carbon v/s aluminum
09-07-2002 | 01:56 PM
#11
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
From: Eveleth Minnesota USA
RE: carbon v/s aluminum
I've seen Ted Nugent pick up many half arrows the thing is I watch alot of them so it's hard to remember which ones for sure ,but they usually don't show it right to the camera and make issue of it its usually when their doing their track job they pick up half an arrow either the braodhead half or the fletched half, and then go staight to the animal.And Im not saying the break with the force of the shot but when the animal runs off with 3/4 of an arrow sticking out its rib cage it probably snaps on some brush or trees,or maybe hits a hard rock on the other side from a pass through, or even bone. Maybe I watch too much TV
09-07-2002 | 03:05 PM
#12
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
Likes: 0
RE: carbon v/s aluminum
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>In the time I have used carbons (last 5 years) and aluminums (14 years) I am confident that carbons are MUCH tougher arrows. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
I shot wood arrows, with a very short period of fiberglass arrows, for 27 years before ever picking up an aluminum arrow. Shot a mix of wood and aluminum for 20 years now. Mixed in some carbons over the past 3 years. As far as I'm concerned, carbon is closer to wood in many respects. Both develop cracks. Hairline cracks that often aren't readily apparent, but will cause all kinds of impressive noises and visual effects the next time they're shot. Trads check their wood arrows for cracks when they hit something hard. People shooting carbon MUST do the same thing.
Carbon is tough. That comment has been repeated so many times that it's fast becoming legend. Problem is that people get sucked into the legend and forget that, even though carbon arrows are tough, they are NOT indestructable. Then people get slack in their safety and forget to check those tough arrows when something goes wrong.
I am confident that carbon arrows are tougher than aluminum too. But I'm not so confident in their toughness that I trust them. They can hurt you if you get careless, so you have to be aware of their vulnerabilities and respect them.
Aluminum might bend when it hits something hard, but at least the damage is obvious and I'm not going to have to worry about it blowing up in the next shot. I'll take it home, put it in the straightener and get it back straight within .001. In that respect, aluminum is more durable than carbon. It can be fixed. Carbon can't be.
I shot wood arrows, with a very short period of fiberglass arrows, for 27 years before ever picking up an aluminum arrow. Shot a mix of wood and aluminum for 20 years now. Mixed in some carbons over the past 3 years. As far as I'm concerned, carbon is closer to wood in many respects. Both develop cracks. Hairline cracks that often aren't readily apparent, but will cause all kinds of impressive noises and visual effects the next time they're shot. Trads check their wood arrows for cracks when they hit something hard. People shooting carbon MUST do the same thing.
Carbon is tough. That comment has been repeated so many times that it's fast becoming legend. Problem is that people get sucked into the legend and forget that, even though carbon arrows are tough, they are NOT indestructable. Then people get slack in their safety and forget to check those tough arrows when something goes wrong.
I am confident that carbon arrows are tougher than aluminum too. But I'm not so confident in their toughness that I trust them. They can hurt you if you get careless, so you have to be aware of their vulnerabilities and respect them.
Aluminum might bend when it hits something hard, but at least the damage is obvious and I'm not going to have to worry about it blowing up in the next shot. I'll take it home, put it in the straightener and get it back straight within .001. In that respect, aluminum is more durable than carbon. It can be fixed. Carbon can't be.
09-11-2002 | 09:29 PM
#13
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, Ohio
RE: carbon v/s aluminum
Arthur,
It seems to me from your replies (unless I'm just missing something) that you would recommend aluminum over carbon arrows, yet you said you're shooting the Easton Carbonaero Epics. For what reasons do you personaly choose to shoot carbons? I've also learned in my short time here that you are a proponent of shooting heavier arrows. Carbons are generaly considered to be light arrows. Are the Epics on the heavier end of the carbon spectrum? Is there any way to find out how much they do weigh (couldn't find any info on the Easton site)?
It seems to me from your replies (unless I'm just missing something) that you would recommend aluminum over carbon arrows, yet you said you're shooting the Easton Carbonaero Epics. For what reasons do you personaly choose to shoot carbons? I've also learned in my short time here that you are a proponent of shooting heavier arrows. Carbons are generaly considered to be light arrows. Are the Epics on the heavier end of the carbon spectrum? Is there any way to find out how much they do weigh (couldn't find any info on the Easton site)?
09-11-2002 | 11:36 PM
#14
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
Likes: 0
RE: carbon v/s aluminum
Jeepnut, I am shooting these Epics because they are the first carbons I've tried that were worthy of wearing broadheads. I'm very content with aluminum arrows. VERY content. But I've been blasted, flamed, roasted and parboiled over my aluminum fixation for so long that I at least want to say that I have hunted with carbon. It's an experiment, as far as I'm concerned and, unless I get the living crap impressed out of me with some kind of magical performance, I'll be going back to aluminum at the end of it. And I'll still be flappin' my yap about heavy arrows.<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
My 32.5" Epic 340's with 125 grain heads and 4" vanes weigh 470 grains, on the nose. At 60 pounds of draw weight, that puts them at 7.83 grains per pound of draw weight. What I consider to be medium weight arrows. Some consider them hardly anything more than flying anvils. They're a flat 130 grains less than my preferred XX75 2315's.
As far as weight, Epics are almost exactly the same as Gold Tip XT's. 340's would compare to 7595, 400's would compare to 5575.
My 32.5" Epic 340's with 125 grain heads and 4" vanes weigh 470 grains, on the nose. At 60 pounds of draw weight, that puts them at 7.83 grains per pound of draw weight. What I consider to be medium weight arrows. Some consider them hardly anything more than flying anvils. They're a flat 130 grains less than my preferred XX75 2315's.
As far as weight, Epics are almost exactly the same as Gold Tip XT's. 340's would compare to 7595, 400's would compare to 5575.
