I have noticed that the Easton spine charts generally recommend a higher spine than will shoot well out of my bow. For example, for my bow (55#@28", 29"arrow, 145gr tip), I get good flight from a 2016, but the chart, as well as the local pro shop, say I should be shooting a 2115 or 2117. Any thoughts as to why the chart lists a higher spine?
How far's your bow out from centre? The further out from centre the weaker the spine you'll need.
Brace height? Lower brace heights make an arrow appear too stiff.
String material?
Silencers?
Those charts are a suggestion for arrows,but for me I don't use them.There are so many variables with today traditional bows these days.How the riser is cut,string material,bow setup,the persons draw length so I can't see how accurate those charts can be for everyone,they are usally not.
thanks for the feedback. I thought there was some sort of "rule of thumb" for trad bows. I will just stick to what works and ignore the wheel-bow experts at the store.... Can't go wrong with that.
I had the same problem with the current Easton chart, despite using the recurve specs. I was led to 2216 shafts for my 55#@28.5 K-Mag, but they were way too stiff. I am now using some 2016's with 100grn brass inserts and 125 grn tips that fly a lot better. After bareshafting I wound up cutting these to 30 inches.
Someone here gave me some of their old arrows and I was able to try the 2016's and some 3555 Goldtip carbons with 50grn inserts plus 20grn footings. Both of those were immediately better than what the current Easton chart had led me to.
Interestingly, if you look on the Shooter's Forum section here, you will see some older Easton charts, and for your bow and mine, the 2016 comes out as one of the recomendations.
Go figure.