Need help with carbon arrow selection

[newbreedarcher]

#7229

Hey guys! So I got my new hunter model bow from bama bows! All I can say is, I’m ordering another one! Lol! Okay, back on point. Bows stats are: 60 lbs @28″ i have to be honest, all the foc talk is kinda lost on me, but I get the basics of it. So if anyone has a suggestion on what setup for carbon arrows would work best, lemme know! Thanks guys:D

[Troy Breeding]

#59669

It all depends on what you want.

If your wanting speed, then trying for high FOC is normally out of the question.

If your wanting high FOC then we will need to know what weight point you intent to use.

Gotta start somewhere.

Troy

[newbreedarcher]

#60059

Well, here’s the deal. I’ve been told that in order to have high foc I will most likely need to have a good bit of weight on the front end. Most people that I talk to say that the weight I would need to get foc would be over kill for white tail. So I guess my question is.. Is a really heavy arrow like that need if I’m only going to be going for white tail, and maybe the occasional black bear? Sorry I didn’t put this in my post yesterday. I was falling asleep at my computer! So I might have left out some crucial Info:)

[Swamp Rat]

#60124

There are plenty on here that can answer this better than me but….

FOC does more than just give you penetration it also adds to some degree more accuracy, cross wind resistance which comes from the flight stability.

It does add more arch to your tragectory because of the weight. This is the beauty of carbon lite shaft stiff spine equals a much easiers way to get FOC with out shooting bricks.

I have a bow that pulls 58lbs. at my 32″ draw and I use the Trad Only shafts from 3rivers in a .300 the shaft is only 10.1 gpi but is stiff so I can add a good bit of weight up front without getting too heavy. My bow is center cut and I am sure that the Bama would be too this also helps.

If you are picky about your point weight get a set of shafts and add point weight till you get good arrow flight then cut a brass insert down to get close to the point weight you want or use the PDP inserts that you can add weight to.

[Raymond Coffman]

#60125

New breed archer

I am just a beginner in building EFOC arrows. I decided to try it- with the thought, if I could get to/above 30% and 650grs –{if my arrow ended up a little forward} , I would have a better chance of getting thru the shoulder blade of wt/mddeer. I also hunt elk where it would be a requirement [IMHO]so why not have one arrow for most big game[simpler /cheaper/etc] one traj to become perfect with –

easy with Carbons { tuffheads — Total arrow weight 730 [30%}

still working on woods –perfect flight with 225 th and poc -640grs. try one of the other woods next–

Scout

[sharpster]

#60143

newbreedarcher wrote: Well, here’s the deal. I’ve been told that in order to have high foc I will most likely need to have a good bit of weight on the front end. Most people that I talk to say that the weight I would need to get foc would be over kill for white tail. So I guess my question is.. Is a really heavy arrow like that need if I’m only going to be going for white tail, and maybe the occasional black bear? Sorry I didn’t put this in my post yesterday. I was falling asleep at my computer! So I might have left out some crucial Info:)

“Overkill for whitetails”… We’ve heard that a million times but I think it’s pretty safe to say we’ve also all seen deer run off with an arrows sticking out of them more than just a time or two. So we’re pretty much forced to acknowledge the obvious…Penetration is an issue even when hunting whitetails. No such thing as overkill in my view.

Ron

[Jason Wesbrock]

#60158

newbreedarcher wrote: So I guess my question is.. Is a really heavy arrow like that need if I’m only going to be going for white tail, and maybe the occasional black bear? Sorry I didn’t put this in my post yesterday. I was falling asleep at my computer! So I might have left out some crucial Info:)

The heavy versus mid-weight versus light arrow debate was going on long before any of us were born, and it’s not likely to end soon. There’s plenty of sound reasons for each, so it really does come down to personal opinion.

Fred Eichler killed all 29 North American big game species with arrows that weighed, as I recall, between 500 and 550 grains. My paternal grandfather hunted for decades with a recurve pulling 42# @ 26″, mid-400-grain arrows, and very rarely failed to pass through a whitetail. My hunting arrows weigh at or very near 500 grains, and I can’t remember the last time I left a broadhead in an animal — deer, hogs, elk, moose, and such. As a matter of fact, on my bull moose I put not one but two arrows completely through him. It took us longer to find the arrows than the bull.

In the end, I think it comes down more to what you shoot accurately than whatever numbers your calculator spits out.

[David Petersen]

#60219

Jason — “What I shoot more accurately” is an Ashby set-up.” Like daddy used to say, don’t knock it if you ain’t tried it.

[Jason Wesbrock]

#60240

Dave,

If that is what you shoot best, than that is absolutely what you should be using. If a person finds a different setup works best for him, than that’s what he should be using. Life would sure be boring if everyone did the same things the same way. I’ve tried heavier arrows and tested some with EFOC. For me, there was no advantage over the accuracy and penetration I current see, so there was no reason for me to change.

[Raymond Coffman]

#60255

Jason —

The problem with individual opinions { mine included – especially in this forum – I am returning to tradbow after many yrs absent} is they are mostly limited in breadth and scope. Statistically they don’t mean much. Doc Ashby has A lot of info/testing to back up his claims. Other members have shown Kills/tests with their efoc that are very impressive.

To lend creedance to your argument – how about some recent or future pix of your arrow set ups effectiveness? What are your Parameters of “for me,there was no advantage over the accuracy and penetration I currently get”?

In my past I shot thru all but one deer [wt bt mdeer]that one, a frontal chest shot [ went down in 20yds]w/ bear Razorhead std arrow.

I went to efoc because it looks to give me a better killing arrow just in case.

You seem very knowledgable and have given me some good tips in the past on shooting/bow set up

Thanks

scout

[Jason Wesbrock]

#60285

Scout,

For the record, and I only say this because with some folks this seems to cause confusion, I never once mentioned Ashby or his work in my post here. I addressed arrow weight (and EFOC only after Dave’s follow up comment). People were debating arrow weight long before Ashby (or any of us for that matter) were alive. It’s not a new discussion by any means. And you are absolutely correct; individual experiences are limited in scope. That’s why we can also draw from several decades of collective recreational bowhunting.

 

The parameters for me regarding “there was no advantage over the accuracy and penetration I currently get” are very simple. My accuracy did not improve with heavier arrows (at unknown yardages, quite the opposite actually), nor did it improve by shooting EFOC arrows at known yardages where we can eliminate the variable of distance estimation. With respect to penetration, when my current arrows stick in the dirt on the other side of whatever animals I shoot (up to and including bull moose), there is no penetration gain to be had. A pass through is a pass through.

 

With respect to photos, I’ll have to apologize in advance, but I’m not at my laptop. If you are interested I could try to post some kill photos tonight when I get the time, or you could always read through the last several years of TBM.

 

” I went to efoc because it looks to give me a better killing arrow just in case.”

 

I wanted to single this quote out because it is key. Archery is a highly mental sport, and confidence plays a huge roll. If making a certain change gives an archer increased confidence, than there is significant value in making that change. We shouldn’t ever underestimate the emotional side of archery (whether our “targets” are paper, foam, or flesh)

[Raymond Coffman]

#60337

Jason –

I did not think you had mentioned Doc Ashby. I mentioned him because of his extensive info and testing. For me that is very interesting and helpful and carries more weight.

I have no doubt that you are a successful and proficient bowhunter [Did not mean to infer otherwise] Much more so than I am. You seem to be the con in the efoc argument { every good argument needs an opposing view } so was looking for more details [pix] of your veiwpoint, IE

type, weight, bow bH,distance to tgt – did the BH hit ribs -internal damage etc.

I also agree [mostly] with your final statement of confidence – it is important, and the mental aspect very much so. I am looking into the Efoc argument for a scientifically more effecient killing instrument { while staying trad – oops another argument-haha} to ensure a clean kill. If you are happy with what you have – great.

Thanks for your response

Scout

[Ed Ashby]

#60375

J.Wesbrock wrote: That’s why we can also draw from several decades of collective recreational bowhunting.

 

If your setup works flawlessly for you, that’s great – for you. However it’s the ‘several decades of collective recreational bowhunting’, along with my persinal experiences. as both a bowhunter and a big game guide in Africa, with the ‘commonly used’ arrow setups, that started me looking for an arrow setup that offered a higher success rate. And it isn’t just me that has observed problems with the ‘commonly used’ arrow setups. Consider the following ‘several decades of collective recreational bowhunting’:

Bowhunting Studies

1. In an unpublished report for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Landwehr, T. J. (1983), surveyed

3,909 Minnesota bowhunters in 1982. The data from this study indicates a wounding rate of 53% in Minnesota.

The study goes on to find that at a state?wide level nearly 6,500 Minnesota deer were shot by arrows and never

retrieved in 1982.

2. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from St. Croix, Jan. 15, 1947, 191

bowhunters killed 24 deer and left 6 carcasses. Wounding rate was 50% (61 shots per kill).

3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from St. Croix, Red Lake, and Cloquet,

Jan. 15, 1948. St. Croix – 293 bowhunter killed only three deer out of a population of 500?600. Red Lake – 83

archers killed one deer and wounded another. Cloquet – 27 archers – no deer killed.

4. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from Camp Ripley, Oct. 15, 1954, archers

killed 43 deer. A large number of deer were reported as wounded by archers.

5. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from Camp Ripley, Jan. 15, 1957, archers

killed 96 deer. 30 deer were reported wounded.

6. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from Camp Ripley, July 15, 1959, 11,086

archers killed 403 deer, 59.1% wounding rate. In questionnaires bowhunters reported firing 2,550 shots to kill 126 deer (40.9%) and wound 182 (59.1%). An average of 20.2 arrows was fired per kill.

7. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Summaries of Wildlife Research Findings 1991, edited by Blair

Joselyn, Camp Ripley Preliminary Results.

1. 1st Hunt – Oct. 19th, 1,626 hunters, Oct. 20th 1,376 hunters: Hunters killed 119 deer. Hunters reported wounding

and not retrieving 40 deer.

2. 2nd Hunt – delayed until Nov. 30th, 591 hunters, Dec. 1st, 562 hunters: Hunters killed 100 deer. 12 reports of

wounded deer.

8. A major study in Texas by Boydston, G.A. and Gore, H.G., (1987) collected data from 3,568 hunters over a thirteen

year time period. The authors found a wounding rate of over 50% and found that more than 21 shots were

needed per kill. The authors state that these numbers are conservative due to the fact that they are based on

bowhunter reported surveys. This study concluded that shot placement is for all practical purposes random, that

wounds clot quickly leaving poor blood trails, that poorly hit deer, more often than not, are lost, and that almost

all abdominally shot deer die a slow death due to peritonitis.

9. A study by Aho, R.W. (1984) for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources indicates that bowhunting results

in a 58% wounding rate.

10. Causey, M.K., Kennamer, J.E., Logan, J. and Chapman, J.I., (1978) indicated that bowhunting in both Alabama and

South Carolina results in a 50% wounding rate.

11. In a survey of Georgia bowhunters, Croft, R.L. (1963), found wounding rates over 78%.

12. A study by Downing, R.L., (1972) found crippling rates of 50%. Crippling rate refers to unretrieved mortally

wounded deer in Georgia.

13. Garland, L.E., (1972) indicates that bowhunting in Vermont has resulted in a wounding rate of 63%.

14. Gladfelter, H.L., Kiensler, J.M. and Koehler, K.J. (1983) found wounding rates of 49% for bowhunting in Iowa.

15. In a survey of archery hunters, Hansen, L.P. and Olson, G.S. (1989) found a wounding rate of 52% for Missouri.

16. Harron, J.S.C. (1984) found a 56% wounding rate for Wisconsin, as a three?year average.

17. Jackson, R.M., and Anderson R.K. (1982) determined wounding rates at 44% for Wisconsin.

18. Langenau, E.E. and Aho, R.W., (1983) found wounding rates of 55%, and 13.25 shots needed per kill in several

Midwestern states.

19. In a study of South Dakota bowhunting, McPhillips, K.B. (1983) and McPhillips, K.B., Linder, R.L. and Wentz, W.A.

(1985) determined wounding rates to be between 48% and 56%, and number of shots per kill to be 13.8.

20. In a study for the Missouri Department of Conservation, Sheriff, S., Haroldson, K., and Giessman, N. (1983) found

wounding rates of 50%.

21. Stomer, F.A., Kirkpatrick. C.M., and Hoekstra, T.W. (1979) found wounding rates of 58% in Indiana.

22. Westcott, G. and Peyton, R.B. (1986) report wounding rates of 50% for Michigan

There are numerous earlier studies, many of which wre listed in the original Natal Study, that show near identical would-loss rates for recreational bowhunting. It appears that little has changed through the years. All I can document is my own wound-loss rate since I started using what the data indicates to be more effective arrow setups and keeping detailed records, and it is below 1% across over 600 big game animals. What we are trying to convey is the information on how to construct what the data shows to be the most humane and lethal arrow setup and obtain feedback of the outcomes others are obtaining when using these arrow setups, as compared to the outcomes they have observed with the arrow setups they previously used. So far the feedback indicates a noticable increase in favorable results.

Nothing against others using whatever arrow setup they choose to use, so long as it works equally well for them. Feedback from those who have actually used both types of arrow setps to actually take big game is always beneficial.

Ed

[Jason Wesbrock]

#60396

Ed,

Thanks for posting that information. It actually demonstrates exactly what I’ve been saying. As bowhunting equipment has become historically “more lethal” wounding losses remained relatively consistent. That leaves us with that one important common denominator: the proverbial loose nut behind the wheel.

[Troy Breeding]

#60411

I have to say that since I started following Ed’s advise my wound to kill ratio has gone highly in favor of the more lethal heavy and increased FOC arrow.

What someone feels is best for them, may verywell be just that.

However, if someone ask about a different type setup I try to get the basics of what they want before lending advise.

The average shooter only has a 28″ draw. When arrows of different weights are compared as to being lethal, the heavy increased forward weight will win hands down.

I think the one thing Jason seems to forget is the fact that he can scratch his knees without bending over.:D

His long draw has it’s merits in it’s own rights. However, for the average shooter to achieve the same amount of thump he gets, the average shooter would need to pull an additional 20# of bow weight.

Since I’d never suggest someone try to pull more weight than they can most likely handle, I tend to point them towards increasing arrow weight and FOC.

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#60423

J.Wesbrock wrote: Ed,

Thanks for posting that information. It actually demonstrates exactly what I’ve been saying. As bowhunting equipment has become historically “more lethal” wounding losses remained relatively consistent. That leaves us with that one important common denominator: the proverbial loose nut behind the wheel.

I severely question that the archery equipment in common useage today has become “historically more lethal”. On the contrary, I think much of the newer equipemnt is less lethal, and that particularly applies to arrows. I think that the ‘more traditional’ arrow setups you use are more lethal than most of what the wheely-bow crowd commonly use, and every shred of data I have indicates that there are arrow setups more lethal that what we ‘moderns’ tend to consider as ‘traditional’. There are many ‘primitive tribes’ that have historically used arrow setups very similar to the EFOC/UEFOC setups the Study’s data shows to perform, statistically, at a more lethal level, and with great success. I’ll put the success rate of the PNG matives, with their ‘crude’ bows and ‘primitave’, unfletched UEFOC arrows against any modern bowhunter I’ve even guided or hunted with.

This forum has gone a long way towards collecting feedback from those now using EFOC/UEFOC arrow setups with single-bevel, high MA broadheads that is validating the Study’s findings; and that was its purpose from the outset – to obtain comparative feedback from other bowhunters who have hunted big game with both the Study-indicated arrow setups and the more ‘conventional’ types of arrow setups.

Ed

[Raymond Coffman]

#60426

I would interpret the Info that the Doc posted [ I think the latest one was 91] was pre common{yes I know even now it is not common – maybe knowledge of} use of the Efoc/single bevel-type arrow, so they would be showing more of the status quo std lighter/BH arrows abilities in the Avg Bowhunters hands.

I do know friends of mine who have used the old 190gr Grizzly sb BH on elk stayed with it because of its better performance.

I was aware of the “natal study” in the past but have only recently studied the Ashby Library in depth with my return to tradbow. Very interested and impressed with the amount of documented info within. which sent me on this path.

I hope to take a few animals with my “ashby” arrows this year and add to the info in said report.

Scout

[Jason Wesbrock]

#60432

Scout,

I don’t really think I’m the “con” in the pro-con discussion. To me, that implies for or against, and I’m really neither. I use what I use because it works well for me, and I encourage others to make the same decisions for themselves. The individuality of this pastime is one of the things I most enjoy about it.

 

Thanks for the follow up, and I now understand what you were asking for with respect to arrow performance. One of the things I’ve always done is take at least one photo of any medium or big game I kill and write certain details on the back of the picture—equipment, location, shot distance, shot placement, damage, recovery distance. My photo album is at home, but I can post some info here off the top of my head.

 

Since 2001, my arrows have been very consistent. I shoot full length unweighted Beman ICS 340s with 25-grain glue-in adapters and 125-grain heads. I fletch them with four 4” parabolic feathers and cap and crest them in the same pattern my grandfather used on his last set of arrows (he died before he hunted with those arrows, so this became my sentimental way of taking him with me).

They weigh 500 grains, plus or minus a couple. The various bows from which I’ve shot them have produced speeds ranging from 194 fps (my homemade recurves) to 200 fps (my present setup).

 

The vast majority of my entries involve animals either broadside or slightly quartering away and double lung pass throughs. I rarely pay much attention to rib damage on whitetail because they’re kind of like white popsicle sticks surrounded by meat. There’s not much in the way of resistance to penetration. Aside from that, I’ve put those arrows through various off-side shoulder bones on mature whitetails (mostly upper leg, including that knuckle at the base of the shoulder blade). I’ve also put them through a few vertebrae over the years, although never intentionally. My steepest angle was hard quartering away on a mature 12-pointer at nine yards. The arrow entered in front of the left rear hip, took out various intestines and such, the liver and lungs, exited through the right front shoulder, and buried in an oak tree. That was with a four-blade Zwickey Delta. My steepest downward angle was a mature ten-pointer quartering away five yards from the base of my tree. That arrow cut a rib near the vertebrae, took out both lungs and the heart, cut another rib near the sternum, and stuck in the dirt. That arrow was tipped with a Woodsman.

  

With my moose, the initial shot was broadside, walking at 11 yards. The arrow penetrated both lungs, split a rib vertically on the exit side, and flew into the cutover. He trotted about 25 yards and stopped broadside, so I shot him again. That arrow also passed through, although in hindsight, the shot was unnecessary. He was dead on his feet from the first arrow. It was my first experience shooting a moose, and I figured if he was going to give me another shot I would take him up on the offer

[Jason Wesbrock]

#60462

Just a couple quick points:

Ed…The last study in your list was from 1989. That was well prior to the resurgence in mechanical broadheads (Punchcutters and Bloodtrailers came out in the early 90s) and the widespread use of carbon arrows. If I’m not mistaken, Beman Hunters first came out in the early 90s as well. That was also before the big hatchet cam speed craze hit, which was largely due to the boom in 3D archery. At the time of the later studies you posted, aluminum arrows and fixed blade heads were the norm.

 

Troy…Yes, I do tend to blow the bell curve with my draw length. And I’m always conscious of that when discussing things like draw weight (which I haven’t mentioned here). That’s why I usually just note my arrow weight and velocity, as I did earlier. That’s also why I like to mention my grandfather’s success with whitetails shooting 42# at his 26” draw length with mid-400-grain arrows.

[Raymond Coffman]

#60463

Jason —

Yes thank you for the detailed response, that is what I am interested in. trying to look at all the info I can.

I totally agree that everyone should make there own decisions,and the individuality of tradbow is part of the attraction.

My own current arrows are in the 640-730gr weight [ wood -carbon]225 tuffhds. 160fps. I like the extra weight without too much loss of velocity.

I wish I had your skill, those are very close shots -still working on that part – haha. I also would shoot again until they go down.

I wish I could write as much as fast as all you guys — I am always afraid of running out of time and then have to edit later – haha

Scout

[Raymond Coffman]

#60473

PS –

I am always interested in the equipment used to have a better understanding of its reliability to kill game cleanly. I did a lot of “Necropsy” in the past in relation to firearms, Too determine for myself how well certain weapons/ammo combos trully performed – not just what the Salesmen/merchandizers would have one believe. I am basically doing the same here, starting out with what the more experienced members have used to help steer me down the correct path and enhance my choice of arrows[bow] performance.

I am fully aware of the Prime role of Accuracy and Sharpness.

thanks to all

Scout

Hey Newbreedarcher – I hope you got the info you wanted -haha

[Ed Ashby]

#60477

I generally start my presentations by asking the audience to ask themselves two questions: (1) How many times have you heard of a bowhunter losing an animal because their arrow didn’t penetrate enough and, (2) How many times have you heard of a bowhunter losing an animal because their arrow penetrated too much? A show of hands indicates that most bowhunters recognize that inadequate arrow penetration does occur and that it is a less than uncommon problem. Therein lies the crux.

Unquestionably there are many bowhunters who have experienced inadequate arrow penetration. We are trying to present information for those who have had, and do have, problems achieving adequate arrow penetration, with the bow(s) they use and on the animals they hunt. If one does not have that problem then there’s nothing for them in the information presented here. If, however, penetration is a concern for you, on the animals you hunt, then we’re presenting a concept that allows you to achieve greater penetration, on all hits. The data supporting this is overwhelming and the reports of results supporting that data mounts daily. By addressing the factors that affect arrow penetration, the terminal performance of one’s hunting arrow, for those who do have that problem, can be improved. For those that don’t have that problem, then what they are using is fully adequate for them, with the bow(s) they use and on the animals they hunt.

Ed

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#60614

Just wanted to add that I appreciate being able to have respectful, open-minded discussions on this forum. Healthy discussion, and even civil debate, along with relating real-world experience, is how we all benefit from a community such as this.

Having been in the middle of a meltdown on another forum recently over differences of opinion on this very subject, I just ask that we keep it friendly, and remember that one of the things that makes this place great is that we can actually have these kinds of exchanges – that these subjects aren’t taboo, and that we don’t have heavy-handed moderators deleting valuable information they just happen to not agree with. Let’s keep this place a Renaissance rather than the Dark Ages.

[Raymond Coffman]

#60634

Smithhammer –

Exactly – it is the reason I am on this forum. Most of the others I am familiar with [not just archery]I had no interest in Joining for the reasons you just stated. I appreciate this forum { and the Folks here}very much and it has helped me further my Knowledge and assisted me greatly in my return to Traditional Archery

thanks all

Scout.

[newbreedarcher]

#63647

So, I have a dozen GT traditionals(7595) and a dozen carbon express heritage 250’s. I have the inserts that came in them, not sure of the weight of them. I tried some 125 gr field points on them to bare shaft tune. They all stuck in the target level, so it seems I have the nocking point correct, however they all stuck in with the nock pointing to the right. Does this mean they are too stiff? This would mean I have to add point weight, correct?

[Troy Breeding]

#63670

newbreedarcher wrote: So, I have a dozen GT traditionals(7595) and a dozen carbon express heritage 250’s. I have the inserts that came in them, not sure of the weight of them. I tried some 125 gr field points on them to bare shaft tune. They all stuck in the target level, so it seems I have the nocking point correct, however they all stuck in with the nock pointing to the right. Does this mean they are too stiff? This would mean I have to add point weight, correct?

You got it amigo. Tail right for a right handed shooter means too stiff. No cutting required, only extra point weight.

Troy

[Swamp Rat]

#63714

Nock right, add weight. The 250s should come in a little quicker than the 7595 if I remember correct the 250 is like .400 and the 7595 is .350.

I might add,I would be careful tuning two different shafts at the same time if you shoot instinctive, but that is me.

[newbreedarcher]

#63801

Yeah I am not going to tune them at the same time. I was just curious what one would work better for me so I got a doz of both. I am thinking of trying some of the ultra lights from GT as well. I heard it’s better to use a lighter, stiffer shaft because you can achieve high foc without going really heavy. I’m not too worried about it as long I don’t have a giant arch at 20 yards.

[Swamp Rat]

#63891

I shoot .340 Beman MFX out a 55# longbow. 574 gn. total arrow weight and 16.5% FOC. Shoots flat out to 20 with just over 10gn per #, and I know guys that don’t back off of till they reach 16gn. per #. Flat is relative to the shooter, but I figure this might give you something to go off of.

[Jason Wesbrock]

#63961

If the Gold Tips shoot stiff, the next thing I’d do is see how the weaker spine shafts shoot with the same weight head.

[Troy Breeding]

#63983

newbreedarcher wrote: Yeah I am not going to tune them at the same time. I was just curious what one would work better for me so I got a doz of both. I am thinking of trying some of the ultra lights from GT as well. I heard it’s better to use a lighter, stiffer shaft because you can achieve high foc without going really heavy. I’m not too worried about it as long I don’t have a giant arch at 20 yards.

newbreedarcher,

Your statement about not wanting a gaint arch at twenty yards is one we hear alot. Unless your planning to exceed 15grs GPP in bow weight I doubt you will see much more if any more arch than you would with a normal arrow.

Increasing the FOC up to the range of EFOC has shown to make the arrows flight level out more than an arrow of equal weight with low FOC.

This has to do with the faster recover from paradox when using high FOC.

As others have said before in many threads speed is highly overrated. So worrying about the arch of the arrow isn’t a big concern if you increase the FOC.

Troy

[newbreedarcher]

#64028

Well, this may sound like an ignorant question.. What is efoc? I’m still a newbie with this stuff so I don’t know all the lingo:D I have a program that I use called the stu miller spine calculator, to see what setup will give me what %foc. But I haven’t seen anything about efoc. The program figured that, in order to get 23% foc I would be shooting roughly a 650grn arrow. I am aiming for a straight arrow flight(or close as I can get) with bare shaft. Is something like that even possible? Or necessary? Just a thought, let me know what you think.

[Troy Breeding]

#64051

Foc: Front Of Center 0-19%

EFOC: Extreme Front Of Center 19.1%-30%

UEFOC: Ultra Extreme Front Of Center 30.1%-42.9%

I think I have my numbers right on this.

And if you really want to push the limits you can reach

BHFOC: Black Hole Front Of Center 43% and up

This is kind of a silent point around here since I’m the only member of this club.:D:D:D

650 grains is still a good arrow weight, it will be right at the bone breaking threshole.

For me I consider it still a light arrow. This past tournament and hunting season I shot 700grs.

For the up coming tournament and hunting season I’ll be shooting 800grs. So far I have to exceed 35yds to see enough arc in the arrows flight to even worry one bit.:D

I’m only shooting 55#@29″. I’ll be building a new bow in a few weeks and will be building a 60#@29″.

Rather have what I consider enough arrow to handle any impact problem I might run into rather than wonder if I do.

Troy

[Jason Wesbrock]

#7668

newbreedarcher,

First of all, for a relative newbie you pose some excellent questions. The fact that you’re so concerned about proper arrow flight is great. I can’t begin to count how many folks with whom I’ve walked 3D courses that’ve talked about penetration problems and shot arrows that flew like snakes on a caffeine high. I’d be willing to bet that nearly all penetration problems come down to arrow flight (tuning) and shot placement (accuracy). Solve those two problems and the only question left is how far in the dirt you want your arrows to stick after passing through your animal. But I digress.

Yes, straight arrow flight with bare shafts is absolutely possible. I see you’re using Stu Miller’s calculator. It’s a great tool, and one I wish we had many years ago. With that tool you build an arrow with the proper dynamic spine in the weight you desire, and come away with an excellent starting point for tuning. From there, do a Google search for “Easton Tuning Guide” and follow the steps for bare shaft tuning. It’s still the best tutorial I’ve seen to date. It’s simple, straight forward, and doesn’t take you around the block just to get next door.

[newbreedarcher]

#8021

This is the thing I love about this forum! While on the other site that I sometimes post on, I asked the same questions. All I got for a response was ” why worry about bare shaft tuning?” ” that’s what you have fletching for.”… Needless to say, I didn’t continue to post on this topic:shock:.

This may be off topic,however, I have to say that you are the most knowledgable group of people I have ever come across. Out of the dozens of archery forums and blogs and threads, this one stands out!

[Troy Breeding]

#8100

I believe if you could get most the folks that post here to speak up and give an answer, you would see the same responce.

So Many of us stopped posting and started looking for another place to gather for just that reason.

Proper tuning is much more than sticking a wad of feathers on the tail of the shaft.

Understanding the right arrow design is much more than how far you can shoot without having to change your sight picture.

Knowing which broadhead will do the best job is more than picking the same one your buddy uses.

And most of all understanding why it’s better to have and arrow that will penetrate when any part of the animal is hit rather than simply saying the chances of hitting that unlucky spot is 1 in “x” numbers of shots.

Troy

[newbreedarcher]

#8136

So, it appears I didn’t have my nocking point set just right. This morning I went out to continue my tuning mission. This time it was on my GT trads, I found that they were all tail high-right. I tried adjusting my nocking point down to 1/8″ above center and still they were tail high! What can I do to fix this? I want to adjust my nocking point before I mess with point weight.

[Troy Breeding]

#8170

When an arrow is too stiff it can do some really funky things. Normally, like you I try and get up and down cleared up first. Then I start on left or right.

You may need to address the stiffness issue first. Then straighten out the up and down.

Different bows will tune differently. Normally all my recurves work with the nocking point at 3/8″ above level.

However, I have a longbow that had to have the nocking point at 5/8″ above level to fix the up and down issue.

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#8267

Troy Breeding wrote: Different bows will tune differently.

And that’s the most important thing to keep in mind, and I’ll add to it that a bow/arrow-setup that is tuned perfectly for one shooter may not be perfectly tuned when another shooter uses it. Things like quality of release and hand pressure on the bow do make a difference in the tuning. Tuning without a bow quiver and then attaching a bow quiver can alter the tuning too. I even heard it said, but have never tested it, that even the number of arrows in a bow quiver can alter tuning. If you use a bow quiver, the safest approach is to tune with the bow set up exactly as you intend to hunt with it.

Ed

[Jason Wesbrock]

#8292

newbreedarcher wrote: So, it appears I didn’t have my nocking point set just right. This morning I went out to continue my tuning mission. This time it was on my GT trads, I found that they were all tail high-right. I tried adjusting my nocking point down to 1/8″ above center and still they were tail high! What can I do to fix this? I want to adjust my nocking point before I mess with point weight.

A couple tips about tuning. First, ignore how your arrows appear angled in the target. Can a nock high arrow appear nock high in a target butt? Yes, but the target material itself can cause the arrow to kick one way or the other. It can also cause a poorly flying arrow to straighten out as it penetrates the backstop. That’s why when people tune by nock kick they do it via paper tuning, not simply shooting into a back stop. The paper gives you an uninhibited look at how the arrow was angled during flight; looking at nock kick in a backstop does not. Trying to tune by looking at nock kick in a backstop is unreliable at best, which is why no reputable tuning guide recommends it.

When tuning from scratch, I try to start intentionally nigh high. I heard Ken Beck suggest this years ago and it makes excellent sense. By starting nock high you can then slowly work your nock point down until you get level flight (ignore left / right at this point). I highly suggest you use two nock locators—one above and a second below, leaving a gap of just under 1/8” between the bottom of your arrow nock and the lower nock point to avoid pinch.

Once you get level flight, you can then adjust your dynamic spine to eliminate left/right planning. For a right handed shooter, a stiff spine will leave nock right. A weak spine will leave nock left. When bare shaft tuning, this will make your bare shafts impact to the left of fletched arrows for a stiff spine, and to the right for a weak spine. When paper tuning, you will see where the tip of the arrow penetrated the paper and where the fletching tore through it. It will look like a dot (tip) and a set of tears (fletching).

Unless you are grossly overspined (like shooting a 2419 out of a 40# bow) a stiff arrow will come out nock right for a right handed shooter. If you’re extremely stiff, the nock end can bounce off the sight window and kick to the left, giving the appearance of being weak. But if you’re starting with Stu Miller’s software, you won’t be anywhere near that far off from the start.

Another tip about tuning: tune how you shoot. If you shoot canted, tune canted. If you shoot vertically, tune vertically. Just take your cant into account when reading your results. Canting your target (bare shaft tuning) or drawing crosshairs on your paper (paper tuning) to match your cant will help eliminate any confusion from your results.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#8310

newbreedarcher wrote:

This may be off topic,however, I have to say that you are the most knowledgable group of people I have ever come across. Out of the dozens of archery forums and blogs and threads, this one stands out!

Precisely why I don’t bother with any of the others any more. This is THE place.

[Ireland]

#8741

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: [quote=Troy Breeding]Different bows will tune differently.

And that’s the most important thing to keep in mind, and I’ll add to it that a bow/arrow-setup that is tuned perfectly for one shooter may not be perfectly tuned when another shooter uses it. Things like quality of release and hand pressure on the bow do make a difference in the tuning. Tuning without a bow quiver and then attaching a bow quiver can alter the tuning too. I even heard it said, but have never tested it, that even the number of arrows in a bow quiver can alter tuning. If you use a bow quiver, the safest approach is to tune with the bow set up exactly as you intend to hunt with it.

Ed

Chuck Adams of Hoyt/Easton found that to be the case (ie; number of arrows in the quiver altering the tune). Almost every picture of him on his Super Slam quest showed him with his famous hip quiver back in the late 1990’s. I would think a Hooter Shooter would show changing the number of arrows will affect the tune…

Ireland

[Troy Breeding]

#9228

J.Wesbrock wrote: [quote=newbreedarcher]So, it appears I didn’t have my nocking point set just right. This morning I went out to continue my tuning mission. This time it was on my GT trads, I found that they were all tail high-right. I tried adjusting my nocking point down to 1/8″ above center and still they were tail high! What can I do to fix this? I want to adjust my nocking point before I mess with point weight.

A couple tips about tuning. First, ignore how your arrows appear angled in the target. Can a nock high arrow appear nock high in a target butt? Yes, but the target material itself can cause the arrow to kick one way or the other. It can also cause a poorly flying arrow to straighten out as it penetrates the backstop. That’s why when people tune by nock kick they do it via paper tuning, not simply shooting into a back stop. The paper gives you an uninhibited look at how the arrow was angled during flight; looking at nock kick in a backstop does not. Trying to tune by looking at nock kick in a backstop is unreliable at best, which is why no reputable tuning guide recommends it.

When tuning from scratch, I try to start intentionally nigh high. I heard Ken Beck suggest this years ago and it makes excellent sense. By starting nock high you can then slowly work your nock point down until you get level flight (ignore left / right at this point). I highly suggest you use two nock locators—one above and a second below, leaving a gap of just under 1/8” between the bottom of your arrow nock and the lower nock point to avoid pinch.

Once you get level flight, you can then adjust your dynamic spine to eliminate left/right planning. For a right handed shooter, a stiff spine will leave nock right. A weak spine will leave nock left. When bare shaft tuning, this will make your bare shafts impact to the left of fletched arrows for a stiff spine, and to the right for a weak spine. When paper tuning, you will see where the tip of the arrow penetrated the paper and where the fletching tore through it. It will look like a dot (tip) and a set of tears (fletching).

Unless you are grossly overspined (like shooting a 2419 out of a 40# bow) a stiff arrow will come out nock right for a right handed shooter. If you’re extremely stiff, the nock end can bounce off the sight window and kick to the left, giving the appearance of being weak. But if you’re starting with Stu Miller’s software, you won’t be anywhere near that far off from the start.

Another tip about tuning: tune how you shoot. If you shoot canted, tune canted. If you shoot vertically, tune vertically. Just take your cant into account when reading your results. Canting your target (bare shaft tuning) or drawing crosshairs on your paper (paper tuning) to match your cant will help eliminate any confusion from your results.

Just about all the above looks to be very sound advise.

My only difference would be on the last papagraph.

If you tune with a vertical bow you want have to try and match your cant to and “x” on the target or paper. If you get the same cant as the “X” and totally understand what your looking at then all is fine.

However, most reading this are just starting to properly tune and want know if they have the “X” and cant the same. Holding the bow vertical and using a “+” is easier to read and mistake are fewer between.

Troy

[Jason Wesbrock]

#9395

Troy,

Walking up to a target, drawing your bow against it, and scribing a line isn’t difficult. For a new shooter, it’s a lot more likely that he/she will have form inconsistencies going from canting to vertical than being confused by drawing a line on the wall. And tuning a bow by using form you otherwise wouldn’t isn’t a very wise idea.

Tune it how you shoot it. Problem solved.

[Troy Breeding]

#9417

Jason,

Yes, if a shooter holds the same cant everytime then doing it that way will work as long as the shooter reads the flight correctly.

However, I’ve watched many a shooter cant at different degrees from shot to shot and that was watching seasoned shooters.

With someone that is just getting started or really hasn’t been at it very long the chances of holding the same cant with every shot is highly unlikely.

Troy

[Jason Wesbrock]

#9428

Troy,

If someone is so inconsistent in their shooting form that they cannot maintain a relatively similar can’t from shot to shot, what do you think will happen to his shooting form when he’s taken even further out of his comfort zone by shooting vertically? His draw length, release, and follow through all change. Never mind what happens to his accuracy, and all those things affect tuning.

That’s why it’s best to just tune it how you shoot it.

[Troy Breeding]

#9500

Jason,

Most likely nothing more than the inconsistancy they already have in their shooting form.

Still, making the readability of the tune easier will allow them to tune with less headaches or possible mess ups.

Consistant form is something that takes time, sometimes years. If decreasing the problems even a minor bit helps, then as they improve their form they will be able to see the their problems and can adjust their tune to the increased consistancy.

Troy

[Jason Wesbrock]

#9524

Troy,

This is one of those things that after you’ve worked with enough people becomes apparent; the further you take someone from their comfort zone with respect to form, the worse they shoot. To be honest, in better than two decades of helping people tune their bows I can only recall one person who was truly stumped on how to read results with a canted bow. Once I told him to can’t his target to match his bow if that will help, his response was, “Why didn’t I think of that?”. From there, tuning was a snap. It’s really rather simple.

[Troy Breeding]

#9590

Jason,

In respect to your years of shooting I went back and checked and reread the “Easton Tuning Guide”. It’s the same thing they have had up for years.

As I did the first time I read it still see it as something that has a lot left to figure out on your own.

All its wording pretains to using an elevated rest with a cusion plunger. It also gives every indication to shooting the bow vertical since this was their guide when FETA style shooting was so large.

It also given nothing in the line of tuning and shooting with FOC above 15%.

I too have been shooting and helping new shooters for over thirty years. Twenty five of those in the archery business where this was almost a daily thing to do.

At this point I see no need to continue this conservation. Lets just agree to disagree on tuning methods and let the ones reading this, that are trying to figure it out on their on by what they read, deside which method works best for them.

Troy

[Jason Wesbrock]

#9622

Troy,

I’m assuming you know that the only difference between tuning with an elevated rest / plunger and off the shelf with a strike plate is that you fine tune dynamic spine via plunger tension? I’m also assuming you noticed that the Easton Tuning Guide also mentions tuning dynamic spine by altering shaft length, point weight, and brace height? With respect to FOC and tuning, the process doesn’t change. Physics is physics — a heavier point will still weaken an arrow and a lighter point will still stiffen it. There’s really no need to make it complicated. This is really basic stuff.

[Troy Breeding]

#9649

🙄

[newbreedarcher]

#9708

I got my field point test kit from 3rivers. It has 2-100grn 2-125grn 2-145grn 2-175grn 2-200grn 2-250grn. Bare shaft shot beautiful with 250’s! I have some 300’s coming too and some weighted adaptors. I’m gonna try the 300’s and see how they fly. I have to get my chronograph out and see the speed difference. I’m sooooooo relieved that the added weight helped the flight. No more tail-high!

[Author]

Posts