T, thats about what I came up with to. Heavier, of course longer points change f.o.c. more. You came up with four tenths, and like I said I always figured about a half a percent. Maybe Im not as stupid as I give myself credit for. C903, And Im trying to quote here,Some people say you can get fpts. and bhds. to hit in the same spot.That may be true in some cases, but more often it s not.

O.k. Heres my question, so the guy who gets his to hit in the same spot according to your thinking, must need to retune and get them apart, because it should not only be impossible, but not truly tuned. As far as the bhds. being longer and changing f.oc. or balance point, once again unless your on the edge, its a moot point. Wings on the front of the arrow. Not a major point worth considering if your shooting modern low profile venteds. As far as the wings on the back, well yeah thats kinda the whole idea. More heli the better, up to a point to resolve the last issue.. Paragraph number two I agree with the first part, but as far as arrow speed it doesnt wash, and thats where I disagree with Adams once again. I know good 3d shooters pushing over 300 f.p.s who know how to tune and get great b.hd. groups. Is it a forgiving setup. Of course not, but these guys Idea of a bad group are light years ahead of most.

Paragraph three, yup it would make sense if I was pushing a ton and a half arrow that had the aerodynamics of a badly designed Ford car. A quarter inch would make a hell of a difference. Your talking aerodynamics which arent even close to being comparable between the two.

Last paragraph. Your hitting low left. If you bare shaft those puppies, your still gonna be low left. Youve skipped a step.Im not recomending you move your knocking point and rest at this stage the amount of what I think your saying. When Im talking moving the rest by this time, Im talking thirty second of an inch, and quite possibly less than that. Im talking about what Easton talks about, when they use the term " Micro tuning" .If someones hitting that far off the mark, they are way overspined, and need to make a new arrow purchase and go back to paper, and start the whole process over.If you went back and got really picky and microed those so called bullet holes they started with, Id bey youd find out they werent as perfect as they thought. Perfect tears are different things to different people. I whole heartedly agree with your last statements. If bhds. group well, it doesnt really matter.Thats really the bottom line, and everything else is moot. I happen to beleive true arrow to bow tuning is achieved when both types of heads hit in the same aproximate spot, and when I spend the time bringing my bow intune to my arrows, I always acheive it and good groups with both hitting together are the result. I do kind of remember reading the article, or one very similar,and as usual, my thoughts are when I read those, " Heres a guy who needs to get pickier with his tuning and especially his arrow selection. Hes trying to bandaid an arrow setup that doesnt fit." You guys look at us who try to achieve this as middle of the road tuners, and quite honestly thats exactly how I see the other side of the issue. We can both come up with scores of well know bowhunters, tuners, pros, and teachers who support both sides of the issue. Whos right. I think we are, you think you are. Thats good enough for me as long as good groups are the bottom line. Peace, and happy shooting.

There is something else that hasn' t been mentioned that I recall.Release shooter with d-loops shouldn' t have a hard time having the 2 hit real close with just tuning the field points if they are good at tuning.Arrows should be coming out straight or very close to straight.

Finger shooter have way more variable to contend with than the other guys do.They will almost always have more kick than release shooters from their arrows.High left from right handed shooters.This will cause a much different reaction from broadheads than from field points and I believe that this is a case of tuning the broadheads and forgetting the field points.



I don' t shoot fingers except on the ocasional recurve shooting I do but it is usually just for fun and I am not using broadheads.I have done some pheasant and quail hunting with blunts but not broadheads.The tuning their consisted of shooting Mt Dew bottles all over the yard.If I were hunting big game there would be much more tuning.The 5" flu flu' s will take care of almost any kick.

I won' t go into my entire tuning process, but will suffice to say that it is similar to Fletchhead' s procedure. I have had similar results with broadheads. When a properly spined shaft is properly tuned to the bow, the broadheads always group right with the field points. I shoot mechanicals, but I always check POI with fixed Muzzy' s.

I' m very sure that if broadhead tuning is done correctly, the same results will be attained. I would advise shooting through paper or bareshaft tuning to ensure good spine though. Broadheads can group well with a slightly underspined arrow, but the slightest form flaw will make them impact differently and I feel that an underspined arrow will decrease penetration. I haven' t seen any type of broadhead tuning that will ensure good spine. It may be possible, but I haven' t seen it. If you only tune with BH' s, then stay on the stiffer end of the spine range as you will have much less trouble with a slightly stiff arrow.

I agree with Fletch totally that the main reason for BH' s and FP' s not grouping together is spine. An underspined arrow CAN tune perfectly with FP' s, but will impact differently with BH' s.

In short, if you' re getting perfect bullet holes and your FP' s are impacting differently than your BH' s, check the spine of your shafts. It' s a good bet, you are underspined.

?????
?????
?????

There seems to be some sort of " quality and optimal performance line" between some of us who tournament shoot vs. some of us who hunt, and " middle of the road" is fine when shooting at a living creature, but not when trying to hit a baby X ring on a Vegas target, or 12 ring on a McKensie turkey at 48 yds, which you simply cannot do consistently unless your setup is " optimal" ?

I' m not going to go on and on and chastise anyone here for what they choose to do, but you should really think about this for a second.... We all should continue to strive for perfection in our setups, that ensures more X' s or 12' s, and quicker and cleaner kills, bottom line.

Now---

As I' ve stated many tinmes before, bareshafts, field-tipped arrows, and broadheads will not and should not group together when tuned for optimal performance individually. This is fact. Tune each one individually in a hooter shooter to run a perfect bullet hole arrow after arrow, (or group tune to the best of you ability at distance) THEN try to put any of the others into the same hole or group without touching anything. It will NOT do it, and even when furhter adjusted to a " middle of the road" tune for all you will still NOT get them all into the same hole or same sized group as you would when individually tuned to the best of ones' ability. 2-3 or 4-6 inch differential at any distance out of a machine or when group tuning is NOT " close enough" in ANY hunting or tournament situation IMHO, and especially so when you add the human-error element which magnifies these less-than-perfect holes and/or groupings. This is how we fuel the anti' s crusade when we setup our equipment to " Middle of the road, close enough" and then go out and throw marginal shots into game animals, possibly wounding instead of quickly and humanely putting them down by being that 2-3" or 4-6" much closer to perfect. If anything, I' d rather throw a marginal shot into a foam McKensie or a paper X-ring than I would into a living animal, and I don' t do that for tournament score preparation, so why should I feel " middle of the road" is good enough for me anywhere else and especially on a hunting setup? I personally do not.... We all owe it to not only the game we seek, but the tournaments we play and ourselves as sportsmen to ensure that no matter what, we are doing everything we can to make sure our setups are working at optimal levels at all times. " Middle of the road" tuning is simply not good enough IMHO.

If you all feel that finding a " middle of the road" tune is good enough, that' s your choice.... My advice and technical recommendation is to tune to the individual application at hand, and put those puppies into the same hole or TIGHT group every time. Spine still has to be perfect to get optimal groupings at all distances, so you don' t need to run a bareshaft to find that out.. there are some great charts and programs out there that do that for you now! With perfect groupings of each individual setup, if you screw something up it will be much more forgiving, and you still may be able to harvest that animal instead of possibly wounding and losing them, and be in that X or 12 ring a lot more often. That' s it in a nutshell. Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

C903,

In a nutshell - I think what STICKEMUP was pointing out is as follows.

With a clean release one can fine-tune a wet noodle (way underspined shaft) to shoot perfectly out of a bow with field points. This is particularly the case when shooting a drop-away rest. This is not the case however when one shoots broadheads.

I happen to concur with this myself.

STICKEMUP, if I have misinterpreted your point, feel free to correct me.

C903 I hope that this has been of assistance in clearing things up.

Nubbb

I fully comprehended the message given by " Stickmup" when he/she said that

" an underspined arrow can tune perfectly with FP' s....."

Such a claim is totally incorrect as is your' s.

" With a clean release one can fine-tune a wet noodle (way underspined shaft) to shoot perfectly out of a bow with field points."


No arrow that is underspined, including a " wet noodle," and is still underspined when released, has been perfectly tuned for perfect flight/accuracy regardless of what head the shaft is mounted with.

It is possible to get the underspined FP shaft to group and hit your POI, but I can guarantee you that the shaft has went through all kinds irregular flight movements, has had undue forces placed upon the shaft as it struggles to correct its flight, and has lost an abundance of penetration efficiency when it impacts. Additionally, your accuracy will not be reliable and consistent.

It is the terms " can tune perfectly, can fine-tune a wet noodle and a way underspined shaft to shoot perfectly....." that makes both claims totally incorrect.

Nubbs,
You stated it perfectly.

C903,
All I can say is, every time I' ve tuned my bows with my methods, my field tips will stack arrows together, my fixed broadheads will stack arrows together and my mechanical broadheads will stack arrows together. All with the same point of impact out to thirty yards. There are quite a few other accomplished archers here who are basically saying the same thing. You however, don' t seem to be able to accomplish this. If you were a new archer, who would you listen too?

The only problem I have ever had with broadheads not hitting like field points was with an underspined shaft. They would punch perfect bullet holes and stack arrows with field tips and they shot broadheads well in the yard, but the slightest form flaw would make the BH' s impact differently. Those shafts turned out to be slightly underspined with that bow which made them very sensitive to form flaws. Not a good hunting setup. Went to stiffer shafts and the problem was solved. This is the reason I tell people to stay on the stiffer end of the spine range.

Why you would try to tell me and these other archers that our methods won' t work when we' ve been doing it for years is beyond me. Are we supposed to quit using a tuning system that is tried and true and start using yours, which requires the same amount of tuning time AND resighting or changing sights altogether every time we want to switch between field points and broadheads? The next time I want to take a flying leap backwards, I' ll give you a call.

I' m surely not having any trouble tuning my setups and they' ve been consistently punching 2" cut, 3 blade Vortex heads completely through deer for about seven or eight years now. That' s out of a ten year old bow set at 60 lbs. I see no reason to fix what ain' t broke.

Anybody reading this is welcome to try both ways and choose for yourself. As long as your shafts are properly spined, leaving the bow as straight as possible, you' re grouping well with broadheads and getting good penetration on game, you will be a happy camper. How you get it there is your choice. Just please don' t be so pompous as to insinuate that your way is the only way or the best way. There is no best way, there are only different ways.

Well said Stickemup. I' ve tuned bows both ways, strictly group tuned broadheads, and strictly tuned BH' s towards the filedpoints, over the past few years, and guess what, I haven' t failed to kill every deer I' ve shot at the past 5 years, all dead within 60 yards. Absolutely doesn' t matter.
Some folks feel a broadhead should be tuned to the best group, even if it' s coming off the rest tail high, such as many target shooters will do, and others feel it' s best to have the BH' s impact the same as fieldpoints, to ensure they are coming off the rest as straight as possible. I use the first method when using Muzzy' s, and the second when using shockwaves. Probably doesn' t make a damn bit of difference in the real world, but it gives me something to fool with. Like Rack-Attack said, I just don' t feel right without an allen set in hand.[

Pin, this has always been one of those things we havent ever agreed on. I respect your history, and what youve done archery wise, but I also know to many well know target shooters and hunters who strive for, and do get both heads to hit together. I just recently read an article by a nine time Alaska archery champion, who after switching to a fall away rest achieved both hitting together. Does he know a few things about tuning. I would assume so. Once again, I paper tune, I bareshaft, I french, and if all these things pass muster, magically my bhds. hit right with fpts. It takes time to get there. Not just going by a chart, but trying different arrows. Finding the proper length, head wt. , f.o.c., helical and fletch size etc. Point being, sometimes you get lucky but as often as not it takes time. There is no physical reason why a bh.d cannot hit the same. Steerage. O.k. so why are you getting bhd. steerage. It is correctable. Ive just seen to many people go to a new setup, tune and magically have both hit together. People who supposedly know how to tune. I thing the guys name from Alaska is Lauber. He made a small rest change, accuracy stayed the same and the heads start hitting together. The only thing that makes sense is what was supposedly a good setup in spine, wasnt. That arrow was bangin the rest just enough to be redirected by the bhd. According to the thinking Im seeing here, he, and others like him should detune one setup or the other and get those heads to seperate. Thats assinine.

Pin heres one of the things where we may be getting off base. I see dedicated target guys, shooting two or three inch straight fletch,or less, seven percent f.o.c. or what have you. Yeah, your not of course gonna take that setup, screw on a bhd. and have them impact the same. We may be comparing apples to oranges. I had never really considered it, but I think were talking about two different things. Now the guys such as myself who target shoot just to stay intune and shape for hunting, are of course shooting totally different setups. My shafts and setup are basically the same. Screw on bhds, spin test, and other than a very slight f.o.c. difference which doesnt show up till 40 yds.or so ,away I go. Once again other than bhd. steerage, which is only if my spines off or my bows not in tune, theres no earthly reason why they dont or shouldnt hit together.The bhds. coming off the same as the fld. pt. Am I making sense here. I obviously see that a dedicated spot setup would definatley have to be detuned ,if you will in order to make them impact the same or even close.