Main Boards > The Shooters FORM Board

Spine tuning should not be used to adjust point of impact?

(1/2) > >>

doughalysh:
Hello all, not new to reading tradgang, but I am new to posting.

I wanted to see if others agree with a notion that I have come to which is:

changing dynamic spine  of a properly tuned arrow to try to move arrow point of impact left or right is not ideal because you are sacrificing ideal arrow flight to do so.

If an arrow is well tuned to the bow and shooter ideal flight would have the nock in line with and following with the tip of the point along the arc of the arrow going to the target (except for the normal oscillations from being shot)

If you intentionally weaken or stiffen dynamic spine to adjust point of impact, the nock will not be in line with the point anymore and will result in reduced performance of the arrow

So assuming that an ideally tuned arrow is not hitting where I want it to, my only options are to change my anchor point or to "hold-off" to hit where I want to? 

McDave:
I agree with what you said about not purposely using an arrow that is not tuned to the bow to move the POI.

However, there are several options other than changing your anchor point or “holding off.”

In target archery, it is very common to use a cushion plunger to move the POI without changing the tune of the arrow.  Traditional archers can achieve somewhat the same thing by changing the material used for the strike plate.  Changing to a softer material for the strike plate is similar to reducing the spring tension on a cushion plunger.  This will move the POI to the right for a RH shooter.  An example of this would be changing the strike plate material from the loop side of Velcro to the soft side of Velcro, or for an even greater effect, changing to Martin rug rest material.  An example going the other direction would be changing the strike plate from Velcro to a hard piece of leather to move the POI to the left.

I have noticed when teaching that few people are really maximizing their back tension, grip, alignment, and releases.  Our typical side of the face anchoring position often results in the dominant eye not being over the arrow, which can be corrected without changing the anchor by tilting the head over the arrow.  All of these often result in left misses for a RH shooter., and can and should be corrected without changing the spine of the arrow.

doughalysh:
McDave, thanks for reply. For the cushion plunger, I still have trouble wrapping my head around how that works.

I know shelf build out affects how much the arrow needs to flex to clear, but the "softness" of the shelf/plunger, does it just increase or decrease the amount the tip end of the arrow "bounces/rebounds" off the shelf at the very start of arrow oscillation/flex, within the first few inches of arrow forward movement,  thus moving the point of impact?

Also I agree with leaning your head, it effectively does the same thing as moving your anchor point(changing where the nock is), but probably is a better way of doing it, depending on the person.

McDave:

--- Quote from: doughalysh on February 01, 2024, 12:45:09 PM ---
I know shelf build out affects how much the arrow needs to flex to clear, but the "softness" of the shelf/plunger, does it just increase or decrease the amount the tip end of the arrow "bounces/rebounds" off the shelf at the very start of arrow oscillation/flex, within the first few inches of arrow forward movement,  thus moving the point of impact?

--- End quote ---

That is correct, and is the same thing that happens when a cushion plunger is adjusted.

doughalysh:
Alright, and this bounce/rebound amount does not significantly affect the amount of arrow flex then? I assume not because otherwise it would change the dynamic spine of the arrow? The "bounce" is a new concept to me, I only ever thought about tuning as a  function of the arrow flex/arrow dynamic spine.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page