I’ll say it again, never try to start out with a precut to length shaft.

I just went thru all this with Ron at KME. It’s easier to tune the shaft to the bow by cutting small cuts off the shaft than it is to try and tune the bow to a precut length shaft.

Now to the tuning. It’s just a guess (because everyone shoots different), but the 7595 may be alittle bit stiff. The 7595 is a 340 deflection.

The reason I say that is your draw length and point weight.

If you have any of the 7595 shafts in full length start with one and see. If at full length the shaft shows stiff then drop to a 5575 and work your way shorter and shorter until the flight becomes clean.

Now, don’t be fooled by how the shaft sticks in the target. Sometimes stiff shafts will kick off the sight window and give the appearance of a weak shaft. One way to tell this is to rub red lipstick on the back half of the sight window side of the shaft. If you see lipstick on the sight window strike plate after shooting it tells the truth on what is really happening.

The external footing are used to support the shaft behind the insert. With extra weight up front the inserts are easily pushed into the shaft when something hard to hit, plus it helps prevent breaking of the shaft behind the insert.

Steel adapters are highly reccommended. Alumium adpt. are one of the leak links in any setup.

Troy

Troy Breeding wrote: I’ll say it again, never try to start out with a precut to length shaft.

I just went thru all this with Ron at KME. It’s easier to tune the shaft to the bow by cutting small cuts off the shaft than it is to try and tune the bow to a precut length shaft.

Now to the tuning. It’s just a guess (because everyone shoots different), but the 7595 may be alittle bit stiff. The 7595 is a 340 deflection.

The reason I say that is your draw length and point weight.

If you have any of the 7595 shafts in full length start with one and see. If at full length the shaft shows stiff then drop to a 5575 and work your way shorter and shorter until the flight becomes clean.

Now, don’t be fooled by how the shaft sticks in the target. Sometimes stiff shafts will kick off the sight window and give the appearance of a weak shaft. One way to tell this is to rub red lipstick on the back half of the sight window side of the shaft. If you see lipstick on the sight window strike plate after shooting it tells the truth on what is really happening.

The external footing are used to support the shaft behind the insert. With extra weight up front the inserts are easily pushed into the shaft when something hard to hit, plus it helps prevent breaking of the shaft behind the insert.

Steel adapters are highly reccommended. Alumium adpt. are one of the leak links in any setup.

Troy

I totally agree. Troy is spot on.

Ed

Listen to these wise ol’sages, they know what they are talking about and Troy walked me through the process. It produces an amazing arrow superior to all other set ups IMHO:) Any arrow setup which goes through my foam target has something special going on. Wait until you harvest game with it!

J

I feel pretty sure you can rule out any of the 500’s. After that I’d pick the lightest grain per inch 400 you have. With 300 up front you don’t want more grains per inch in the shaft than you can help. The testing I’ve done has shown that any finished arrow that has 16 grains per inch or more have passed the point of deminishing return.

Troy

Troy Breeding wrote: I feel pretty sure you can rule out any of the 500’s. After that I’d pick the lightest grain per inch 400 you have. With 300 up front you don’t want more grains per inch in the shaft than you can help. The testing I’ve done has shown that any finished arrow that has 16 grains per inch or more have passed the point of deminishing return.

Troy

I think Troy meant to say any finished arrow with a total weight that is 16 or more grains per pound of the bow’s draw weight.

Ed

Good catch Ed. Guess my fingers weren’t able to keep up with the ol’ hair covered computer.:D

Troy

[quote=Troy Breeding]Good catch Ed. Guess my fingers weren’t able to keep up with the ol’ hair covered computer.:D

Troy[/quote

Troy I didn’t think that old computer had any hair that’s why it is always covered with a hat……Hat/hair what is the difference.The main thing it is protected with a cover:D

As a sideline to Troy’s comment on the point of diminishing returns with total arrow weight to bow draw-weight, I tested this a lot, crosschecking with three chronographs, and with the modern high-performance trad bows it seems to be right at 15 to 16 grains of arrow eight per pound of the bow’s draw-force (depending on the bow). What, to me, was one of the most interesting finding from this testing was that with self-bows the point of diminishing returns was right at 10 grains per pound of the bow’s draw weight. I believe that this is where the old “rule-of thumb” of using 10 grains of arrow weight per pound of bow draw-weight originated from; it was the most efficient point with the ‘old bows’. Unfortunately many folk still consider this the ‘optimum’ arrow weight for peak bow performance. That was once the case, when most shot self-bows, but it no longer holds true.

However it’s important to note that the arrow still continues to gain KE and Momentum after passing this ‘optimum weight’, it’s just that the RATE OF GAIN diminishes drastically once this ‘optimum weight’ is passed.

Ed

That’s exactly what I found with my testing. Momentum never stops gaining, but at a certain point the gain isn’t really worth the increase. This is easily seen on a graph.

Troy