ACLakey

Setup:
2001 Hoyt Vortec
#70 draw wt.
29" draw
string loop
Trophy taker fall away.
Loop Master release

care taken to align cam and idler wheel. Centershot aligned with lazer.

We didn't have anybody in the shop this afternoon so the owner and I tinkered with my bow. I shot arrows ranging from a 340 spine to a 500 spine in different lengths and with different point weights. The results supprised me a little. We got the bullet holes with

Matrix cut to 27.5" and a 100g tip(440 spine)
ACC cut to 27.75" with a 125g tip(460 spine)
ICS400 and GT5575 cut to 29" with both a 100 and 125g tip(400 spines)

All of these shafts I would have concidered underspined for my setup, but they shot perfect bullet holes from the gate. I know you can take a little spine off for the string loop and fall away rest but like I said these results really supprised me.

Any thoughts?

>>>----Andrew---->

Edited by - ACLakey on 10/29/2002 19:14:49

Edited by - ACLakey on 11/08/2002 22:53:36

JeffB

Andrew,

Does not surprise me in the least...

A couple of notes

1) Did you test at different ranges? How close were you to the paper?

2) A bullet hole does not guarantee great groups, only straight arrow flight (asuming you get bulletholes all the way to the target).

3) I have found that it's pretty easy to get a bullethole with just about ANY onecam (assuming cam timing is correct), especially with a loop. As #2 though I've found most of them very sensitive to spine from a grouping standpoint. This is why as I said on an earlier thread I take little stock in paper tuning. One: I believe it's just about impossible for the majority of archers to execute perfectly all the time (including myself), and Two: I prefer a slightly "off" tear to prevent knuckleballing, and give the arrow some "direction".

4) I believe you have the matrix and ACC mixed up. The Matrix is available in a 460 spine, the ACC 3-39 is the 440 spine. At any rate, with the differences in cut length and tip weights the spines are likely very close for all the shafts you tested.

It would be more interesting to see how these arrow shafts grouped for you at various distances... say between 20 and 40 yards. I believe that you would find the stiffest shafts likely to group failry decent, and if you were to use some the heavier 340 spine class shafts the results would be even better.

Thanx for sharing! Cool info.

JeffB <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

ACLakey

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> 1) Did you test at different ranges? How close were you to the paper?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

Yes we tested them at 5', 10',15' and 30'. It was getting dark so I haven't tested them at range yet. I will probably try that tomorrow with the Hooter Shooter if I am not real busy.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>2) A bullet hole does not guarantee great groups, only straight arrow flight (asuming you get bulletholes all the way to the target). <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

I agree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I prefer a slightly &quot;off&quot; tear to prevent knuckleballing, and give the arrow some &quot;direction&quot;.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

By that do you mean a slightly stiff tear?


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> 4) I believe you have the matrix and ACC mixed up.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

you are correct

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It would be more interesting to see how these arrow shafts grouped for you at various distances... say between 20 and 40 yards. I believe that you would find the stiffest shafts likely to group failry decent, and if you were to use some the heavier 340 spine class shafts the results would be even better. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

I will reshoot all shafts I tested including the ones that didn't fair so good on paper and report the results.

>>>----Andrew---->

Deleted User

[Deleted by Admins]

JeffB

Andrew,

Cool! Can't wait to see your results. I would like some clarification on a couple fo points though please.

1)are you saying you could NOT get the 340 spine class shafts to give you a bullet hole?

2) was all testing done out of the Hooter Shooter? or was a person shooting the bow?

Siskyou read my &quot;off&quot; comment correctly (Thank You Siskyou!). I like a slightly high left tear (for a righty). However I rarely even bother to see if that's what I'm getting thse days unless my initial centershot and nocking point setup produce very poor results (very noticeable flight problems).

I have had a couple of bows that I had my local shop do the intial &quot;tune&quot; w/ a laser ..very cool apparatus. It almost gurantees a bullethole.. On my second Mathews Legacy I had it done, and it sure enough gave me a bullethole. Unfortunately I could not get the shafts that bulleted to group worth a darn for me (3-49's)...I switched to 3-60's and my groups improved significantly...I never checked for the tear again, though I doubt it was a bullet hole.

Not saying you will ahve the same results..just posting my findings.

JeffB <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

pdq 5oh

I shoot a BowTech P38 dual cam 60#er. The arrow charts recommend Redline 460's at 28&quot; & 410's at 29&quot;. I can get good paper results with both, but the 460's don't group well at all. I thought the 410's were shooting pretty well until I got some PSE 300 Extremes. These are a good bit stiffer, and they group much better, especially beyond 25 yds. They also shoot a little higher & right, about 1.5&quot;. The 460's shoot OK from my Mighty Mite (60#er), but the 410's & 300's group better. This indicates to me that archers need to match arrows to their particular bow, not just follow the charts. And some bows seem to prefer a stiffer arrow, where others may not.

Phil.
&quot;Could you guys be quiet, my dad's trying to shoot.&quot;<img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>

HuntingBry

I'm a little confused. It seems as though you are using a universal spine rating system for all of the arrows you have tested. What is this system from? I can't really follow your results since I'm not familiar with it, but I am very interested in these types of tests. Thanks in advance for any &quot;enlightenment&quot; you can provide.

JeffB

HB

Most Easton and Beman shafts are rated by deflection..this is the number you see us referring to...340 spine, 400 spine, etc....This is the amount the shaft bends (deflects) when the arrow is put in a spine tester and a certain amount of weight is suspended from the middle of the shaft..it bends .340&quot; or .400&quot; or .460&quot; or .500&quot; , etc etc..The ACC's have the spine value listed on the shaft and in the catalog in addition to the #-## code that is used normally to distinguish between them. The Beman shafts are simply coded with the appx spine value..400, 500, 340, 300, etc...even the pultruded shafts...380, 360, etc..

What makes it confusing is that all the other arrow maufacturers do their own thing...Gametracker & PSE uses 100,,200,,300, etc, Goldtip uses draw weight (55/70, 75/95, etc) , Blackhawk uses 3000, 4000, 5000 etc) basically a number code that has nothing to do with spine values other than to differentiate them from a differnt value....

PSE lists deflection values for their shafts as does Goldtip...BlackHawk has a &quot;conversion&quot; chart on their website, but CX does not...through some spine testing I've been able to get some average values for the 200's and 300's...which are very close to the PSE shafts...

Hope that helps

Jeff

ACLakey

[quote]1)are you saying you could NOT get the 340 spine class shafts to give you a bullet hole?[\quote]

no. I just shot the shafts knowing my bow was centered. The shafts posted were the ones that shot bullet holes without any tuning. The 340 shafts had a .5&quot; point left tear. It wouldn't have taken much to adjust that in.

[quote]2) was all testing done out of the Hooter Shooter? or was a person shooting the bow?[\quote]


I find for paper tuning I get as good of results shooting the bows myself. If I am having trouble getting a good tear and everything else is correct(the problem seems to be me) I will drag out the shooting machine. When I am tuning the arrows I definatly use the Hooter Shooter. With a little twist of the nock here and there I have gotten same hole groups out to 40yd with that thing. Granted I was shooting ACE arrows that were perfictly matched for weight.

[quote]I'm a little confused. It seems as though you are using a universal spine rating system for all of the arrows you have tested. What is this system from? I can't really follow your results since I'm not familiar with it, but I am very interested in these types of tests. Thanks in advance for any &quot;enlightenment&quot; you can provide.[\quote]

It is my own experiance backed by alot of tinkering. example
Matrix cut to 27.5&quot; and a 100g tip(460 spine)
ACC cut to 27.75&quot; with a 125g tip(440 spine)
The shafts don't have the same spine rating(ACC being slightly stiffer) but the ACC is slightly longer and sports a heavier tip(which weekens the shaft). The shafts act the same comming out of the bow. As far as some guide I don't know of one. I do use Archers Advantage to play with setups then if I have time I test the results. If you take care to enter the data as correctly as possible the program will give you supprising results compared to real world observations. You have to be careful with software it is only as good as the data you enter.

>>>----Andrew---->

Pinwheel 12

Getting a bullet hole is relatively easy. Getting a hole with an 11:00 tail-high 1/4&quot;-3/8&quot; tear is much more difficult. Why? Because the second tear gives the arrow &quot;purpose&quot;, and something to react to. If you shoot for a bullet hole at 6 or 9', that same arrow is not going to give you that at all distances, laws of physics won't allow it to. Somewhere along it's flight path each arrow HAS to paradox, and you will get a tear. Paper tuning is only good for a ROUGH starting point, then you must take it to the second step, which is group tuning at all distances. Then when you are done with that, if you have a twin cam you can also &quot;supertune&quot; (what I call the creep-tune method) to give you the same impact points regardless of creep or overdraw. (cannot do this with a solocam, however) If you do all of these steps or at least the first two, then go back to square one and throw it again thru paper, you almost always will find the arrow comes thru paper at 11:00 tail-high left 1/4-3/8&quot; if the tuning process was done correctly. Most top archers now skip the initial paper tear for bullet hole and tune directly to the 11:00 tear.

By giving the arrow &quot;purpose&quot;, you are throwing a more consistent shot as it will correct paradox exactly the same every time. When you shoot it coming out of the bow perfectly dead straight, it sort-of &quot;knuckleballs&quot; and has no &quot;purpose&quot;, but rather just floats along towards the target. That is why you see less accuracy at distance in those instances, especially if the arrow spine itself is not correct and the arrow flexes further along the &quot;knuckleball&quot; path instead of initially when coming out of the bow. (but was never tested thru paper at those further distances!) I and other top shooters all over the world have been tuning our bows to the 11:00 tail-high tear for many years, and have found it to be the most consistent tune for most all setups.

Every bow configuration has a few arrow shaft setups that it &quot;likes&quot;. Over the years I have found a good formula with which I can quite accurately determine a &quot;nice&quot; shaft and point weight for a given setup if given the specs, and surprisingly it almost always runs light on other shaft charts. Some arrows work well with a bunch of combinations, the ACC 3-18 and 3-28 are a couple that fit this category well, as does the 2314 XX75.

Another interesting note is that arrow shaft spine has changed over the years also. I remember back in the late 80's shooting a 1916 X-7 at 73 lbs with a 27&quot; arrow. In fact, I won an IBO World title with that shaft and poundage and shooting over 285fps! Nowadays you cannot get a 1916 to spine much past 60lbs, and the charts say only around 50 or so. Same basic overall energy and speed, so why? Marketing of carbon shafts which give a higher overall profit margin for the manufacturer is my best guess.

Tuning must also be done by the person shooting the bow. While yes, we can get the bows tuned using the Hooter Shooter, unfortunately you won't have the Hooter shooting Deer or Tournaments for you. Each bow and arrow configuration must be tuned to it's individual owner, and no machine can be set to get each individuals' CONSISTENT induced torque. You can get 'em close, but it's just not the same.

Bottom line is that it all depends on how deep you want to get into the tuning process, and how accurate you really want to be. For most guys who hunt, throwing a few out to 40 yds and getting a group the size of a volleyball is good. For myself, (along with many others) I want that group at that distance shrunken to a golfball. To do that, you must take the appropriate steps needed in the tuning process. Hope this helps, Good shooting, Pinwheel 12





Edited by - Pinwheel 12 on 10/25/2002 10:43:49