[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: steel inserts #62404

I’m following this with interest too. Early on I tried working with aluminum shafts, trying to get EFOC/UEFOC, but they proved to be far more difficult than carbon shafts to tune to (what I consider) ‘perfect flight’. It can be done, but they just seem far more difficult to work with than carbon shafts. That notwithstanding, the ability to make your own steel insert and custom tailor the weight gives infinite tuning possibilities. Doing so at an economical cost is fantastic.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Glove grooves #58047

David Petersen wrote: All shooting gloves will groove eventually and I consider that nicely broken in. There is a tendency to favor gloves whose finger tips are reinforced by stiff nylon or other reinforcement material, but the goals there are a smoother release and longer life.

I’ll second that. My favored glove is the Howard Hill, with the reinforced finger stalls. I have some that are many years old that are still in use. All are heavily grooved. Actually, I won’t hunt with a ‘new glove’ until it is well broken in and grooved. I’ve never made a single bad shot … that I can blame on grooves in the glove! 😀

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Steel Force Traditional Heads? #56026

http://grizzlybroadheads.com/dealers.html takes you to a list of the dealers for Grizzly Broadheads or, my #! recommendation, just call the folks at Zipper and ask them: 937-444-0904.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: KME Broadhead sharpener, Single Bevel? #52454

For the single bevel broadheads you need to use the KME KNIFE SHARPENER, not the KME “broadhead sharpener”. The KME “broadhead sharpener” is designed for double-bevel broadheads and DOES NOT work well with the single-bevel heads.

For anyone ‘sharpening challanged’, the KME knife sharpener is the best thing I’ve seen for single bevel broadheads. There’s just no way to go wrong and Ron offers the best customer support in the business. if you have trouble using his sharpener just call him and he’ll take whatever time it takes to talk you through the process.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Steel Force Traditional Heads? #52312

handirifle wrote: IMHO all of the single bevel heads are over priced … If I can’t afford the arrows it won’t matter much how much they penetrate. 😆

When it come to cost it hard to beat the value of the big, 200 grain Grizzly broadhead. It’s a glue on, so adding an adaptor gives you even more point weight. They are about $36.00 for six; much the same price as the WW or most of the other popular single blade broadheads; and, if you don’t lose it, it will outlast all the others. I still have some original Elburg Grizzly heads that are over thiry years old and still in good condition, and several of those have taken 10 or 12 big animals.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: So I got a ghillie #52301

jpcarlson wrote: [Is it better to start with a base color that is lighter, and darken with material/foilage? or vice versa?Jans

Except for some specialized uses, such as in the snow or some deaert ares requiring predominately orange-red colors, I always start my Gillie suits with a medium dark gray as my base color and build up from there. Typically the very last colors you add are black and white. Black and white a ‘strong colors’ and can be used (sparaingly) to do final relative brightness adjustments.

When I started taking the black and white photos to look at relative brightness I discovered that my tendency, when going by just how the color match appeard to my eye, was always to make the suit way too dark. There’s a lot more ‘white’ (brightness) in the environment than most of us realize.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: So I got a ghillie #51139

Try making a small bag, just large enough to stretch over your binoculars, out of mesh material and then tying threads of various color yarns to the mesh; much like a Gillie suit for your binoculars. This makes great camo for binoculars, with no risk of damaging them. On some models of binoculars you may have to cut a small opening to reach the focus adjustment knob(s).

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Which carbons? #51123

handirifle wrote: Also, how does the EFOC affect the arrow trajectory? Does it change from a same weight arrow setup that is NOT EFOC?

I’ve done a fair amount of testing on this. Many folk seem to believe that, because there’s more weight towards the arrow’s front the EFOC arrow will drop faster (or ‘nose dive’) than a like-weight arrow having normal to high FOC. This is absolutely NOT TRUE. In fact, the opposite is the case.

An EFOC arrow will shoot flatter (less drop) than a matching-profile, normal/high FOC arrow of identical weight. This is because the EFOC arrow recovers from paradox much faster, which conserves some of the arrow’s energy which, in turn, is applied to the arrow’s downrange flight, resulting in a flatter trajectory.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: playing with some arrows……. #48321

Sounds like you are good to go!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Arrow specs and charts… NEED HELP #48057

If one goes slowly and carefully when shortening their shafts during bare shaft tuning just one single shaft in each ‘likely to work’ spine range should be sufficient to find the correct dynamic spine. I think the ideal situation would be to have a source to buy the shafts desired for testing as singles. If one thinks they need 2 or 3 of the same spine to find the correct choice then they can order 2 or 3 singles of each desired test shafts.

I find that the spine ranges (or deflection) stated by different manufacturers don’t always end up tuning the same. For example, not every 300, 400 or 500 deflection spine tunes the same. Being able to purchase single shafts would offer the option of economically testing differing brands of shafts having the same ‘stated’ deflection or spine range.

It’s just like developing a handload for my rifles. When I’m doing that I carry my components and portable hand press to the range and load just the number of test rounds I need for testing, one cartridge at a time. That makes it easy to start with just a few test loads and then work around the most promising ones by making small changes. It simply conserves materials and reduces overall cost of finding that ‘right’ load.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: playing with some arrows……. #47837

Did you bare shaft tune those? If not the fletching could be masking some less than perfect arrow flight. Getting perfect flight is a prerequisite for getting maximum benefit from your EFOC arrow setup.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Calculating FOC: question for Dr. Ashby #47832

Fletcher, with arrows at the lower (AMO measured) FOC’s I think you might be able to notice a flight difference changing from a field point to a long broadhead and measure a significant difference in the balance point along the shaft. That’s because, at the lower ‘AMO measured’ FOC’s you’re getting a ‘meaningfully’ longer forward leaver arm by moving some of the weight a bit farther forward. Because this will change the relationship between the Gravitational Center (GC) and the Center of Pressure (CP) of the arrow in flight it is going to cause a change in the TRUE FOC. It has nothing to do with the overall length of the arrow, merely the change in the relationship between the GC and the CP.

At the higher amounts of (AMO measured) FOC’s changing from a field point to even a very long broadhead makes less than a 1mm change in the location of the balance point (extremely hard to measure accurately). That’s because the forward lever arm is already extremely short and it takes a lot of weight change to make a significant difference. Using a hooter shooter, at those higher FOC’s there is no flight difference between field points and broadhead. (I know that you already understand all this, but the explanation is for those that don’t know.)

In a nutshell, the higher the arrow’s (AMO) measured FOC the less difference there will be between the GC and CP as one changes between a field point and a BH.

All that notwithstanding, since it does not reflect the true FOC I still see our relative FOC as merely a reference point for duplicating arrow setups. As you noted, without some pretty sophisticated measuring equipment we’ll never be able to accurately state the true FOC. As long as one states the measuring methiod used to determin the realtive FOC it really makes no difference which method we use. Since the true FOC depends on the relationship between and GC and the CP, and the fletching we use CAN have a large effect on the location of the CP it’s likely that we SHOULD be stating the fletching used in every setup too.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Grizzlies tuffheads and tuskers #45524

Gigglemonk wrote: my shafts are around 23/64

That makes your choice simple; the TuffHead. It has a larger ferrule diameter than the others, which will be what you’ll need to maintain a good ferrule diameter to shaft diameter ratio with those shafts.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: So I got a ghillie #45518

A number of years ago I wrote a rather detailed article on building Gillie suits (yes, both spellings are corrrect) in the “Old Derelict’ series for Archery Action (Australia). One really important thing I learned over several years of building Gillie suits is that it helps greatly to match the Gillie suit closely to the individual area(s) you are hunting. To help do that during the building process I found that taking both color and black and white photos of the suit against the background area where it will be used provided me with extremely valuable information.

Nowadays this is easy, as many digital cameras will take both color and B&W photos. The color photo helps you match the color and hue of the background and the B&W photo helps you match the relative brightness of the background. Correctly matching the background made a big difference in the effectiveness of the Gillie suits. For deer matching the relative brightness is more important than matching the color and hue. For birds and predators it’s important to match both both color/hue and relative brightness.

Creating the illusion of depth, through use of shaddows cast by the surface material(s) used in the Gillie suit, is also extremely importsnt. It’s often startling to see how visible regular camo pattern cloth (and some gillie suits that lack ‘depth’) look when photographed in B&W; compared to a well designed Gillie suit.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Arrow specs and charts… NEED HELP #45494

That’s potentially a very good ‘nitch’ business. Someone should start buying up arrows, of all the commonly used types for EFOC/UEFOC, and breaking them up and selling them as single shafts, just for tuning purposes … then make that known on the verious chat sites.

Ed

[Author]

Posts