfps," more often than not, I find that doing so is necessary. Even for my wife's Jewel - a 50lb bow - she had to go up a spine to get proper tears compared to what the reference chart suggested. My Destroyer 350, my Monster, and my Outlaw did as well.
