[handirifle]

in reply to: Tuning struggles #13190

The most affordable fild point only, target I ever made was a big cardboard box packed tightly with plastic grocery bags, and taped shut.

That target will stop any field point arrow from any bow. I make mine from the large moving boxes from Home Depot or similar. Takes a lot of bags, but the bags far outlast the boxes. When shot up switch the bags to a new box, tape it shut and shoot away.

Some versions use burlap bags instead of boxes.

[handirifle]

in reply to: Which wing? #10007

OK, I checked again and mine are all RW, do will order heads accordingly.

Thanks

[handirifle]

in reply to: Heavy FOC arrow question #9313

Along the same lines as the OP’s question, which would penetrate better from the same weight bow? A lighter GPI arrow with say a 27% FOC weighing around 650gr or a heavier GPI arrow with say 24% FOC and weighing 725gr?

Interesting topic.

[handirifle]

in reply to: Which wing? #9301

Ok thanks, as usual it makes sense.

[handirifle]

in reply to: steel inserts #8724

OK went back to bareshafting this thing, and found a combo that works with the heavy insert and point, by cutting the arrow down to 27 1/8″. to get very near perfect bare flight. Still a little nock high, but acceptable.

[handirifle]

in reply to: Bare shaft tuning #8709

Ok worked it a bit more tonight, going in a slightly different direction. Thinking back to when the arrow kept showing too weak of spine, and I kept taking weight off the tip, I went with the 180gr steel insert, and the 180gr field point.

This time, I cut an inch off the arrow (2018) and BINGO. Lined up perfectly, although still a little nock high. I suspected, so I checked, and 27″ was too short with a broadhead, so I went with 27 1/8, measured from bottom of nock to end of arrow shaft. That little bit keeps me from bottoming out on the riser. Oh yes, I did add a second nock set, as suggested. Didn’t change anything that I could tell.

Question, If It does turn out that I AM pulling the lower limb in, would changing to a higher (more straight wrist) wrist help this? Or would I be better served by just concentrating on NOT doing that?

I am starting to suspect that form MIGHT be my culprit on the nock high. I say might cause it’s a theory right now.

I am wondering if I might be pulling the lower limb towards me upon release, thus kicking the back of the shelf up and causing the nock to rise. Just a thought.

I am in the midst of getting the trailer ready for a trip Thursday, but when we get back, I might use the digital camera and video myself and see if that is the case.

Just for kicks, I put the heavy insert and heavy field point into a fletched arrow to see how it went. Now bear in mind, this is a bow I got off Ebay about 3 years ago and have never been consistent with it no matter what I tried. There isn’t anything PHYSICALLY wrong with the bow, I knew that, but I have never really tuned arrows to it either.

About 6 months back, I found that 2113’a flew very well, and once I chopped about 1.5″ off some cedar arrows, so did they. Hey, there might be something to this “matching the arrow to the bow” thing. 😉

Here also, I must confess that I read Dr. Ashby’s articles, at least some of them, and kinda felt like Ho Hum….not because they were boring or incorrect, they were neither, but because I lacked the energy or excitement, or the funds to take on another expensive chore of buying arrow and expensive heads for another inch or two of penetration. That was my impression.

Back to the fletched arrow, For the first time EVER since shooting this bow, I am able to hit where I am looking CONSISTENTLY. By that I mean that my field point target is a 24″ x 24″ x 24″ cardboard box, stuffed to near splitting point with plastic grocery bags. This has lasted me years. I have to swap boxes every now and then, but just reuse the bags. I have 5 bullseyes spray painted on each of 4 sides. EVERY time I moved to a different bullseye, I hit it. This is 10yds mind you, so nothing to write home about, BUT, the consistency is HUGE.

In addition, I get to use the heavy field point AND insert, for a real high EFOC (I know this isn’t in the FOC section), just mentioning that I did notice that the heavy FOC setup penetrates twice as deep as my std setup. That’s 6″ compared to 12″. I noticed the same when trying broadheads into my foam target, so I am please to finally match my heavy weights to the right arrow spine.

We get back home Monday, so sometime after that I will do the video and see if I can find why the nock is going high.

[handirifle]

in reply to: Bare shaft tuning #8403

J.Wesbrock wrote: Steve beat me to it. Add a second nock set below the arrow and I’ll bet you can tune away that nock high problem in no time.

I suspected I might be getting tired as well as frustrated, so I did stop.

What does the second nock do?

[handirifle]

in reply to: Bare shaft tuning #63775

Ok an update. It seems I can get as close to perfect bare flight as possible with the 181gr insert and 125gr field point, EXCEPT it still hits nock high.

Could that be the result of being so nose heavy. I cannot get the nock to go perfectly straight flight, no matter what I do. For reference I have gotten perfect flight bare shaft tuning other recurves before, that is why I am so puzzled.

The last setup was a 45lb recurve and 2114,s, but that was with field points only.

Also I moved the target back to 20yds and no difference from bbefore.

[handirifle]

in reply to: steel inserts #63399

Thanks. It’s just a Harbor Freight 7×12.

[handirifle]

in reply to: Building recurves/longbows, where to start? #63024

Plus 1 on what Troy said, in addition, I would recommend one other step.

I made 7-8bows from Bingham kits and they are ALMOST idiot proof, almost, I am proof of that.

If you are an accomplished woodworker, it may not be an issue, but some areas I had issues with were;

making sure the limb faces on the riser are PERFECTLY aligned when cut. Not doing so provides some interesting tillering later. Don’t ask how I know this!

Make sure your limb forms are cut exactly the same. Bingham mentions this but the little paper template doesn’t make it easy. One suggestion I read that will insure this is to make a 1/4″ hardboard cutout of the limb shape. Place it on the plywood form (for a takedown) and rough cut it with a band saw. They say to finish with a drum sander, the suggestion I read suggested using a router with a straight bit and making the hardboard for the guide for the router.

Another version of this makes the hardboard template to include 1/2 of the riser (one piece bow) and drawing a line parallel with the long sides of the form and drilling two holes through the hardboard, and into the plywood form and inserting a wood dowel in each hole. The purpose of the holes and dowels is when you route out one side/limb, you then flip the template over and route the other side.

This will insure they are identical. I hope I explained it well enough.

Good luck, they are fun when you do them right.

[handirifle]

in reply to: mistakes #63009

Can you post what reg you are quoting? I have never heard of a water source reg, and cannot find it in any of the regs. There are baiting regs but in the definition of baiting it does not mention water at all.

Is it specific to the area you hunt?

[handirifle]

in reply to: steel inserts #62959

OK got back outside to my workshop for some more playing around, at least that what my wife calls it.:D I call it creative masterminding :shock::roll:

I actually made a field point (have pics to prove it) but it got dark before I could shoot it so that will have to wait till tomorrow.

So here we go. I started with the 5/16″ steel rod I got. I cut a 2 1/2″ piece from it, as a WAG, and weighed it, cam out at 366gr. Just a tad overweight, since I am shooting for a 200gr tip. But overweight is easier to fix than underweight!

Here is the first steps of the job. I matched length of the 125gr field point shank, including the threaded portion, at .425″. It is cut in two steps, the non-threaded section is .200″ in dia, just like the other points I measured. The threaded portion is cut to .160″ dia, again matching the factory points, in prep for the 8-32 threads.

Next I used the lathe to hold my thread die, cause if I try it freehand I will mess it up for sure. I threaded it to 8-32, just like factory stuff. This went better than expected. I am NOT a machinist, I am self taught and know about 1/100 of 1% of what a real machinist would know.

So, at this juncture, it still has a flat nose (no pic of that) and I weighed it, still comes out at 307gr, so I took another WAG and cut about 3/8″ off, and proceeded to taper the nose, to at least resemble a field point.

This finished out at 223gr, so I decided to leave it there for now.

And lastly I show the insert and the super long 223gr field point screwed together.

So, some more numbers, the finished arrow with the new point installed weighs 766gr with a new balance point at 7 1/16″ (7.0625″) from back of head, it was 8 3/16″ before. So that makes it approximately 27% FOC or EFOC I suppose.

It seems a very heavy shaft for a 54# bow. I can see Dr. Ashby’s point (and others as well) in using a lighter weight bare shaft, ie carbons, to accomplish the same percentage with a somewhat lighter complete arrow, but if I plant this in the side of an elk, I have no doubts it would plow it’s way in deep. Rather a broadheaded arrow of same weight.

I would guess an arrow weighing between 650-700gr would be sufficient.

So tomorrow, I will bare-shaft test this rig and see what happens. If this is not enough to bring the tail end back where it belongs, I will go ahead and order some longer shafts to start with. The head portion of the filed point is about 2 1/4″, I say about cause I never measured it after I cut it. Not gonna bother till I see how it shoots. In retrospect, it is most likely about the same length as a similar weight broadhead, it just looks odd compared to what I am used to.

[handirifle]

in reply to: steel inserts #62710

cyberscout wrote: Easton still makes Gamegetters in 1816 -1916 & 2013 according to their catalog.

scout.

The 1916, I believe would be way to weak for a 54# bow, the 2013’s MIGHT work.

I think the 2020’s would be stiffer yet, than the 2018’s I am working with.

I am considering ordering 6 of the 2018’s at full length to test on. I would also order some 175-200gr field points at the same time. An extra 50-75gr out front I feel would soften the spine a bit more than if I made my insert longer, at least based on Dr. Ashby’s writings.

After reading his stuff, I could easily add an extra inch, in fact, I could thread the back end of the one I made and add another 100gr to the back, but I do believe the extra weight out front might achieve the desire effect, easier.

Now that I think about it, I could make my own 200gr field point, at least for this test, hmmmm. The steel would be to soft compared to commercial made ones, but hardness isn’t a concern for this test.

Maybe I will try to make the point, AND an add on 100gr to the back of the insert to test each one separately for tuning effect.

More on that later…………

Who would have thought so much could be gleaned from a 10 cent nail?:D

This is what my mind does to me. I bet for every idea that I act on, like I am doing, at least 10 more come into my head, but I never do anything with, other than keeping my ear canals cleaned out with them.:lol:

[handirifle]

in reply to: steel inserts #62675

Well, just went by the hardware store, looking for something larger than the 6″ nails, but the next thing I saw was 8″ that were 3/8″ dia. Much too big for my purposes.

By the way, the 6″ were only $0.10 each. Not a bad material cost. I did pick up a 5/16″ steel rod to try the same experiment with 2117s, but doing the math in my head, that is only 20/64 dia while the shafts will be 21/64 dia. That is IF the steel rod is accurate.

I might just send off an order for some 2018s and some heavier heads, to see how this all works out. I read Dr. Ashby’s article about the head “pulling” the arrow through and it makes perfect sense to me. Not sure if a 200gr head would soften a 28″ 2018 enough to tune properly, but it might with a longer one.

In case you’re wondering why that shaft, it goes back to the smaller diameter making for less resistance. A 1922 or similar (if one was ever made) would be better yet, but do not think anything that small dia would have been made.

[handirifle]

in reply to: steel inserts #62600

Robin.

sorry about that, I wondered wh:Den that would happen 😀

Scout

yes, I knew it would affect spine, just wasn’t sure if it was a greater affect being more out front or not, prob is.

Dr. Ashby

Am honored

[Author]

Posts