Trad Gang

Whats the deal with carbon arrow manufacturers?
Eastern makes a bazillion different shafts accomondating each and every peson.
What is there maybe 3 ot 4 different size carbon shafts per compaNY making some go crazy either shooting a shaft that is 3" to 4" over hanging or adding alot of weight up front etc.?
Is there business manly for olympic style shooters on the light weak end and compound shiiters on the heavier stiff end?
Are aluminum arrows that much cheaper to produce? Obviously by the selling price differences they are, but how much more profit on the other end?

Carbon is stiff and light.
To get light enough spine the shaft has to be very light weight or long. Since most bows need to shoot at least 8-9 grs per pound the manufactures add wraps of carbon. This makes them even stiffer. So they have to be longer to weaken the spine or weight has to be added to the front to weaken spine.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kingstaken:
making some go crazy either shooting a shaft that is 3" to 4" over hanging or adding alot of weight up front etc.?

Well, what one man calls "crazy", some consider genious. Try a high FOC arrow (lots of weight up front), no matter what the overhang on your bow then tell me we are "crazy". Besides, what is the overhang hurting? Unless you are a gap shooter, it makes absolutely no difference.

You hit the point with the fact that they make them for where the market is.  Compounds with cut past center windows dominate the marketplace and the arrows are built for them.  The Trad market is much smaller and we just "make do" with the leftovers.  But heck that's what wood arrows are for.

Mike

John I understand the whole about tuning.
I'm lucky I guess to have 55/75 with a 145gr point plus about 1 1/2" past the riser  shoot perfect. Why are there not so many options?
Why say a 55/75. Thats 20# difference. Why not 55/65.
Aluminum increments are a fraction of that.

Just check the most popular compound bow weights sold and you'll get your answer. 60-70# is the lion's share of the market and the past center cut of them with the adjustability of the rests makes them able to handle an arrow in a wider spine range. Cheaper for a manufacturer to tool up for 3 or 4 shafts than it is to do dozens like aluminum at it's peak.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kingstaken:
John I understand the whole about tuning.
I'm lucky I guess to have 55/75 with a 145gr point plus about 1 1/2" past the riser  shoot perfect. Why are there not so many options?
Why say a 55/75. Thats 20# difference. Why not 55/65.
Aluminum increments are a fraction of that.

This is exactly why I tried and rejected carbons in favor of alums.  Alums have much more & closer spine selection so it's far easier to get a tune without resorting to excess length or aftermarket devices (brass inserts-weight tubes) to manipulate spine and/or add weight...

I shoot gap, and has been pointed out earlier, excess arrow length tends to sticky a gap shooter's wicket...

Man I guess I am in the minority here....I think there is simply no need for the ridiculous number of aluminum shafts. If you treat them the same as carbons, there is a shaft on the market for everyone, and a few sizes will cover all the bases. Front load if too stiff, want a lighter arrow go with less spine and lighter point. I have yet to see a bow that you couldn't find a carbon that flies beautifully close to the total arrow weight you want, (but I will admit I certainly haven't tried all the bows out there). Even the Osage selfbow CJ gave me shoots (gasp!) carbons wonderfully!

Personally, I don't think there are enough options in the stiffer shafts, I wish they made even stiffer shafts for those who like to shoot higher poundages, want high foc, and don't want to modify their riser.

I dont think for the majority of shooters its a problem, theres really no need for the carbon manuf. to produce more shafts. If you want a lighter carbon stick with your spine range and a light tip, if you want a heavy carbon get the stiffer spine and tip load weight.

I think there are only a handful of people, those who shoot really light bows or have really long draws that have any real problems getting a carbon in the spine/weight that they would be comfortable with.

Im sure the money involved to re-vamp production to offer more spines would not be worth it. I assume thats why Easton is now offering thier alluminum arrows in only three "Carbon" spine ranges, 300, 400, and 500.

Guys I'm just explaining why there aren't a lot of carbon spines, the largest share of the market doesn't need them. There are more spines available than most guys seem aware of though, but a lot of the lower spines used for Olympic style shooting haven't made the crossover yet for lack of awareness of them it seems.

JC there's a difference between going crazy and being crazy. Never called anyone here crazy, as trad shooter we and I use the word "we" incluidng myself maybe alil stubborn, but diffintely not crazy.
The longer the arrow the weaker the spine or the heavier the point the weaker the spine so I don't understand you meaning. High FOC IMO has no bearing on arrow length as it does in getting high FOC arrows tuned. Unless your so heavy in FOC that you move up a spine or two in shaft.
I personally see no reason for such high extreme FOC when I see 120-200 gr head is way more then enough for anything here in N.A.
Theres a point of where enough gr is enough gr or enough GPP is enough GPP and anything else is merely personal choice. Is there really a need for 12gr/in. arrows? Most bow ambufactures set the standards for nothing more then warrantees. The heavier the arrow the less chance of failure of the bows.
Whe someone comes up tp me and says "I'm shooting a 300gr point" first I know he shoots trad, second I only see bragging rights and pay no attention to it which I take as not necessarily a bad thing. Nothing wrong with someone with conviction especially with something that cannot cause any harm to or have any effect on another human being.
I've seen and heard of many a times the longer the shaft get in the way of a hunter. Whether in the tree stand or ground with them mostly turning into position and it getting caught on something and either falling off or bouncing away from the bow.
Anyway I'm still lQQking for an answer to my question, not a debate.

David, I agree....but it can also be looked at from a different angle. Not just the "largest share of the market" imho...but all the market. You just don't need all those previous spines of aluminum. If you just want all those spines, that's a different story.

JC I agree with you as there is no need for so many aluminum shafts, but there have always seem to be here, so why cannot the carbon builders provided more options?

Your making a gross generalization that's borderline insulting there Lewis.  Seems to me most of the folks hereabouts are very consciencious in their tuning and efforts to achieve excellent arrow flight.

I myself have been shooting bow since the late 60's and have been actually tuning since the mid 70's.  In that time I've shot & worked with literally every arrow type that has come along.
My arrow choice is based on those years of experience, not laziness or lack of tuning knowledge.

I shoot carbons with my compounds as the bow/rest can be tuned to the arrow, and they don't require add on weight to shoot & penetrate well due to the geater speeds the compounds generate.  With my recurves I use alums as the arrow must be tuned to the bow.  In this regard alums are far easier to work with than carbons, and again don't require add on weight and/or excessive length to shoot and penetrate well.

Now if some carbon manufacturer can come up with an an arrow designed for Trad with decent weight and closer spine that doesn't cost $100+ a dozen,
I would certainly try them...

To be more productive you try and simiplify your business operation. If you loose business because you don't provide what the market wants then and only then will business expand and offer more options. Guess no one in the shaft business is loosing business!

Jon, your right I edited my post.

From all the replies I received here in only a 1/2 hour by the way I thank you all for, my thought is the carbon manufactures designed there shafts for the average draw of say 25" to 28", with a 75gr tip plus or minus and an arrow short enoug to be pulled thru a clicker or just catch the elevated rest of an olympic style recurve.
Not for bows that require broadhead clearance.
Again, I have no problems tuning my carbons I recenlty got.
I shoot 65# to 75# bows and would like to see more options also.

Whe someone comes up tp me and says "I'm shooting a 300gr point" first I know he shoots trad, second I only see bragging rights and pay no attention to it which I take as not necessarily a bad thing.

Kinda like I shoot 85# I've never killed anything with it yet but...........

Serious hunters know what 300 gr. will do, even at low poundages. Bragging rights come with what you have hanging on the wall or in the freezer.

JC, I just spine tested some Grizzly sticks (got a half doz at an auction) the spine 150# - that should be high enough for anything.

With the number of manufacturers each with their own spine ideas and ranges, there should be enough around for folks to find a combination that works. I have used all three spine ranges of GT's and both standard and light AD with good results.

High FOC is intersting stuff and may have several advantages besides penetration. Lots to experiment with in this field.

Shaun, Grizzly Sticks    ....got any other options? That is pretty stiff though.

JC, I have set up some 75-95 Gold Tips with high FOC (100 grn adapters & 190 BHs) that shoot like a 55-75 with 145 up front. I have heard mixed rivews of the Grizzly shafts but had a chance to pick up some finished arrows for the price of shafts alone at the UBM auction. Will let you know how they work out- may have to put egg sinkers behind the BH to get them to fly.

I think it has alot to do with cost of manufacturing also.Like GT's they all take the same inserts and nocks which saves money.If they made carbons in all the different spines they would have to make all the different inserts and carbons would most likely cost well over $100 which alot do now.Look at Easton ACC they come in more spines then other carbons.But they cost $130 a dozen and they are light weight for what I prefer to shoot.Easton now makes the Gamegetter aluminum in 4 different spines likes carbons.I don't worry about the length of my carbons especially on bows not cut to center.I prefer my carbons longer on those bows.I had some 45/60 CX that were 1" past my draw and they would not tune no matter how much weight I added up front.They seemed to get worse with the heavier point I went with.I believe on the bow not cut to center they were bouncing off the riser instead of going through the paradox.I think finding a carbon that would not overhang excessively can be hit or miss and still be heavy enough for safe shooting.Carbons are very versatile but then I don't like to shoot a 400 gr. carbon out of a 70# longbow.So my carbons are longer and stiffer so I can add more weight to weaken the spine to tune good and have enough total weight.

Just some food for thought. While Kevin "CupCake" was building his Spine-O-Meter, we tested alot of different Shafts. Just because a carbon arrow has a stated Spine of lets say .400 (Gt55/75) or Axis 400 we found very few that actually spined at .400. Now turn the shaft and test at each feather, you well get a different reading at each point. Some MFG are way better!!

It's amazing to me that someone would suppose that people don't use carbon because they can't tune.   Seems to me to be the opposite.  The front loading has to come because the shafts are inherently stiff.  They are also light, so you need to weight them somehow....usually by front-loading.  Sure you can do that with aluminum, but you don't need to in order to get proper spine and adequate weight.  

Yes Bob, but I would add that I would know that person is a "newer trad shooter" who has been sold a bill of goods....especially the guy shooting 32 inch arrows with 300 grain points.

Carbons have shown me nothing as of yet...maybe tomorrow.

I'm still trying to figure out how Lewis is insulting me.     :knothead:

Bowdude I wasn't gonna respond to that, but I never saw any insult myself even before his edit.   :confused:

QuoteOriginally posted by George D. Stout:
Yes Bob, but I would add that I would know that person is a "newer trad shooter" who has been sold a bill of goods....especially the guy shooting 32 inch arrows with 300 grain points.

Carbons have shown me nothing as of yet...maybe tomorrow.

Yep, and what a great buy it is George! What about all those "old trad shooters" that have embraced it? Maybe, you should try looking at it as an option instead of simply something that does not adhere to your conventional way of thinking. Extreme FOC works, whether you are "new" or "old".

If carbon arrows haven't shown you anything, maybe you should try looking at it from a different angle?   :rolleyes:

I believe as time goes by there will be carbon arrows made more for the trad shooter. Not on purpose but because the wheely guys will want them. Case in point, I saw an article in a recent magazine by a well know, corporate sponsered bowhunter telling everyone the advantages of heavier arrows for hunting.
Who knows in 5 years we may look back and say what was all the fuss about?

Can someone explain why adding weight inserts and a heavy broadhead to tune a carbon shaft is any kind of an issue?  Once you know what you need to make your arrow fly right its just one more little step along the path to making a good arrow.  I have abundant choices in broadhead weight and insert weight to tune with which makes up for the excessive number of spine selections offered by the aluminum shaft makers.  I have to cut my shafts to 30.5" to get perfect bareshaft flight and so I don't have any of that unsightly overhang.  I have been using Cabela's Carbon Hunters 65-80 for many years, cheap to me at 49.95 a dozen.  I have to remove the plastic vanes before I fletch them up but I have no complaints about those arrows.  They may not be as uniform as more spendy shafts but they are probably as uniform as a wooden shaft and much more durable. What benefit is there to spending 2-3 times as much for shafting if these work so good for me? Is there a down side to extreme  FOC? IF not what difference does it make if thats what tunes your setup?  I figure the carbon shaft makers are offering enough diversity to satisfy the overwhelming majority of their clients.  If you are looking for a reason not to use carbons you can find one, but lack of options doesn't seem like much of an obstacle to me.

Thomas, you are spot on! I have several c-bow shooters using/testing above-threshold Extreme FOC arrows with high MA TRADITIONAL (?) broadheads now. What THEY can do to a fresh deer carcass has to be seen to be believed!

Even more encouraging, I talked to Ed Schlief after he returned from the ATA trade show. He was "overwhelmed" (his word) by the questions he received from C-bow shooters asking about heavy BH's and Extreme FOC arrows. He also said that he was impressed by the fact that they ran the gamut from young to old; new shooters to old hands.

I think the 'breeze of change' is beginning to blow. It will probably be a long while before it's a 'wind of change', but it's more than has been there's been before. Regardless, the more good equipment options the bowhunter has available to choose from, the better!

Ed
TGMM Family of the Bow

I think you are right M60. The pendulum is starting to swing the other way for the compound guys. Can you imagine what a bow shooting 300fps with heavy arrows could do to an animal!

Dave, we must have been posting simultaneously!

Ed
TGMM Family of the Bow

snag, they are shooting 300 fps with 5gpp arrows at 30" draw. The speeds will be considerably slower at 9/10 gpp, but you are right on the amount of damage they could do.

There's no need for more sizes.  More sizes simply confuse new shooters and lead to a longer search for a tuned arrow.

Any bow over 30# and under 100# can and will shoot an existing carbon arrow flawlessly.

QuoteOriginally posted by vermonster13:
Guys I'm just explaining why there aren't a lot of carbon spines, the largest share of the market doesn't need them. There are more spines available than most guys seem aware of though, but a lot of the lower spines used for Olympic style shooting haven't made the crossover yet for lack of awareness of them it seems.

vermonster,

There's also the little problem of expense of the carbon arrows for the Olympic style shooting.  The shafts will set you back $150-$250 a dozen, and higher!  I don't think it's a lack of knowledge as much as it's the high price of the shafts!    :eek:

Bill

JC....you're pretty full of yourself.  It has nothing to do with my conventional way of thinking.  Perhaps you should just appreciate your carbons and not think we are depriving ourselves of some sort of fix-all.  

Frankly...Son...I don't care if you sleep with your carbon arrows.  I don't like them as they are right now.  I may, and probably will, change my mind as they become better arrow material.  There's a way to go yet to suit me.  But then, that's neither your problem nor concern.

QuoteOriginally posted by Lewis Brookshire III:
Jon, your right I edited my post.

No problem, pard.  Just came off a tad harsh...
 :thumbsup:

Bill with higher demand for them, prices would come down or lower cost ones would be developed in those spines for hunting use.

You can get Redlines all the way to a 1000 spine for $90 a dozen.

If I could add a turn in this, when i was a kid, the 60s, there were a lot of aluminum shaft sizes that would be very useful for the Hill style longbow shooters of today. 1818, 1820,1918,1920. Thin fairly heavy arrows that could clear the riser of all those 40 and 45 pound bows most of us were using. We got pass throughs quite often with our tan Bears and Zwickey broadheads.  Many of the fat and stiff aluminum shafts do not work so well for us lighter and shorter draw Hill shooters.  there are basically two choices 1916 and 2016.  Leaving most of us shooting woods and it seems harder to get these in the quality of yesteryear as well.  I for one can not stand shooting arrows that are longer than my draw.  now i am sure with the trial and error tuning it is totally possible for most to get good arrow flight at a cost.  It was a lot simpler when the old Easton chart was correct 9 out of ten times.  We got arrows with good weights that flew at a cost that everyone could afford.  It all made for simple adventurous fun.

George, no offense was meant...and I re-read it to see if I missed something. Not sure what you saw, but "full of myself" was not there. You show me what was disrespectful and I will gladly edit it. I offered a suggestion and asked a question, at no time was I derogatory as you were in your original posting and subsequent "full of yourself" comments.

Previous thinking (i.e. conventional) has said your arrows won't work well in the high ranges Dr. Ashby has recommended. With carbons especially, it works really well. Many simply refuse to beleive it works without trying it. Not saying your one of them, but I think if you gave it an honest go, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Doc Ashby has been around the block, so has Charlie Lamb, Vance Brewer, Terry Green, Rob Distefano, Ray Hammond and a host of others who I see as mentors....and all are using very high if extreme FOC. You said anyone with a lot of weight on the front and a large overhang was "a new shooter"....I don't think that's a fair sterotype.

You said "bill of goods", I assumed this was a derogatory comment on current findings with high/extreme FOC. Show me enough negatives to the FOC and I'll sign on with you it's a "bill of goods". I've found, as have many others, that there aren't many and the benifits far outweigh those minor issues, imho.

I never said it was a fix all...your first statements were very skeptical and condescending to those who use high FOC. I was simply pointing out that maybe you should look at it from another angle. I certainly wouldn't ever say your choice of bows or arrows was "a bill of goods." I have much more respect for you and the proof of your equipment than that. I would expect the same from you.

I would love to hear your ideas on what it would take "to suit you". Sincerely, without tounge in cheek, I think someone with your experience could add valuable info.

And you can call me "Son" when you treat me with the respect my father does...

George Im glad you like alluminums, JC Im glad you like carbons and I am glad (Insert name) likes woodies. The world would be quite boring if we were all alike. And what fun would it be if there was only one arrows material, bow, quiver...etc. That would take all the fun out of tinkering and trying to find the "Perfect" piece of equipment!    :biglaugh:

JC, are you trying to imply that I'm old just because my first big game bow kill was fifty years ago?  You young whipper-snapper; I was just a child prodogy. I'm just now coming into my stride!  :p  

Ed
TGMM Family of the Bow

LOL Doc!!

Uhhhh, no Doc, certainly wouldn't...especially since everyone says you are a fine, strapping, hulk of a man certainly well within his prime. No SIR, not old...seasoned, honed and sharpened sure...but never "old"...Mr. Ashby, SIR.   :bigsmyl:  

Yep, sometimes a whipper-snapper...I know I'm only 40 and have always been questioning things...but also smart enough to listen to those I see well qualified as mentors (at least listen a little). I just may ask them a question or two after they tell me how it is. Every now and then, BOTH the whipper-snapper and mentor learn something from a "fresh" view. Awfully glad you took the time to show us something "fresh" (though not necessarily "new" as you have pointed out). How much more of the ancient technology have we forgotten?

Lewis, yep, variety is one of the many spices of life. I hope wood and aluminum will always be around...if for no other reason than for those that WANT them.

"Yep, and what a great buy it is George! What about all those "old trad shooters" that have embraced it? Maybe, you should try looking at it as an option instead of simply something that does not adhere to your conventional way of thinking. Extreme FOC works, whether you are "new" or "old".

If carbon arrows haven't shown you anything, maybe you should try looking at it from a different angle?"

Sounds a little condescending to me.  And, I will retract the "Son" as well.  My son wouldn't be condescending 8^).

I'm starting to think we aren't EVER going to agree on what's the best arrow to shoot...dang it all.  What is this, a democracy?

George....it really sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about something.

The accusations you made about Joe are out of line and way out of character for both you and Joe.  Your comments prove you have never met Joe or that you have any idea of 'knowing' him.

Funny some are so quick to judge someone by the LEAST effective way of communicating, ...the typed word on the internet.

George, neither would my father's son, especially to an elder. Never meant as condescending...and I apologize if you took it that way, my communication skills vary from day to day. If you can tell me how I should have written it to not sound that way to you, I will gladly re-write it.

My intent is never to poke the fire, only to see people try something new (that a lot of folk think highly of) if they have not yet. Seriously, have you tried high FOC with carbons? If you haven't, I don't think it's fair to label it "a bill of goods". (By the way, did you not think that condescending to Dr. Ashby? I assume he would be the "seller" of said "bill of goods".)

Still would love to hear your input on what it would take to suit you with carbons. Again, no condescention, simply asking the question.

Now, I ain't never met George, but I'd bet we have more in common that we do 'in-different'. All this ain't nut'n a'tall.

I do a lot of my hunt'n with fellers tot'n guns and them funny wheely bows - and a few fine black fellers tot'n just home-made spears - and we all manage ta get along ... purt'near civil.   :campfire:  

Ed
TGMM Family of the Bow

(insert fog-horn leghorn accent here) Why land na goshen Doc, you speak suthun like a small town politician at a fund raiser....

Sur, I think I resemble that remark! A many o' my kin gived all fo' Dixie! Gen. Turner Ashby 'furn one.

Ed
TGMM Family of the Bow

They make any spines of carbon arrows.Probably as many as made in aluminum now.The problem arises for stickbow shoots not because they can not find a spine that will work from any bow.It is because they are locked into shooting certain arrow weights unlike compound shooters who do not have warrenty issues with lighter weight arrows.I personally see no need for more sizes and never saw the need for so many aluminum sizes.jmo

I cringe at the prices of SOME of the carbons. I like any arrow I use, providing it meets the GPI recommendation of the bowyer and flies well. That being said, I do think it is relatively easy to tune an arrow of any material to any bow, providing the spine is close.(Easy, Im still new!)
I think that each material has its pros and cons. I have broken woodies, bent aluminums, and snapped carbons with my 45# longbow. I prefer woodies, because they are so much fun to make, and the shafts are cheap compared to aluminum and carbon. I also think carbon is the most durable of the three, with some varieties of wood coming close.
It all boils down to what you prefer to make and or shoot, and how you make that shaft work for you.
Personally, I will shoot whatever appeals to my allowance from my wife.  :biglaugh:

Don't forget about us guys that need a 32" arrow or else I'd have an overdraw on my longbow.  More choices make it much easier for us.

If you really want to feel better about the situation get a target archers catalog and try to find some carbon/aluminum target arrows.  Shafts start about $150 a dozen and don't stop until you are over $300.  Tungsten points $225 a dozen.  Really? Makes the most expensive broadhead seem cheap in comparison.

Got to love that last 'reason'! That's the single best one I've heard for deciding on what arrow is best to use!  :biglaugh:  

TGMM Family of the Bow

I gotta agree with JC on this one, and also must add that i have seen lots of people who claim to have perfect arrow flight and I would not be caught dead shooting with the flight they get. why does everyone want to make stuff so complictaed. I can cut most any carbon or aluminum(I hate aluminum)to 29.5-30"s and get it to fly perfect ou of my bow by just playing with point weight, some arrows I may need 100 grains up front and others 425 grains up front, but I can get them to fly. Shawn

JC....I do apologize my friend.  It is not unusual to take something out of context and perhaps I did that.  I am an old grouchy, curmudgeon afterall 8^).  And, perhaps you noticed I can get defensive about my choices; read that a little thick-headed.  Your last post was very professional and understanding, so I will pull my foot out of my mouth and start over.

I have nothing against carbon arrows, and I'm actually waiting for better densities that allow for heavier weights and more variable spines. I'm not totally sold on the "extreme" front of center, but I am still learning about such things myself.  Admitedly, I am slow to change what has worked for so long....so well.  

I have tried GT's and broke a bunch of them.  I have also tried Carbonwood's and like them, but I still broke them....usually mushrooming the ends.  That has shown me that there is still room to grow in the durability area.  

I used to shoot fiberglass (Old fogie carbons) but the mushrooming issue was prevalent with them as well.  So I'll keep watching and listening.  Maybe one of these days....well, you never know 8^).

Shawn, the most misused phrases I've seen in bowhunting are 'perfect shot', 'perfect flight', 'scary sharp' and 'perfect hit'!

Ed
TGMM Family of the Bow

LMAO
Complicated??   :knothead:  
I started this post to ask a simple question. (Yea right like there is such a thing)
Why don't carbon manufactures make more of a selection as say Eastern does. Not really to debate them. But thats what makes Tradgang so great. Just like a box of chocolates, ya never know what ya gonna get inside.  :bigsmyl:  

Somewhere along the line things got sorta high jacked, twisted, turned and bent to where I thought we were in for another civil war.

George, I agree with you where I agree FOC is important, but not woth the extreme FOC.

Lots of fun fellas.    :thumbsup:

Terry...I don't need a lot of weight.  The ones I tried were around 475 using a heavy (100 gr.) broadhead adaptor and Bear Razorhead.  I would like to be in the 520 to 550 range.

I still would like to use the Bear's (145).  My bows are all around 52#, and I don't want an arrow longer than 29".

I'm gonna email ya George........

George you REALLY need to give the Arrow Dynamics a try. With what you just described wanting, they would fit Perfectly! You will be shooting them out of every weight bow you have and want even have to worry about spine sizes. As long as you aren't shooting -35lb. or +80lb bows.

By the way what are you mushrooming all those carbons on?? I have only did that once and I accidentally hit a piece of 2" steel. Oops! LOL

Lewis I'd recon he will be  :bigsmyl:    :bigsmyl:

Lewis and Vance I hope someone gets something from this topic   :smileystooges:

I got two.

1- Why are longbows all long?

2- Why are recurve bows called recurve bows? Why not just curved bows? Where they done over?

Im sure Terry is gonna hook em up!

Jim, there's always the ever so popular "Who likes metal risered trad bows?" or "Is a hybrid really a longbow?" LOL

Wow read my last post and I need spell check. Shawn

LOL Lewis.

How about "Do instinctive shooters really shot instinctively shoot or do they shoot point of aim"


Shawn Sir, I already put that in the suggestion quiver. For long replies it's beter to do on word then after spell check copy and paste.

Tip of my hat to ya Sir George....nicely worded. We shall agree to respect each other and each shoot the arrows of his own choosing.

imho, Carbon express discontinued the most durable arrow created when they dumped the terminator hunter line...heavy, both a medium and stiff spine, tough as a russian dock worker. Got me a stockpile I'm real careful with. Next in line would be the newer axis varieties...have had good luck the (again discontinued) beman mfx max4's. Again, heavy, available in multiple spines, very tough. Mushrooming these are pretty tough to do. I can do it sometimes, but then my grandmother used to say I could tear up a bowling ball.

Now, you tell me where to find some 25year old POC (cuz ain't nobody gonna convince me the current crop is as good) that spines 90-95#, and I'll help you tune up some carbons that weigh want you want  :thumbsup:  

Shawn, you may have an exceptionally smooth release...I on the other hand have a poor release and a deep hook like a hammer. I desperately need the stiff spines and heavy FOC to get my arrows to fly like I want. If I can see anything other than a nock as it's flying, something is wrong. The spines you often recommend are 10-20# too light for me. That's why I say there are just too many varibles (bow centershot, shooter, point weight etc.) to accurately make the call for everyone. I wish I had it down to the science you have for making your choices. But for me carbons are a trail and error and until we learn more about them (and the danged manufacturers come to a standard), I think that's what we are left with in most cases.

Now, as for serious questions, just how much wood CAN a woodchuck chuck?

Is now a good time for a group hug?    :p

I could hug George, but I don't think I could get my arms around you Dave....   :p

:biglaugh:

My wife says, "don't hug him till you check his teeth."      :saywhat:

OK, to stir the pot....

Jim's original question was how come the carbon mfr's don't have a nifty chart where you can pick your shaft length/point combo, match it to your draw weight/draw length, and go to town...
Easton Aluminum has (after a Wikipedia search) 68YEARS of data to build upon, whereas the carbon industry (with constant changes) hasn't built up that data, and probably won't until "advances" slow down.  The physical properties of Aluminum have probably not changed much in 68 years....
George, I'll agree that it's EASY to put together a good heavy arrow together with aluminum.  I use them.  And it's easy to get them into the "Heavy FOC" range (as opposed to EFOC), if you care about that stuff....
I also have been playing with EFOC and carbon arrows...just because I feel that if I can gain advantage for something tougher than my "standard" whitetails and turkeys, it may be useful someday....but I ain't throwin' away my aluminum....
Business practices are different today than when Mr Easton started, and marketers look at a product line with a microscope, so if they feel they can make more money with 3-4 shafts and FORCE customers to tune an arrow to the bow, rather than the other way around, that's the way it'll stay...and they'll bring out a "new improved" version before everybody's figured out the current crop....
So let's really toss a fly in the soup....why hasn't anyone revived fiberglass arrows?  One of the reason carbon is so expensive is that there is a lot of demand (and limited supply) for carbon in a lot of different manufacturing fields.  SOMEONE surely has data tucked away on fiberglass arrows.  Grizzly Stiks started with Ed going to a fishing rod manufacturer and having them whip something up for him...seems that fiberglass arrows could find "new life" with all the heavier weight/EFOC efforts.....

By the way, I support BOTH JC and George's position.  The EFOC thing is great, and I think that improving the efficacy of our chosen projectile is important...but sometimes, a fella can feel like less than resposible for going after a whitetail with something less than a 650gr, EFOC arrow...
I read a story once by Jack O'Connor, where a disgruntled customer had sent a letter to Nosler bullets because one of their Partitions had failed to completely penetrate an animal.  Mr Nosler's reply was "at what point in the animal's death did the bullet fail?"

As Terry Green has said, sometimes we just need to go huntin'......

I am not for sure on this but I think that alot of the mushrooming (insert pushed back into arrow)that people see on carbons is due to glue failure. I have not had this problem with my CX arrows and inserts that I have instaled.

When I instal inserts I square the end of the shaft, clean inside of shaft with wire brush (rifle cleaning brush), clean insert with sand paper, and use AAE Fastset Gel to glue inserts in. With this system I have found that the good thing is they don't come out and the bad thing is they won't come out.

Steve

Fatman good points. I guess with all the Olympic style shooters who dress prim and proper at shoots, the manufacturers think trad or even wheely shooters for that matter should pray and be lucky to grab the table scraps.   :readit: )
Speaking now of "Fibreglass" arrows, does the weather have any effect on them. Would they have to be stored more cautiously then carbons?

Steve good practice.   :bigsmyl:   :bigsmyl:

QuoteOriginally posted by JC:


imho, Carbon express discontinued the most durable arrow created when they dumped the terminator hunter line...heavy, both a medium and stiff spine, tough as a russian dock worker. Got me a stockpile I'm real careful with.

I second this.  

Of all the carbons I've tried, I like CX Terminator Hunters best. I too have a stash of both 4560's and 6075's that I'm hoarding.

a 29.5" 4560 with 3-4" vanes, 50 grain insert, and 125 grain point comes out to 525 grains and flies great from all my bows from 50#-55#. Even though I primarily shoot alums, I always have a couple of these in the quiver.

a 30" 6075 flies quite well from the heavier of my recurves, but I pretty much reserve these arrows for my 60# Caribou that I shoot barebow/fingers...

Jim, I wouldn't think FRP would have any inherent problems with the "elements"...they make boats and septic tanks out of it, hard to think us lil' ol' Tradgangers could come up with anything worse....  :knothead:  
Jon, that right there is the shame of the whole thing, and we "traditionalists" may be the victims of the overall "whack 'em & stack 'em" marketing philosophy that says you gotta have the latest and greatest....
If you find something that works, better stock up, 'cause they'll discontinue it soon.....  :banghead:

Jon, holler if you find any 60/75's you don't want   :D  

Kevin, as soon as I found they were discontinuing the mfx max 4 for a lighter shaft, I bought 4doz (all I could find) at a discounted bulk price. Seems the guy couldn't sell them cause they were "last years arrows".   :eek:

I'm going to break down and buy some .600 carbons, because I think there is some blurry wrting on the wall. It tells me that Easton will, bit by bit, began dropping some of the types and sizes of their alums. they have already done that in some of their aluminums already. That's why GGs only come in four sizes. Since folks are learning to tune more, And I'm guessing that they will also need treat alums much like carbons in the future.-Pup

I wish they offered more choices, too.  I can't shoot a reasonable weight carbon out of my 45lb recurve, because 35/55's and 150's simply will not shoot; way underspined.  So I have to go to a 55/75 or 250, heavily front loaded because it is too stiff.  Now I have an arrow that's about 13-14grns per pound, which is more than I want for general purpose, although it would be fine for elk, I guess.  Lots of guys get caught in spine no-man's land with carbon.

Paul, have you tried axis 400 heavy loaded or 500 normal? What about Arrow Dynamics (not the trad line if you want light). Carbon tech makes some very light/tough/stiff arrows for high foc if you are looking for some alternatives to get in the 450gr range. There's a ridiculous number of manufacturers...I'm pretty confident you can find an arrow that's within 10-20 gr of what you are looking for....you just may have to look a little to find it.

Fatman we use FRP pipe all the time. Now just to shrink it down to shaft size.

With all the issues I'm hearing of people who are having problems with carbons and or woods, I guess for someone so lucky as I am to have them both tune well out of my bows it a wonder I even started this topic.   :thumbsup:

JC: I've only tried the Carbon Express and Gold Tips.  I was so frustrated with them that I gave up trying to get a light spine carbon to shoot.  I really would be looking to get around 500grns, since my 45lb bow is probably 49lbs at my draw.  Both the above mentioned arrows would hit sideways left with even 100grn points, at 30".  At 20 yards, they would swerve so far right that they missed my bag target!  I have been thinking of trying the Axis arrows; I hear good things about them.  However, it's just so easy to find good shooting aluminums that I tend to stay with them.  Thanks, Paul.

Just when I got the aluminum charts figured out, the carbons came along with all these different numbering schemes.  I must say, they are confusing at first.  It is a different material with different characteristics.  Most of the characteristics are very well suited for archery and bowhunting.  The manufacturers are just starting to target trad bows with some carbons.  For now it's take it or leave it I suppose.  I lucked out with my choice of carbons in Carbon Express Heritage but some won't choose that.  It won't be long until carbon arrows have the diverse spines that aluminums have.

I shoot a Widow PTFV 62" 43# @ 28". I draw 30" so at that length I shoot at approximately 49#. I've tried all materials and the best performance I get is with GT 55/75 that are 30-1/2" from throat of knock to back of point. On my scale, with 125 gr. field points they come in at 441gr. which is lighter than I like. They are extremely fast out of the bow and fly perfectly but because of the light weight the bow is a bit noisy. I have some 175 gr. points coming and hope I don't lose my arrow flight when I gain the weight I want.

Terry, I sent you an email regarding the AD shafts.  Thanks...Mike

Good discussion. I can't really add anything accept to comment on the issue of carbon "mushrooming". IMO, a good slow curing epoxy must be used on carbons intended for hard use such as stumping. Using "regular" adhesives commonly used for aluminums or hot melt is begging for trouble.