[sharpster]

in reply to: Update on Larry Fischer vs The Bastard #16599

Oh no. We all knew the prognosis wasn’t good but I prayed more for this great man than I’ve ever prayed any other person in my life. Like everyone else I had been hoping against hope for a miracle.

I would like to offer my sincerest and most heart felt condolences to Belinda, Blake, and the rest of your family, as well as to anyone else whose life was so enriched by having the good fortune to have known this fine man. Our friend was a truly exceptional person. I honestly believe that to say Larry was 1 in a million is no exaggeration. You will be sorely missed my friend, but I know that in time, remembrances of you and our friendship will bring a warm smile to my heart. God speed sir. Till we meet again,

Ron

1st Corinthians 15:54-55 “But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. “O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING”?

[sharpster]

in reply to: Concave broadhead sharpening #16158

jpcarlson wrote: They are probably slightly concave due to factory sharpening, and not a good idea for a broad had edge. Just take a file to them and straighten the bevel out, then sharpen as usual until scary.

J

Ben,

JP is right on the money. Zwicky Deltas are straight edged BHDS but the factory grind is very rough and they need to be filed (straightened) before sharpening them. Most of the job is filing the tip section but you may need to take a little off the heel too. They should be just as straight as a Magnus I or II when you’re done.

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: 7 GPP #51920

Seabass wrote: [quote=Smithhammer]Seabass –

I hate to tell you this, but I don’t see a way around those arrows being too light for a #50 bow. Adding point weight will only weaken the spine even more. I think you need new arrows, compadre.

NNNOOOOOOooooooooo…..I’m CHEAP!! 😀

I’m not absolutely sure I agree with Bruce on this one …I’m not saying he’s wrong either mind you …but if you’re not gonna be shootin’ them, I’d looove to do some experimenting with a few!

Ron

800 561-4339

[sharpster]

in reply to: sharpening tuffheads with kme sharpener #51437

Like Ed mentioned, the angle scales on all clamp-on sharpening systems are relative, not absolute. How far the blade and cutting edge extends out in front of the clamp also influences the actual sharpening angle. This is why we recommend using a permanent marker (sharpie) to color the factory bevel.

Color the bevel completely with a sharpie. Then using a dry stone, take just a few swipes along the blade to see where the ink is being removed…

If the ink is being removed only from the shoulder of the bevel but not from the cutting edge, that’s telling us that the angle is set too low.

If the ink is coming off the cutting edge but not the face or shoulder of the bevel, that means the angle is set too high.

Adjust the angle up or down till the stone is taking the ink from the very cutting edge and at least half way up the bevel face. This way we know the stone is actually sharpening the cutting edge.

Because Tuffheads are hollow-ground, the initial inking may show that the stone is contacting both the shoulder and cutting edge but not the center of the bevel. This is fine, just make sure the stone is taking a bit more from the cutting edge than the shoulder. better to error on the bit too high side than the too low side.

Here’s a link to a page on Joe’s website saying the same thing but with a drawing showing how the blade width or how far it extends out in front of the clamp influences the actual sharpening angle:

http://www.bevelsharp.com/stoneangle.html

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: High FOC stability #36081

Very cool bit of real world information David! Thanks for sharing. Too bad you didn’t get that one on video.

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: Jumping on the single bevel wagon, w/a question #19319

Mike,

The new Grizzlies are all made from the same steel and are all hardened to about 54 Rockwell. The 160s and 200s are even made from the same thickness of steel. The 160 only weighs less than the 200 because it’s shorter.

You didn’t mention if you got a BHD or knife sharpener… I like the knife sharpener better for the longer 200s but the BHD sharpener is fine for the 160s. I think it comes down to which of the two you can get the sharpest and which one flys best for you.

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: A short rant about KE… #19306

Bruce,

You really need to open up and say what’s on your mind. You’re among friends here. You can tell us what you really think. No need to edit yourself like that. 😆 😛

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: kme sharpener #19292

skinner biscuit wrote: Thinking of getting a sharpener for my broadheads.For those who have one, do you like the stones or diamonds?

Skinner,

Which sharpener and with which stones is “best” depends on the brand and model of BHDs you’ll be sharpening.

Diamonds are more aggressive and cut faster (think Zwicky, STOS, Grizz and other traditional glue-on heads that come with a coarse factory grind). As Alex stated above all diamond stones do wear out though and you can’t use any pressure with them. Diamonds alone can produce clean shaving edges as well. I think of diamond stones as the step between a file and a real stone.

Ceramics and Arkansas go from fairly aggressive to very fine and are great for touch-ups or sharpening blades that already have well defined bevels. (Maguns Stingers, Muzzy Phantoms, Knives that aren’t dull as a stump). They can produce straight razor edges.

Which type is better? That depends on what you need the stone to do. Thanks guys!

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: Back from ETAR, what a blast! #18503

Alex and ColMike,

The time I spent with you fine gentlemen was the highlight of the 4 day event for me!:D

I assure everyone that these two can now teach sharpening as well as I can. …well, almost as well anyway.:P

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: using test weights #56856

Smithhammer wrote: [quote=drycreekarchery]I am working on building a foc arrow with G/T 5575 trad & 225 Tuffheads with 100 gr. threaded inserts. 🙂

Can you tell me what length your shafts are cut to, and what your shelf cut is?

Only asking because I’m shooting 5575’s with a 250gr. head and 100gr. inserts cut to 28.5″ and getting consistent nock left when I bareshaft them, but I’m having a hard time believing that my spine is too weak, which is making me wonder if something else is going on.

I’m in the same boat. Shooting .325 spined carbons off a 50 lb recurve with over 400 gr. total front end weight. Built my side plate out to 3/16 before center to get them to fly right but like Smithammer said something else has to be going on because now, my far weaker spined .530 CEs are hitting way left… which makes no sense at all? (the CE .530s with 25% FOC shot perfect before building out the side plate BTW).

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: Question For Troy & Dr. ED? #49754

To expound a bit, Smiley1’s initial post reinforces the results I’m seeing. On paper he’s underspined yet the arrows are flying great. As he said, he did cut the shafts to 27.5″ which stiffens them up a bit but I’m guessing they would still fly very well from his bow with a longer draw and more point weight. Like I said in my previous post, I’m still experimenting but I’m beginning to believe that the dynamic spine of carbon shafts tends to remain far more static with varying point weights and shaft lengths than we automatically assume. Certainly carbon shafts tolerate far greater variances in point weight and shaft lengths than wood or aluminum shafts of similar spine. The question that remains to be answered is how much more…

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: Question For Troy & Dr. ED? #49739

kingwouldbe wrote: Joe, I’m shooting Gt Estrada ultra light 300, however I spoke with Ron @ KME and it looks like we might be turning another corner as fare as UEFOC arrow.

I also failed to give credit for my statement that the ” goal is to get it in the truck ” which I pirated from Ron…..lol

Well, not sure about turning another corner but I have been experimenting pretty extensively with varying point weights and shaft lengths and everything is leading me to re-think the conventional wisdom of “extra stiff spine required” for UHFOC arrows under 700 grains in total arrow weight. Not 100% sure yet but I don’t think this is quite as solidly set in stone as we first thought.

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: Question For Troy & Dr. ED? #39188

kingwouldbe wrote: I think Ron over @ KME has drank the Kool-Aid, he said something about 40% UEFOC, with a 750 grain arrow, have to call him back.

Heck yea, I drank the kool aid a long time ago. Now I’m swimming in it! Yes I’m getting very high FOC levels in a variety of shafts. That’s actually been the fairly easy part… Now I’m pullin’ my hair out trying to disect the paradox inch by inch, and milli-second by milli-second in order to really understand what’s going on with the shaft from the moment we drop the string till the shaft leaves the bow.

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: Minimum spine? #41316

Well good morning Mr Breeding,

Thank you very much. Although I must say, I’m somewhat disappionted… “It would be just a wild guess”… I was really hoping for something more like “You can shoot _______ shaft without putting it through your arm Ron” hehehe…

Ron

[sharpster]

in reply to: Steel Force Premiums #58716

JodyS wrote: I am considering getting some Steel Force Premium two-blade broadheads in 225 grain. They have a 3:1 ratio, single bevel, and good Rockwell. Has anyone had any experience with them?

Jody,

I always have a couple of the Steelforce 225gr. single bevels in my quiver. (Although mine are prototypes from a few years ago that weigh 265 gr,) The ones we’re (you and I) are talking about have .080 thick blades and are anti tank heads. Very sharp right out of the pack and they fly like darts. Excellent BHDs!!

Ron

[Author]

Posts