My GTO at 63# and a 27.5" dl with a 329 grain arrow is shooting 301fps something doesn't sound just right.

Guys, thank you all for the replies and please, feel free to question me because I thought it sounded fishy and I was there!

The only reason I would think that the chrono is correct is because I shot,y bowthrough my chrono at home and got the same results that I got out of theirs. Granted, that is a 1 point calibration, but still, same same you know what I mean?

I am not sure about the mods on the Ally to be honest. I just completely forgot to ask b/c I was so shocked after shooting the GTO that I was lost for words.

I understand that the improvements are not only speed, but my bow shoots good by me so unless I can get a lot more speed I just can't justify that much $ right now.

Matt, yes the Ultra II has a 6" or 6 1/4" brace height and was the 2nd fastest bow Mathews produced in 2001 or 2002 (I just can't remember) when I bought it. However, I am 99% sure (but I have been wrong before) that at that time it was rated for 300 fps or just over. I know that the Black Max was much faster but what help that really is I have no idea. The low brace height is not a problem for me. I couldn't win a national shoot I am sure, but I can hit a basketball 90+% of the time at 60 yards when I have been practicing (that means not in March).

Maybe it just is what it is, but Rob posted some #'s from his 82nd which I am 100% sure were correct that blew everything here out of the water by miles and if I am correct the draw length was 28.5" which I wouldn't think would make that much of a difference. He did have a little more poundage and less arrow weight, but it was close and the fps was close to 35-40fps more. Should I just go somewhere else and try again????

Found your answer:

Mathews Ultra 2

Axle-Axle Length : 36"
Brace Height: 6 1/8"
Overall Weight: 3.7#
Let Off: 80%
IBO Rated Speed: 320+ fps
AMO rated Speed: 245fps

Low brace height, most likely a longer than stated draw length and yes it was a 320fps+ rated bow.
If the Allegiance had smooth mods those speeds are probably correct at least proportionally.

OK, had to go look it up...

The Ultra II was rated at 320 fps with a 6 1/8" brace height. Like Matt said though, you may be surprised when you measure AMO draw length, ESPECIALLY if you've got a Zebra string on it.

Now, let's look at the Ally.

You shot it backed off 8 lbs.... That's a loss (on average) of 16 fps lost right there (using the standard of every 5 lbs. you back off, you lose 10 fps)

You shot it at 28".. Another 20 fps lost (for every inch of draw length you go down, you lose 10 fps)

You shot a 386-grain arrow... Another 5 fps off (for every 3 grains over IBO, you'll lose an additional 1 fps)

Let's add that up now. 16 + 20 + 5 = 41. That means you can take 41 fps off the IBO specs, and you should be right in line -- IF everything was ok.

Bottom of the "smooth" acceptable speed rating range is 318... so 318 - 41 would give us 277... and you got 273.

I'd say you shot an Ally with smooth mods and your chrono is off by at LEAST 4 fps. [8D]

I see Matt was doing some investigative work while I was doing my math.

Here's my numbers again on the 82nd bud,

381 grain ACC, 70 lbs, 327 fps, 62 lbs, 307 fps. 28.5" draw. 62 lbs. 346 gr ACC 317 fps. 62 lbs, 314 grain CXLSS 330fps.

06 Ally, 28.5" w/speed mods, 381 grain ACC 305 fps.

I have to agree w/ Matt/Tn. , something is off w/ the chrono.
A GTO BC 60/28/300 is 324fps. and 70/28/350 is also 324fps. It's IBO rating is 340-350 @ 30".
The GTO may have been an earlier produced model that had a bad batch of string/cables. They were not pre-stretched properly. So no one was getting IBO or even close.

The 06 Ally I had for a short time had a BC of 70/29/350 at 319fps.

Something is wrong somewhere.

Huntingson - you just learned in one evening what winds up costing most people thousands of dollars, hundreds of hours, and gallons of Rogaine.

Companies can market what they want - they can pretend that they're re-invented the wheel - they can blow jillions on sponsorships and celebrity endorsements - but at the end of the day, these bows are really no different than they were 10, even 20years ago. They just slightly re-configure the cams, redesign the risers, play games with the brace height and call it "new." It's not new technology. And you damn sure aren't gonna "gain" much by "upgrading."

The fact is: If you're gonna hunt with a 28" draw and a standard, heavy hunting arrow - you shouldn't expect much variance between top-end bows. And you surely shouldn't be misguided by their fantastic tales of IBO speeds. That's the biggest secret that bow manufacturers don't want you to know: The bows they're hawking aren't really going to outperform the one you currently have. Sure, they've gotten quieter and "shock free" - but who really gives a rat's ass? Do you really want to spend $1000 because your current bow vibrates a lil bit? LOLIf "bow vibration" isthat high on yourlife's priority list. . . you're on your own.

Hell, Bowtech is acting like they've discovered the fountain of youth with this Airborne lineup - meanwhile - it's putting out practically the same numbers as their Black Knight -which is yesterday's newspaper. Bowtech isn't the only one - they all invariably pretend to be pushing the limits of science and physics.

GregH and I were talking - and he was hotrodding bows back in the early 90's - and getting the same numbers as the current "latest and greatest." It was the same game back then: short braces, aggressive cams, overdraws to cut arrow weight, etc... Same game. Same rules. Same results. If you know what you're doing - you can squeeze out an extra 10 feet or so.

I'm always particularly entertained when I hear people acting like one company or another is on the cutting edge of technology - blah blah blah. You saw it for yourself tonight:the cutting edge happened a long timeago. We've just been dipping it in new camo patterns, changing the dimensions and puttingdifferent stickers on itever since.

To put it all in perspective - I recentlygave away myold Jennings Airmaster - and it had the same cam that's on your Mathews. If I went to the IBO limit - I could crank 308 out of that bow at 29". LOL There are guys spending thousands on new gear - and would be awfully hard pressed to match those numbers. I think I paid $350 for that bow about 10 years ago.

Just smoke and mirrors dude.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - bows will not get any faster with their current configuration. You can build more durable limbs. You can quiet it down. But you can't make it go faster. Power stroke, brace height and a manageable draw curve will always inhibit how far we can go.

Unless somebody comes up witha truly innovativeway to store more potential energy in a bow - the future of speed is in the arrow. Not the bow.

I posted this other place
Here is IBO for your draw, for a GTO.

28'' 70 lbs 314-324 FPS
28'' 60(peak) lbs 310-320 FPS

Like I said on the phone something does not jive. GTO does not seem to hit the high end of IBO like 82nd, but it hits the low end.

Quick, if you do not think bows have changed in the last 10 or 15 years. Well!! There is no Hope for you. The bows today are faster, quieter, and way more shock free. In 1981 I attended a Big Archery Jamboree. They had a speed tent set up where 100's of bows were shot through a chrono over the weekend. There was less than 10 bows that broke 200 fps that weekend. Do you think that would happen today? They also said300fps could not be reached. Hummm???

How long you shot bows anyway, King?[8D]

I bet 400fps will be hit quicker than most people imagine and with a very shootable bow.

My Guardian is shooting 280 fps at 28" draw and only 60# shooting a 330 grain arrow. That bow is by all intents as quiet or quieter than any of my recurves were.

In the late 80's it was a challenge to get short draw archers up to the ASA speed limit of 280. Not so anymore, even with 60#

The king must jest![8D]

Dan