Pinn, with all due respect I would think that if someone who bought into HC' s marketing and purchased a 400 fps High Country bow and arrow set up, would fully expect to be able to " shoot it all day long" . I would if I shelled out the money they want for it. I have to guess that it' s allready happened to someone. I can' t emagine this particular bow to be a top 3D contender, let alone in the western states where the wind is a constant drain on accuracy. The industry' s lightest bow will not promote accurate shooting for anyone especially with 225 grain arrows in the outdoor shooting environment. I' d bet shooting at an antelope 3D at 60 yards with HC' s speed bow and arrows in a Wyoming or western Nebraska environment would result in looking for lots of arrows, at least in my hands anyway When loaded down with IBO weight arrows, the bow in question is still fast but not as fast as some

In all honesty yes JeffB, HCA has produced some serious garbage in recent years. I do not question that. However, in all honesty also, they have come through with some fine advancements, and OWN patent rights to, some of the finest technology in the industry. I firmly believe the carbon riser is the way of the future, and I give them credit for producing equipment that will (on paper anyway) be the next stepping stone. Whether or not they build it to exacting specs and unwavering quality remains to be seen, but my guess is that they cannot afford to screw this one up and still remain in business. (The bows from them I' ve seen recently seem far nicer than those from a couple of years ago too.)

I recall other companies who made serious mistakes---remember when PSE could not keep limbs on their bows? How about when the Q2 and Q2XL were introduced, and they came through with paint falling off and cams shredding cables due to corners being cut and the cams not buffed? Or more recently, Mr. McPhereson himself bashing Hoyt in their advertising?(big boo-boo) Even Merlin recently re-vamped their Omega cam, and sent everyone who bought the first generation the upgrade. Yes, mistakes happen to everyone.

Bottom line is that no matter who' s name is on the bow, the technology is here for the next step forward, whether you choose to trust HCA or not is up to you. Eventually others will also license the military-grade carbon technology, and the speeds will continue to go up within the industry. Evolution continues.

[I happen to know of another company that is throwing their hat into the speed wars that should raise some eyebrows in 2004. The evolution continues....Stay tuned....] Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

Kevin,

Most of my comments were of a general nature, not directed at anyone in particular, but I’ll address a few of your points, since you made some good ones.

Yep everyone makes mistakes. EVERYONE. However the difference is HCA has a history of mistakes that have gone on considerably longer than a bad production run. The Ultra Extreme was built for a few years (and I know you had the same experiences I did w/ that bow). The cable guard, limb problems, and bushing wear have been constant thorns in their side since the company’s inception.

Most of the examples you cited were more along the lines of “whoops, we F#$%&D up”. (though I know there are few who would take exception in the case of PSE’ limb probs have been solved, hee hee).

Singlecam cable serving wear was a problem long before the SL2 cam came out. In fact theThe SL design in general was a big improvement. Yes, some of the SL2’s were very bad. The problem was fixed by the middle of the production year (though bows w/ the prob still sat on shelves). I owned an original Q2XL bought in April 2000 that never exhibited the problem some had. Since that time I’ve owned probably 8 or 9, maybe even more SL 2 ,Sl3, and Concentric cam bows from Mathews proper w/ nary a problem other than serving discoloration. The finish problem was a fairly isolated circumstance (final coat was not applied on a few different batches of risers). New fiishes don’t exhibit the problem (though again how good a Mathews finish is is debateable among some)

Merlin’s problem w/ the Omega, again an isolated prob, and fixed.

Hoyt’s original camo redline cams chewed up cable servings too. Replaced w/ the Black cams by mid-summer. They had their disaster in 1999 w/ a bad batch of glass from Gordon. Limbs coming apart left and right, now they have what is largely thought to be the lowest failure rate on the market, percentage-wise. Bowtech’s earlier model finish problems, and even this years problems with bushings on the duals. These things were caught, and rectified.

HCA’s problems have been in many cases, year in, and year out. The cable guards have been a problem since the Excalibur. How many mid year changes have they done to that alone: there was the low mount w/ steel. Then the low mount w/ Carbon. Then the high mount with carbon. Then the High mount w/ an angled carbon rod. All in one and half year’s time! The angled rod increased bushing wear (which is what the low mounts were doing w/ the 14” limb bows). So then the bushings started to change every six months to accommodate the poor cable guard design. Then they changed the Cable guards again in 1999. And based on what is on my 2002 model, they still do not have it right: My 3-49’s deflect less

I won’t even get into the limbs. They have been a common problem since the old “flared” models from the very early 90’s

Make no mistake, Id’ LOVE to see HCA get their ducks in a row, and start putting out some CONSISTENTLY good quality products! I’d be first in line to buy one, because as you & I well know, If you get a good one, and they shoot wonderfully.

Absolutely the Evolution continues. HCA played their part, and unless they pull a Hat Trick, I don’t see them playing any mentionable part in the future other than perhaps for inspiration. Their most dedicated and loyal team member (and some would argue the man that put them on the map, as far as 3D goes), Burley Hall, finally gave up and went his own way. That particular action speaks volumes, IMHO.

I just don’t think HCA is the company to shake things up, and certainly is not the model for a safe durable bow manufacturer at least in this point in time. Most people are finding it hard to take them seriously, which as you mentioned is going to be a problem for Mathews after their recent advertising campaign (I agree, stupid move, regardless if there is some legitimacy in those claims or not).

Safety is my concern here. Only because HCA has a (very deserved) bad reputation for all kinds of trouble running the gamut from poor fundamental bow design to “experimental” tech. I personally have not seen the improvement based on my own 2002 model purchase last summer, and the bows I’ve seen in various shops in my travels.

Doesn’t mean HCA cannot whip themselves into shape, but they have not only shot off their own two feet, they’ve done a damn good job of taking out the legs and torso too

I still think it is misleading to advertise what they are. A lot of people will buy a bow & think it will shoot 400 fps when in fact they won' t because they will not knwo what to do to get those speeds. I am lso concerned about their QC as stated by JeffB. When you make poor quality (Due to QC problems) bows for so long who wouldn' t wonder if it is safe to shoot or not!

WHAT' s THE POINT !!


Yes, I understand that making a tougher bow is good.How tough does it need to be.I understand the advantages of the carbon riser.


But the fact still remains that you can' t shoot less than 5 gr per pound in IBO.If you do,you can' t shoot over 280 fps.You can already shoot a short draw bow very safely at 4 gr per pound to reach 280 fps.Maybe they think the IBO will change to accomidate the safer,faster rigs.I doubt it.I can see this being like the 65 % letoff rule and P&Y.

I would hope that they aren' t promoting the use of 225 gr arrow for hunting.I could see a lot of wounded animals around. Shoulder blades in an elk would eat that up. The person that is going to buy into this real light, real fast stuff is most likely going to be the person that doesn' t need to be shooting anywhere near that kind of speed in the first place.It takes much more experience to handle that.


If they want to show the toughness of the riser and bow components with this test, then fine, but I think they need to leave it at that.

Just my take on this.

I believe they should have just said," Our new offering shoots 320 IBO and is lighter than anything out there" . They would have probably sold a ton of them to the western hunters

FastPassThrough. You made a comment about the speed of the bow being more forgiving at longer distances. The difference between 20fps and a 2yard miss judge is gonna give about a 2" variance high or low.

So the best thing to do would get your feild yardage judgement down to a tee and not worry about how fast you are shooting. For me, my drawlength with a compound is about 27" give or take maybe a quarter inch. Even with these arrow cooking setups, I' m never gonna get that speed and neither are all the other normal draw archers. Later.
Dylan

A few more final thoughts---

First, I think that lighter arrows and faster bows will continue to evolve, just as they have since the invention of the bow and arrow as depicted in my previous posts. Personally I feel none of us have a right to throw up barriers on technology advancement for any reason other than safety..... That being said, I firmly believe the implemented 280fps rulings in certain formats is completely ludicrous at this stage of the game and should in fact be upgraded. Those speeds were implemented back in 1994 by the ASA and to freely allow the industry to continue it' s evolvution we must also increase those speed restrictions every few years to keep in line with the progression of new technology and new strength/safety capabilities of the equipment thereof. Bottom line. What would have happened if everyone said " that' s good, don' t need anything lighter or faster" about the model A Ford at 30 mph? Same thing.

A lighter arrow is not a bad thing--in fact it helps with trajectory and creating a larger hit window no matter the distance, giving the shooter a chance to hit the kill zone more frequently with a less-than-perfect yardage call, especially at distance. This is due to the extra speed that is exhibited from these lighter arrows. If of the same configuration and speed the heavier arrow will produce more KE yes, but if the ligher arrow is travelling at a much higher rate of speed coming out of the bow it will still produce decent KE, and produce a much larger hit window at the same time, so that arguement is neglible at best for everything except very large game, especially at realistic bowhunting distances. Now we are only left with the arguement of safety, and as stated the technology is much more advanced now than when the ASA implemented the 280fps ruling and the equipment much stronger. (IBO basically copied them, but DOES allow under 5 grains per lb to reach that " miraculous" 280 marker!) BTW-- Does anyone know where the 280fps came from? It came from certain manufacturers whose bows at the time did roughly 280 and they wanted to ensure that they could stick with their same configurations for a few years.(essentially " sandbag" and reap the rewards financially) Other certain people were " convinced" (LOL) of this and their organizations received a substantial " reward" .(sponsorships) Had nothing to do with any proper testing during the period or anything, the number was basically pulled out of a hat because certain bows at the time ran that particular speed. Money talks.....

HELLO!!!----

They don' t run that speed anymore, and the sandbagging needs to stop! Most every compound bow on the market can safely run much higher than 280 even tho they have been " reigned in" for the past decade, short-draw archers can safely shoot less grains per inch because of their lesser powerstroke and stress on components, so they too can easily reach 300+ if they are educated about these principles and realize the safety is not an issue and they can. We will always have a few occasional incidents of failure just as we always have, but there is no reason to restrict ourselves into believing this is the end of the line, and/or throw a big barrier up and/or post that light weight arrows (even tho stronger) or faster speed is " no good" or " unsafe" .

Back in the mid to late 80' s I regularly shot 3D courses with 210grain AFC 2100 carbons out of a variety of cast-riser bows at serious 330-340+ speeds, and altho the spine would go out of the arrows quickly and we found out eventually that we couldn' t hit anything with them,(LOL) we were shooting full 40 target courses every weekend, and even then, altho the bows were quite LOUD and you heard of failures frequently, realistically there were few incidents of people really getting injured, and EVERYONE at the time was way over the edge pushing the envelope.

With the now stronger-spined biased wrapped lightweight arrows, Straight and level nock travel, and new-age technology that is hundreds of times stronger than what it was in years past, the industry will see much higher strength, speed, and yes, safety ratings in the future. This is already happening and will continue, mark my words, like it or not. I remember people hated the first compound bow with a passion too, saying that it was no good and that it would never work and that we have no need for them or that much speed....where would we be now if we didn' t let go of that ridiculous thinking? This new technology might or might not come from HCA, but as mentioned the technology for the next step forward is already here, and someone will be refining it shortly. Good shooting, Pinwheel 12

I will agree that advancement in bow technology will allow bows and their components to withstand more energy without failing.However the excess energy means more noise and vibration.Also the lighter arrows are less efficient.It gets to be a point of diminishing returns.Superlight arrows will lose energy and momentum at longer ranges.For target archers that is not a big deal.For bowhunters it can be.I still think it' s a cheap marketing ploy by HCA,speed sells.And just think people used to kill critters with a sharp rock tied to a stick.One more consideration in regards to bow technology advances is the perception by gun hunters and wild life mangers.While a bow will never be the equal of a high powered rifle,as technology advances it becomes harder to justify special archery seasons and bag limits.A lot of gun hunters are jealous of the early seasons bow hunters enjoy,especially for elk.The perception of archery equipment as a primitive weapon gets harder to justify as technology advances.

CB

Good point about the seasons and distinctions, but I also look at that point this way--no only is archery advancing, everthing else is too. Rifles are much more accurate than they used to be, and their technology progresses right along with everything else. Pretty soon the rifle hunters will be shooting with lasers, yet we as bowhunters will still be shooting an arrow off a string! Whether or not they are doing 400, 500, or even 1000 fps means little, because everything else tech-wise is moving along at the same pace with it. Look at muzzleloader season, they are so close to rifles now that it is incredible, yet they still have their seperate season also. I think we have pretty fair legs to stand on if you think about that aspect for a minute.