Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
in reply to: Kustom King #48775
I too have made many purchases from them. But the “gone missing” thing is, imho, way too common on my purchases from KK.
in reply to: Arrow specs and charts… NEED HELP #477563Rivers sells test kits; of 3 arrows. For example, you can get a Carbon Express Test kit with a 150, 250, and 350 arrow. They do it by brand.
I guess you are talking a test kit of 1 arrow?
Being an arrow distributor can be a tough business. The minimum order numbers are pretty high… But you could become the first business to sell the compete Ashby Arrow with all the bells and whistles: High FOC, 650 grain total wt, Turbulator, A&H Fletching, Brass Inserts, and Aluminum Collar around the front end.
in reply to: Holy Smokes!!! An unlikely double (pics) #47745I’ve been out many times this spring, and have yet to run into one while holding my bow.
Quick! buy a lottery ticket!!
in reply to: 1980s Fred Bear Take Down Limbs #44193I don’t know the attachment system you are describing. But the standard bear takedown system limbs are available from after market bowyers. They are, imho, superior to the limbs available from Bear.
Maybe you could ask one of the after market bowyers. Two that come to mind are Rose Oak Archery and Black Creek Custom Bows.
in reply to: Bow Stringer #43334A good stringer makes all the difference. My favorite is called the thunderhorn superstringer. Available from 3Rivers for 10.99.
For longbows, I say they are not necessary. But for Recurves they are a must. Both for you, and the bow.
I see someone mentioned eye injuries. They are a common injury when stringing recurves. google “string recurve eye injury” and you will see some empty eye sockets among other nasties.
in reply to: Great service – Braveheart Archery #40676Mudd Foot wrote: … The unbelievable thing is that my order arrived here in western PA from Kansas City today (Monday)!
Now that’s fast!…
Mudd Foot
Maybe our beleaguered Post Office deserves a little credit too. 😀
in reply to: Arrow specs and charts… NEED HELP #40668vintage archer wrote: Arrow specs and charts.
…using log rhythms or some other method…
I don’t think dancing firewood will help you… 😆 Developing a “formula” may or may not include logarithmic equations… Not everything that can be put in tabular form can be set to an equation.
Good topic, can’t wait to see what people say!
I’ve been shooting some gold tips 55-75 with 300 grains up front. I quit adding weight because the bare shaft was showing slightly weak. But I just couldn’t get happy with the way it shot from my 55lb recurve, and so I went ahead and added another 50 grains. And guess what, the bare shaft shoots straight now.
Another example are the gold tip entrada arrows which have a 600 spine. I started bare shaft tuning them with 100 grains thinking they would still be way to weak for my 50lb long bow. I ended up with over 250 grains on the end. I could probably add a smidge more.
I think something changes as the FOC moves toward the tip. You can’t just extrapolate from the old charts to find out what should or shouldn’t work.
Bottom line when picking shafts for high FOC arrows – get light arrows. Anything over 8 grains per inch makes it hard to get really high EFOC. There are only a few brands that meet this weight requirement. My own preference is to get the most FOC I can without exceeding 12 grains per pound.
in reply to: Upstate SC or lower NC shoots? #39399Look up Carolina Traditional Archers. They have monthly shoots, and through them, you might find a local group…
in reply to: Calculating FOC: question for Dr. Ashby #38081David Petersen wrote:
So, to bring us back to the beginning: I am using personal examples but this is not about me: The question is for all of us, and it is this: Because we seek a minimum of 20% FoC and the two measuring methods result in “below minimum” when measured with head and “above minimum” when measured to BoP, which is most accurate, reliable, usable, etc.? Would it make any sense to average the two?
As Joe has emphasized, using the BOP is the standard. We all need to use standards (in all subjects), otherwise there is no point of reference, and no progress can be made.
And specifically, in answer to your question in bold, I would humbly suggest that the number 20% only has meaning in respect to the BOP method. If you don’t use that method and that point of reference, than the number 20% has no meaning.
There are no absolutes in the world, so the number 20% is only “magic” in relation to the method used to derive it.
Oh, and one more thing… I always tell my kids that no erasers are allowed in science class. Whenever experimental data is recorded, if mistakes are made, the new numbers are written down in addition to the wrong numbers. Even in mistakes things can be learned, and erasing mistakes erases an opportunity to learn something…. I wish you had not erased your original numbers, but had just added the corrections…
in reply to: Calculating FOC: question for Dr. Ashby #36932Update to my last post – I see that the BOP numbers are about the same. This means that the balance point is about the same on the actual shaft. So I guess my guess was wrong.
So if the balance point doesn’t change, and the length gets longer, then the FOC for the broadhead has to be less than for the field point.
I wonder if something went wrong when you did the field point calculations including the field point length?
in reply to: Calculating FOC: question for Dr. Ashby #36920Dave,
I read your post twice, but maybe I missed it… But in trying to understand the interesting topic you bring up and the apparent difference between the broadhead and the field point… I don’t see any observation about the actual balance point.
What I mean is, was there an actual difference in balance point on the arrow between the field point and the broadhead? If you mark the arrow, does the balance point move?
If the balance point doesn’t move, then the FOC including the broadhead should be lower than the FOC not including the Broadhead
My guess is that if you measure the balance points between the broadhead and the field tip that the broadhead balance point is moved toward the end of the arrow as compared to the field tip balance point.
in reply to: Savannah Repair #35576minwax rub on poly is what I have used. It works well.
in reply to: Savannah Repair #34338If it is nicked on the edge, that’s the area that needs to be addressed carefully. If it were me, I’d give it a light sanding to make sure there are no fibers lifting up. Then I’d apply a series of drops of super glue till it was built back up to the original level. Then, if needed, I’d apply a little rub on poly to match the rest of the bow as best as possible.
Or I might not even sand it. I might just apply a few coats of super glue and forget it. The glass is tough, and any bow that gets used is going to get dinged up.
in reply to: bow length #34332Drop the bow weight, and do it now! That shoulder could become an injury that lasts a lifetime.
If you are going to shoot recurves, a 64 or 66 inch would work. In Longbows, nothing less than 66 inch.
If you are new to shooting, I would get a 45lb bow. Shoot that for a year, then move up in increments of 5lb every year. So don’t spend a lot on a bow till you decide what type of bow you like, and you settle into your weight zone.
in reply to: String action #34326Easton made a slow motion video many years ago of mostly compound setups being shot. It was very enlightening to watch how the arrow contorted as it left the bow. But equally enlightening to watch how the bow and everything on it squirmed around.
I think they still sell it on their website. It’s the best study of the shot that I have seen. Unbelievable to watch what you think of as stiff metal turn to spaghetti.
I am sure those arrows in bow quivers dance like crazy.
-
AuthorPosts
