do u think this would work
 

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/te...jpg&hasJS=true

RE: do u think this would work
 

Are they made of a hard rubber compound or a plastic---j/k

RE: do u think this would work
 

Yes, they do work, but I still can't bring myself to shoot them. I like the way feathers look.

RE: do u think this would work
 

Yes Turbo Nocks do work. I shoot them and they are great. You will have to shoot them with a drop away rest or a containment rest like a GKF Funnel rest to get clearance.

RE: do u think this would work
 

I never really liked them much when shooting fixed broadheads.

RE: do u think this would work
 

They do work if you have a drop away rest or a biscuit rest.

They did help my accuracy, but they are hard plastic and easy to break when hit by another arrow.

There are clearance problems with some bows. I could not use them with my Mathews Icon because they hit the cable.

The inventor, Nick Shook, is a great guy. I met him at one of the sportsmens shows earlier this year.

Right now I plan to stick with plastic vanes. But if the price comes down to be more competive with vanes, I may give them another try.

RE: do u think this would work
 

One word comes to mind,,"YUCK" !!!!!!![:'(]

RE: do u think this would work
 

yeah well dont knock something unless you have tried them!

The turbo Nocks do work very well with fixed blade broad heads.

RE: do u think this would work
 

Feather and vane fletching does not stabilize the shaft by spin only. It is the entire surface area of the fletch imparting a counter-force against the forces being put upon the shaft. I just cannot accept that the small and stiff wings on this nock can do the same.

RE: do u think this would work
 

Maybe for some, but not for me. Like C903 said, spinning is only part of the equation.

RE: do u think this would work
 

I have not used them either so I cannot really comment negatively on them. However, I am curious as to how they work exactly. As some of the others mentioned, surface area has always been preached as being very important for arrow flight stability. A shorter, smaller surface area such as the one found on the turbonock would seem to fly in the face of this. Is there some reason why the design itself would counteract the negative effects of the smaller surface area?

RE: do u think this would work
 

What most people do not understand about the TURBO is that it is not just another gimmick , but rather a new technology of arrow flight.
Every arrow ever made since the dawn of time uses vanes or feathers and only wind resistance to stabilize its flight. WHY??????
About 200 years ago rifling was accidentally invented for bullets and bullets are way more accurate than fletched arrows. WHY??????

The faster an object spins the more resistant to change in direction it becomes. This is why gyroscopes can balance.

The TURBO NOCK instantly spins the arrow from the bowstring with its twisted nock, in the same manner that a bullet is spun from a gun barrel.
The TURBO only needs enough vane area to keep the arrow spinning,and can fly broadheads with 80% less vane than conventional fletching.
This gives tighter groups , less wind drift, flatter trajectory, better penetration.
To stabilize a fixed blade broadhead , like a Muzzy four blade 100 grain , you need three five inch vanes. This is about 7square inches of vane.
The TURBO does the same job (better) with only 1.6 square inch of vane.

RE: do u think this would work
 

;);)<<< Willing to be an unbiased tester.;);)

Sounds great - send me a set to test against using my arrows.
I'll post results here for everyone to see.

I'm sure you've done more scientific studies but these guys here don't believe anything until they prove it themselves. All sorts of great testing is done regularly from this forum!

One question I would have is - will it still allow easy pass thrus on deer?