shaft sleeve fit problem with Tuffheads

[David Petersen]

#6574

This will interest only the relatively few of us (I wish it were a majority) who are trying to shoot glue-on Tuffheads on wood shafts and add an external sleeve, or “cast” to the shaft just below the head to prevent shaft breakage, which seems to increase as head weight increases although I know nothing of the physics that would support or deny that anecdotal observation.

Problem is, no matter what kind of footing or sleeve you use–from aluminum arrow shafting, as in the photos below (that’s a 2″ length of 2413 on an 11/32 shaft) to wrapped-on sinew–the broadheads fit down over the shaft farther than the brass “artillery shell” target points. So if you place the sleeve snug up against a broadhead, then replace the broadhead with a target point, 1/8″ of bare wood is exposed, which would seem to increase the chance of breakage there. Vice versa, if you use a field point as the guide for placing the sleeve, a broadhead won’t fit all the way down on the shaft. So as it stands you/I must designate hunting and target arrows and sleeve them separately, which is an inconvenience for those trying to get by on just a dozen arrows a year. (On the other hand an argument can be made to separate target and hunting arrows from the start, so that no invisible nicks from target shooting will weaken your hunting shafts, which is my guess why a spruce shaft broke an inch or so behind a Tuffhead 300 last year after just nicking the soft back edge of an elk scapular. Miraculously the shaftless head kept going into the heart for a clean kill.) I had another, standard steel field point in 225 and tried it, and it left an even bigger space than the Tuffhead points did. Only thing that will fix this, I’m thinking, is if Joe at Tuffhead has his field points redesigned to fit as far back on the shaft as the broadheads do. Yet for all I know I and a handful of others may be the only ones experimenting with using a sleeve on wood shafts. This is not a complaint but a heads-up and open question to anyone with a solution.

[archer38]

#52785

What if, (and by no means am I any kind of expert nor have I ever even used wood arrows)… but, what if you glued an adapter into the aluminum shafting and then slid it onto the wood.

[Vintage Archer]

#52885

David Petersen wrote:

……………. I’m thinking, is if Joe at Tuffhead has his field points redesigned to fit as far back on the shaft as the broadheads do. Yet for all I know I and a handful of others may be the only ones experimenting with using a sleeve on wood shafts. This is not a complaint but a heads-up and open question to anyone with a solution.

Dave there you go again creating more work for me:lol:

Enlarging the field point ferrule diameter which is 11/32 diameter to 23/64 diameter the same as the broadhead causes problems pulling the field tip out of targets. Increasing the diameter of the ferrule is the only way to get the arrow to seat in the same spot as when mounted in a TuffHead.

I might suggest that if using hot met on your footing to heat it and move it down over the bare spot on the wood shaft . I probably missing something here Is there a reason that can’t

be done?

In the picture of the wood arrow and the 300 TH there appears to be wood showing between the footing and the brodhead. I would think that footing would fit down in the broad head or flush with the metal on the broadhead back depending on the OD of the footing

I would recommend that wood arrows used with field points and practice not be interchanged for hunting arrows with brodheads. It would be alright to use the hunting arrows after the season with field tips for practice.

I do recommend one shoot every broadhead and arrow in their quiver before hunting to insure a reliable set up. Like Dr. Ashby says at very least test the first arrow you would be shooting at game to insure of a structurally sound arrow and broad head .

Sounds to me you are getting ready to chase elk . You are just a few weeks from the real fun……..:D

[David Petersen]

#53386

Joe, put on your magnifying glasses. 😆 The sleeve is touching the back of the broadhead, snug together. There is a bit of brown camo on the sleeve that could appear as wood.

Yep, I reckon the solution is to sleeve the hunting and target arrows separately so that all have a good fit. These are just 2″ sleeves and Ed recommends at least 4″ to best prevent breakage. I tried that and just didn’t like the way it looked or felt when the back of the sleeves “bumps” over the shelf pad when drawing. For some reason these shorter ones don’t bother me at all. And the shaft that broke last year was only about an inch behind the head. Meanwhile, while I’m convinced that a good tight sinew wrap with Titebond3 makes a great protective splint, it tends to go on too thick and unevenly (because you have to splice together so many short pieces of sinew) with sharp little ththread ends sticking out. I will use that for the arrows for the selfbow and the aluminum shafting for the Elkheart arrows. Of course I could simply pull out my carbons and be done with it, but then I’d miss all the fun of pre-season messing around with gear.

[handirifle]

#61987

This might be counter intuitive, but here goes. I know the object of the sleeve is to strengthen the shaft, but if there is a way to turn the last 4″ of the shaft down so a sleeve (not the current ones, they would be too large in dia.) would fit FLUSH with the wood shaft. That way, you can use a 4″ sleeve, and have no bump, and also push the sleeve right up to the beginning of the point taper.

Other than a wood lathe, am not sure how you would turn them though.

Now instead of cutting the shaft to shrink it, could one make a clamp out of steel blocks to COMPRESS the forward end of the shaft? This would not weaken the shaft as much.

Are you dead set on glue on heads? Could you shorten the wood shaft about an inch, and make the sleeve an inch longer, with a threaded insert in the front of it. Then a screw in adapter could be added to the head for even more FOC.

[David Petersen]

#62783

Handi– Good idea, at least the compressed shaft part. But here is how it works for me: the 2413 aluminum sleeve fits over an 11/32 wood shaft so snugly that no glue is necessary–I just warm the sleeve a little and tap it on with a block of wood, then use either a field point or broadhead to tap it down enough for a tight fight against the back of the head. I have no idea how it would work out with other heads, but with the Tuffheads I use the broadheads are a bit bigger than the shaft where they attach–that is, the back of the ferrule has a tiny space between it and the wood (which would likely be a perfect fit with 23/64 shafts. The alum sleeve fits perfectly into that space so that in penetrating tissue or bone there is no “step up” in diameter, which is to be avoided. Similarly, the step-down from the back of the alum sleeve to wood is minimal and step-downs are fine for penetration. So there’s really no need to inset the sleeve into the wood. With the big brass Tuffhead “artillery shell” field points, the back of the head and the sleeve are pretty much identical in O.D., so it’s like an extension of the head itself. Your concept might well be beneficial for other heads and/or 23/64, but unnecessary for my setup. Thanks for the good idea.

[handirifle]

#63079

Concerning the “step up” I was talking about the bumping you mentioned when using the recommended 4″ long footing instead of the 2″. I knew there was no step at the head, you’d covered that pretty well in your post.

Another soultion might be to have a tapered sleeve that the head glues right onto instead of the wood. Then when you unglue the broadhead, you glue on the field point. That would be even stronger than your current setup.

[bobtieken]

#10360

Why not just use a footed wood shaft and not worry about the sleeve?

[David Petersen]

#10390

Bob — Footed wood shafts are heavy, too heavy to add a 300-grain head to and not go way overweight for the 50-something pound longbows I now shoot. I still have a set of those, from an early experiment many years ago. If you want to shoot wood and want good total weight and don’t care about FOC, they’re a good way to go. But I want to hold total weight as close as possible to 700 grains, with 300 of it up front. It’s a good set-up with good balance between total weight and FOC, and as good as I’ve been able to work up with wood. But the tendency of wood to break behind the head is magnified with a monster head, so that’s the issue. And too, it’s play. Thanks for your good suggestion.

[handirifle]

#28774

David,

I was reading this over again and being a person that also likes to tinker (some, or most, of the time mine turn out to be a big waste of time and cranial calories) and wondered what if you either sand or turn on a lathe or similar, the back 1/2″ or so of the 4″ sleeve to a fine thin edge. This would ease the bump on the draw.

Another thought would be to lace up the shaft behind the sleeve to build it up to sleeve dia. I’d suggest using a fine nylon sewing thread, since this would make the transition easier. Then seal it with fletching glue or similar.

What would add a HUGE amount of strength, in my mind anyway, is finding a way to put a taper on the front of the sleeve to glue the head directly to the sleeve, then slide the sleeve over the shaft.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, hopefully you figure out something.

[David Petersen]

#29283

Thanks for the suggestions and yep I figured it out to my satisfaction, as per photos in the 2013 hunting gear thread. Simply by gently filing a bevel on the back edge of each 2″ aluminum sleeve I feel no bump when drawing an arrow over the rawhide-padded shelf and am quite pleased with the way they shoot. Finger crossed that 2″ will be enough to prevent breakage like I suffered last year an inch behind the head, and am fearful may be a character of Sitka spruce when shooting heavy heads. The arrows are built and at this point I’m committed to using them this year, though if I suffer another breakage I fear that’s the end of my spruce experiments, which will be a damn shame since the shafts are so light and can produce such a strong spine that they allow EFOC and an ideal overall weight, comparable to carbon. Thanks again.

[handirifle]

#29753

Great! Glad to hear it. At least I was on the right track with the tapered idea.

Good luck on the hunt.

[Author]

Posts