Arthur I did me some testing. I have bemans from 5-6 years ago. I found them and checked them through the spine tester. HOLY CRAP. From spining the shaft I got .011, .012, .011, .014, .011, .023, .024, .018, .24. Nothing close to that with the newer shafts. It will be amazing what we will be at in another 5 years.

I'm gratified to hear they've actually made some improvements in spine consistency, ewolf! Question: Did you just check once on each arrow, or did you spin each arrow and check them all at several points around the shaft? Last time I fiddled with them, I could get spine variances up to .015 or more on the same shaft. Going from the stiffest point on one shaft to the limpest point on another, it wasn't suprizing to get a variance of .040 or more within a dozen new shafts. Much, much worse after they'd been used on the range for a month or two.

There is certainly a desperate need for continued improvement, but it will only come if archers demand it. Even then, I doubt we'll be amazed. They'll still be selling their factory seconds - the ones that are just good enough to not go in the scrap bin - as cheap 'hunter' grade shafts and there'll still be tons of people who can't shoot good enough to see them for the junk they are. Then it'll still be a step higher up the price scale for the ones that are almost right, and they'll still be charging astronomical prices for the shafts that actually do come off the mandrel the way they intended.

Arthur the numbers I provided are the variation from spining them while in the spine meter. The new ones are alot better than the old ones thats for sure.

That has not been my experience with Bemans. The ones I tested were much worse. When checking aluminum arrows, I'd get at least .003 to .004 difference on a dozen. None of the carbons I've tested have been anywhere near as consistant. For them to test better than aluminums seems unlikely at this point in their development.

CarbonTech

Got my Cheetah 3D's.....

Whoa

I'm just a rookie at this, but I've found the same thing that Jeff B mentioned. Carbon Tech seems to be much closer in shaft to shaft spine, and spine around the shaft than the other carbons I have. I got .002 spine around the shaft and .004 as the greatest variation within the dozen shafts, and that was with Cheetah Hunters (.006). Other all carbons varied by .014 in the half dozen I tested. Still, the results with ACCs made me question my construction of the spine meter, and the purchase of other arrows to try. The ACCs were .001 around the shaft, and only varied .001 within a dozen. They seem to shoot more consistently, but It's hard to tell at my skill level.

I'll have to check for the seam like you mentioned, and compare it with the spine around the shaft to see if there is a connection, but I'd guess there probably is.

And thats what you pay for , some of the JUNK carbon cost almost as much and won't group worth a darn , and thats with field tips , let alone fixed broad heads .
I'm pissed they took my matrix arrows off of the market . Basically an acc with a larger diameter .