Now available for order in 62" and 58" Front or Belly Mount. A few minor changes were made to the limb pads and the tips have a little more curve in them than the prototype did. Fastest bow Arvid has made to date, quiet and smooth. Looks funky but shoots like a dream!
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f311/vermonster13/KinkyLimbs014.jpg)
Looks wild with those curves!
that's awesome! looks like a keeper!
My analytical side makes me wonder what is the driving force behind the speed? Do the extra curves cause a dual pivot causing a more efficient working "arm" or "lever"? I'm no engineer, does someone have a more accurate answer?
I like different and this definitely fits the bill!
Yeah! That's the bow I saw pictured when it was still a prototype. All I could see really well was the lower limb and it made me think of one of my old Osage snakey Character bows.
Coool! In a very space age sorta way now that I can see the whole bow.
Thanks for showing it off to us.
God bless,Mudd
I'll have the force draw curve work up and efficiency work up in a few days or so. My guess is this bow is going to break the 90% mark.
Now that is one weird looking recurve. :clapper:
Good to see Arvid is going ahead with that desgin.It was a dream to shoot.
Is he sending you a hunting weight testbow?
This is the new one Rich. 48@30 on this riser, 53@30 on the back-mount. The riser didn't come out looking as black as it should because of the overcast and snow I guess.
Oh nice...I didn't even realize that was the new design riser.Can't wait to try 'er out. :thumbsup:
Really cool! Can't wait to here some reviews.
Put a couple of twists in that string and you have a longbow.
Bowmania
Man, I love the looks of your bows, specially the sniper (which isn't on the site anymore???), but I'm not sure I could get used to that. But if it's smooth and fast, who cares? :bigsmyl:
Looks like a snake, just needs some skins :)
The one-piece bows are being updated for the new exotic handles. They are still available for order.
That string is barley touching the limb. I think an extra 1/2in or so of brace height would completely eliminate string slap, making the bow much quieter. The loss of speed from 1/2in of brace height isn't much and would probably be well worth the sound reduction.
You would be wrong on the 1/2" of brace taking the string of the limb. Looks can be deceiving. The prototype could be braced to be a hybrid, this one has more curve at the end than you may think. It's actually very quiet also.
To add to my post, it looks like you have yarn wrapped around the end of the string to reduce string slap. I think you lose just as much speed if not more from that than you would from 1/2-1in extra brace height.
Sorry, I posted at the same time as you did. How much extra brace height would be needed to get the string off the limb? I wonder what the difference in speed would be with the higher brace height vs lower and yarn on the neck of the string.
The yarn didn't really make much difference, but I put it on all my recurves and you don't know until it's on. The limbsavers I put on as cheap insurance on all my keeper bows.
The brace is already at 8.75" on this riser. To get the string off the limb you need to brace it around 11.5" on this riser. It's fine right where it is now. When I want to shoot a longbow, I have those too.
Looking at the design I think I know why the wave is making it more efficient. The first half of the limb(coming of the riser) is a short deflex reflex longbow limb. This short deflex reflex limb reflexs almost all the way back to in line with the fades. It forms sorta a c shape which is very stiff and why we use deflex reflex in longbows. The second half is just a recurve lever that smooths out the draw and allows the first half to reflex so far. So this allows you to store more energy. The forward riser and outer levers make the bow draw smoothly. The ceramic matrix, carbon, and foam also help with efficiency. So Arvid good job on the design. This is just my theory on why the limbs work. What were you thinking of when you came up with them?
Wow 11.5! I know a way to get the string off the limbs without changing stability or brace height but I can't give away all my secrets. To comment on my theory the only way to really know is to see unstrung, strung, and full draw photo's, maybe some slow motion video too. BTW I put limbsavers on my bows too in case of a dry fire, broken nock, and just to prevent stress cracks in the long run.
I think I'm in love. Can't wait for the 58 incher. Arvid said that would still be fine at 29-1/2". He said he still needs to do a little more testing on the ILF(DAS) platform. Hows the spine working out at 90% plus, need new arrows?
Wild looking bow!Cant wait to hear more about it. :thumbsup:
I'm not Arvid. I just take care of things for him on the web nowadays. He's a good friend of mine and I help him with testing and such. These limbs were actually designed on a super computer back when he was a lead engineer for a large computer company. He has another similar design the computer did that is supposed to be even faster in theory but won't be as smooth. These limbs are extremely stable and tortionally strong. An excellent design if the looks don't scare you off.
It likes a seriously stiff spine. ACC 300s with 100 up front worked ok until about 28 yards when they showed weak. The CX Trads in the pic had 145 up front and were good out to about the 20 yards that pic was of. I tried some Victory 250s, but at 31" they were way to weak. Seems that some carbons lose spine faster than others.
Neat ! Looks to me like it could have been called the Black Swan Kudu :) Kinda reminds me of Kudu horns.
That looks real similar to Bill Stewart's bow's, they were fast and stable also. I don't think his had as much bend to it. I will be interested in the speeds you are getting.
Weird. Any difference in how it handles heavy vs. light arrows?
I need to experiment some more with it, but it's hard having an arrow stiff enough for my draw and getting some good weight on it so far. I mean having to shoot 300 spine ACCs with 125 up front on a 48@30 bow makes it tough to get 10 grains a pound or more like I like.
Vermonster, are you saying these limbs can be mounted on the belly or back of the riser, depending on the riser's construction. If so, there's nothing else out there like that that I'm aware of.
Looks like another winner for Arvid. I just got my new 56" recurve with the carbon foam limbs and didn't think that could be topped for shootability and scary accuracy. Glad to see the passion for improvement. Give us a review when you get a chance.
QuoteOriginally posted by coaster500:
Looks like a snake, just needs some skins :)
The wave would look killer with skins over it.
Orion I'll post pics of the limbs on a back mount riser tomorrow. They gain 5#s in draw weight when used on that riser. All of Arvid's new limbs are interchangeable between the two risers. It's nice to be able to drop or gain 5#s on a set of limbs just by switching risers and having the grip stay the same.
I know your not Arvid but that your helping him out. Engineered by a computer. I wonder what it's reasoning was for that limb design. Do you happen to know what the design was that would be faster? Also when you mean smooth do you mean linear draw force curve or flat? I like the draw force curve as flat as possible so that other design might be perfect for me.
Sorry that should say "Do you happen to know what the design was that would be faster than the wave?"
I know the reasons and for now need to keep them to myself. Never know when another new design may be coming out of Tucson. ;)
Arvid wrote the program that the computer crunched the numbers on to arrive at this design by the way.
Any chance black swan will make one of the other faster designs in the future?
Arvid has never been known to not push the envelope. Like in all things though, you have to make some money to raise R&D money. The tester is ready to go through the process as always. lol
LOL thanks for the info.
Thats a ugly bow I what one :D . Those limbs are cool looking and I bet that would gain some attention on the bow range.
I would like to see a full draw pic....if that is possible
Pretty funky!
Great another bow,I can't wait.
QuoteOriginally posted by Jethro21:
I would like to see a full draw pic....if that is possible
http://tradgang.com/noncgi/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=083456#000000
or here-
http://tradgang.com/noncgi/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=085096;p=2
Amazing to see the technology is improving the traditional archery.
Those pics are actually the prototype. I'll see if I can get some pics of the finished model at draw this weekend.
I like a wom, oops I mean bow, with curves! Now what do I sell to find the money....hmmm
Interesting bow design! Would love to shoot one someday to see how it feels!
When I read the title I thought maybe they were coming out with a surf board! LOL!
Well I really liked the Kudu name myself but PSE has that one taken so Wave pretty much described the look well and there it is.
Just send her to me Dave... I'll get a picture of it at 32"+......... I have some 35" - 115# spine woodies it might challenge.....
BobW
Here it is on the back mount riser.
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f311/vermonster13/KinkyLimbs015.jpg)
I think I like it better on that riser. :thumbsup: Do you have a picture of what that bow looks like un-braced and how much centershot is on the riser?
Both risers are cut to center. I don't have an unstrung pic of this one yet.
Very interesting. Don't know of any other bow in which the same limbs can be mounted on the back or belly of the riser, even if it is a different riser. Wasn't there a bow builder several years ago who built a similar limb on a one piece recurve? Called them duo-somethings. Can''t remember the bowyer or the bow.
Mon River and Bill Stewart both made limbs with much less "Wave" in them but a similar look to them.
Also someone asked about heavy arrows, those Alaskans weigh 675 grains and fly real well from 30 yards.
This bow will be at the JLMBH Saturday for anyone who wants to shoot it. I'll have both risers to try also.
Will it be priced the same?
Yes. $950 for the alloy riser (either one) and starts at $950 for exotic wood risers.
Really cool i must say. The ideas that i see around here are just outstanding makes me wish i could make a bow myself.
I really like the looks of that belly mount riser bow. I will be waiting for reports of it while I am deciding what to sell.
Got to shoot it at the JLMBH, and wow is all I can say. Heck, smooth doesn't cut it. That thing is like butta'. I made the mistake of shooting the r/d longbow model after riding The Wave. Now, I've found all the black swan models I've shot to be exceptionally smooth, but not after having The Wave in my hands. And the longbow was several pounds lighter if I remember correctly. What a bow!!!
That wave is crazy, you start the draw and it lessens, then just kind'a builds to a very manageable smoothness, and its quick.Wacky looking but very nice to shoot. Dave thanks for bring it to the bunny hunt!!!!!
That thing is wild1 I would seriously like to see the F/D curve. I swear, it looks like something you might see in Popular Mechanics!
Unbelievably smooth on the draw, and truthfully, once it's in your hands and you shoot it, you forget all about the double wave in the limbs......
Thanks for bringing it along Dave and letting us try it out.
David
Are these bows for sale yet?
I believe that I saw one at Shawn Leonards this weekend. It shot great and was whisper quiet.
I have been told several have been ordered so yes its for sell. Just call them up and order.
Does anyone have tests on the bow yet? I wonder what it shoots at AMO standards. I'd also like to look at the draw force curve.
It is available to order. Several are being sent out tomorrow as a matter of fact.
I'll be posting the force draw curves later tonight.
Will have the new wood riser next week also for folks to see.
For the AMO, I'll wait for Mullaney to do his reports. :D
Ok here is a question I just thought of. Don't some states check legality for hunting by the marked weight? How are the limbs marked? I guess the question is, are they marked for both the belly and back mount risers?
So you can get a wood riser model soon too?
They will be marked for the riser you order them with.
Yes wood riser soon.
Is the wood rise back mount?
Will the wood ones be available in one piece?
QuoteOriginally posted by K. Mogensen:
Will the wood ones be available in one piece?
A 1pc wave would be sweet
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f311/vermonster13/wavlimbfdc1b.jpg)
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f311/vermonster13/wavlimbfdc2b.jpg)
Probably will do a 1 piece in the near future. Right now just finished the molds for the 58" limbs and is in the process of getting the 3 piece wood riser up and running.
Any word on suggested brace height for the belly vs the back mount?
7-7.5" for back mount. 8-8.5" for belly mount.
I personally can attest to the smoothness and Speed a true joy to shoot.Big Ed
It handles the long draws pretty well.
It was interesting to see the faces when they shot this bow. "Smooth" was the first word out of every shooters mouth.
you gonna send one to walk the talk? I'd like to shoot one there.
That would be up to Arvid.
The bow is quiet to folks. Smooth and fast don't matter much if it isn't quiet. :)
I very much wanted to shoot that bow, but I completely forgot it was going to be there. Didnt seem to get to say hi to you either Dave, and Im sorry about that.
Looks like a very interesting bow.
Sent you a PM Jamie. No worries.
if you want to send one, I will be there with L82HUNT we would love to bring it even for you.
Vermonster, thats a sizeable difference in brace height. A simple minded person like myself would be inclined to believe that the back mount would have far better speed ratings at a 28" draw than the belly mount model. Am I correct that the back mount is only offered in the metal riser currently? Sorry about all the questions. Your probably getting tired of me but I get excited about a new speed bow :scared: :scared: :scared:
The wood riser is going to be back mount only, so you can choose wood or alloy. The belly mount is alloy only to keep the riser stiff enough for the limbs. VtMtnMan and I spent the day shooting the waves on the back mount riser yesterday. We were shooting AD Big Games on it with 100 grain points. It made a 50@28 bow. The back mount is the way to go for 28" and under draws for serious speed. It has 3" more power-stroke and is very efficient for medium to short draws. The belly mount shines for longer draws. Either will work for either draw, but they are more efficient for different draw lengths.
Looks like Arvid has created another shooter :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
That does look really smooth out to 28 but then it gains 3# per inch out to 32. Isn't 3# per inch pretty normal for a 60# bow? Maybe not to 32in but out to 30? Wouldn't that make it stacky for a 45# bow? Do you have amo testing for this bow? I'd like to see the draw force curve for a bow that's 60#@30in. It'll still probably be pretty smooth but I don't know how the testing at the lighter draw weights correlates to the draw force curve at 60#. Also do you know the speed at AMO specs?
3# an inch is pretty normal for most bows. The back mount riser will give a real efficient/fast bow for 30" and less draws. The Bellymount will be good out to 32" and beyond. With an ILF bow you set the preload on the limbs to match draw length, these risers will do that for draw length through design.
Won't be charting a 60# bow anytime soon. The chart should track the same as this though. The AMO numbers will be done up once a few other projects get done or when Herb M gets done with his testing.
I don't think you could find a stiff enough arrow to test it 60@30".Even at 50@28" we had to use a 30" .250 spine arrow. :eek:
QuoteOriginally posted by vtmtnman:
I don't think you could find a stiff enough arrow to test it 60@30".Even at 50@28" we had to use a 30" .250 spine arrow. :eek:
that's stiff... sure you can find a stiff enough arrow. 2614 with no tip full length..... Heavy enough and stiff enough
And have half way decent FOC/mass...it'd be a chore.
This bow 50@28" would blow through any deer around.
The mold for the 56" Wave limbs was finished today so now it is available in 62", 58" and 56". :)
What is the recommended max draw for the 56"?
Has Arvid tried the limbs on the DAS platform yet? Good news on the 56", that would make a 60" on a seventeen inch riser
At this point he is holding off on doing an ILF with these, he'd have to change the limb butts to work on a DAS.
You'll be fine with a 56" at your draw Greg.
Thanks Dave. Now to make the call. So this bow is faster than the hybrid? All I can say is I am anxious to shoot one and get it on high speed video.
Looking at the charts, the bow is only 34#@28in. Don't most 34# bows pull 1-2# per inch from 20-28? I don't think that light draw weights can accurately represent the true smoothness of the draw on this bow.
I read on another forum that this bow is shooting over 210Amo. Is this true? If so how much over? I know that fedora has a bow shooting 218Amo. Would this bow be faster?
I see from the f/d curve that it actually dips below the line that would be generated by plotting a simple linear spring. Compared to the f/d curves of other hybrid longbows the Wave does have an early increase in draw weight and energy storage but then gives that up and actually loses some energy storage later in the draw. Is this trade off in performance what gives it the feeling of smoothness later in the draw?
QuoteOriginally posted by Bender:
I see from the f/d curve that it actually dips below the line that would be generated by plotting a simple linear spring. Compared to the f/d curves of other hybrid longbows the Wave does have an early increase in draw weight and energy storage but then gives that up and actually loses some energy storage later in the draw. Is this trade off in performance what gives it the feeling of smoothness later in the draw?
Trade off in performance? I wouldnt call 90-92% a trade off.
Send it in to walk the talk
Even if it is delivering 92% of its stored energy to a 9gpp AMO test arrow (I have yet to see any test results) the f/d curve indicates that it is actually storing less energy than it could have.
Its also one thing to store energy and another to utilize it. It seems like an awful lot of mass to move to me. Light and efficient should be much more productive. Those limbs look heavy .
The limbs are carbon/carbon foam/ceramic, they aren't heavy.
Guys a dozen people shot this bow at JLMBH and all commented on how smooth, quiet and fast it is. That was good enough feed back for me, these are folks with a lot of experience shooting for the most part.
Those carbon foam and ceramic limbs are amazing. Where do you get the materials? I think its amazing that one of those bows pulled to 45in with no damage. I wonder how a hill style bow would perform with those materials.
The materials are proprietary Jesse(Arvid was a DOD contractor and has some serious contacts). The 45" bow was a 62" Curve with reverse cut nocks so it wouldn't unstring.
The AMO numbers were tried when the rain broke in AZ earlier this week, but the trap was giving troubles and needs to be recalibrated. Numbers were too high to be right.
Is this the options available?
Length- 56", 58", 62"
Risers -alum. belly mt,alum back mt,wood back mt
Ok I have a 56" Belly Mount Wave on order. And the wait built quickly. It's about 3 months now, but will be well worth the wait!
"the fastest bow Arvid has made to date"
I see no speed data, and all this stiff arrow stuff seams like smoke and mirrors as a hunch I took a compound moved the draw stops set it to zero let off draw weight at sixty pounds and paper tuned with a 29" 340 no problem Oh with fingers.
mistaken holding weight on the bow was 42lbs
I am starting to wonder if this bow can cure cancer or fix my leaking roof and 3# per inch of draw gain isnt smooth it is the norm inside of 30" on most bows ,unless a bow is built to be shot by a fella or woman with a short draw
I don't see the bow listed on the website. Where is it listed?
It will be a bit before it is on the website. They are working on getting it on the site.
I guess I have a bit of time to find some arrows for this bow. I look forward to shooting it. I also will work on my camera setup to make sure I can capture some high speed photos of my release and form and bow action.
I'm just still waiting for my hybrid to get done!
I have a one piece hybrid and its a great bow! It is light in the hand, fast, quiet and shoots great.
Tyee, if you have shot a black swan you'll see it is not smoke and mirrors. If you don't have something positive to say then back off.
QuoteOriginally posted by Bob L.:
Send it in to walk the talk
I second that, send it in to WTT. Lets see what she'll really do.
Herb Mullaney has been doing this for a long time as has Blacky. We'll stick with them for independent testing.
There can be faster bows made but I like to shoot mine more than a dozen times. Alot of those speed bows are not sold to the public because they are not durable enough. These Black Swans are not fragile. They are tough as nails for years of hunting.
QuoteOriginally posted by vermonster13:
We'll stick with them for independent testing.
Independent because they get paid? Its their job and they do it well.
"There can be faster bows made but I like to shoot mine more than a dozen times. Alot of those speed bows are not sold to the public because they are not durable enough. These Black Swans are not fragile. They are tough as nails for years of hunting."
You need to check the results from last year. There's a bow called the Centaur which a customer sent in, that is sold to the public and was at the top of the event. I hear it is pretty durable.
Yes they are professionals and know how to standardize testing and they get published. If you guys want a bow you can order one from Arvid. I don't sell them, he does.
250 spine? I know of two arrows of that kinda spine what arrow was used? A 250 spine would be close to 125 lb spine. This can not be needed on any trad bow that is 50# .It is just physics
and if the bow hasnt been tuned and no arrows can be found to shoot out of it how do we know it is the fastest ever produced. And of course no mention of Bill Stewart here who originated this design 30 years ago.
I already own one Black Swan bow. It is a one piece hybrid and it is fantastic. Also, to set the record straight, I didn't see anyone say this bow is the 'fastest ever produced'. If I remember right, the statement was 'fastest Arvid has made'. I might be misremembering though. Anyway, I have mine on order and I am excitedly waiting for it. Thanks Vermonster13 for sharing your opinions on this bow. I am sure it will be fun to shoot.
Fasted Arvid has produced is correct, but the above still holds true as far as tuning
QuoteOriginally posted by tyee:
250 spine? I know of two arrows of that kinda spine what arrow was used? A 250 spine would be close to 125 lb spine. This can not be needed on any trad bow that is 50# .It is just physics
and if the bow hasnt been tuned and no arrows can be found to shoot out of it how do we know it is the fastest ever produced. And of course no mention of Bill Stewart here who originated this design 30 years ago.
On page 4 I mention both Bill Stewart and Mon River who had similar but much less pronounced designs. I also draw 3o+" on this bow and carbons seem to lose spine much quicker at longer lengths than aluminums.
missed the Stewart on 4 my fault there but you said you shot a carbon arrow 250 spine.There is only two arrows that I know of that spine at 250 full metal jacket dangerous game 250. and 2712 tha is it the 2712 spines at 260. the fmj has carbon with alum and of course a 2712 isnt carbon so I eat crow for sure on the Bill Stewart comment as for tuning I stand by my remarks but what shaft you used would add insight. Also as for carbon loosing spine faster I just tested that
a 31 inch 2117 400 deflection and a beman ics hunter 400 deflection 31 inches spanned 2 pound weight center point movement was the same, but a interesting note on this is the shaft with the larger diameter would loose a touch less in terms of spine because diameter pushes it out from the riser so I think that with that said a carbon would loose spine faster or to say it right a skinny shaft would loose spine faster than a large one
I did not shoot these bows through a chrono at the Bunny Hunt, But I can honestly tell you that they performed very well with my Axis 300 with 200 grns up front. Very impressive to say the least. As with any other invention, many will contradict, many will copy, most will not give recognition. It is what makes bowyers that push the envelope to keep driving forward. We are not talking of breaking the speed of sound, but trying to make the most efficient equipment available. Shoot what works and makes you happy, Just my 2 cents, Big Ed
The shafts are ACC 300s and Victory 250s. These where shot with the limbs mounted on the back mount riser and with a 7" brace pulling about 56# at my draw.
Thanks Ed. The limbs were on the Belly mount at JLMBH and shot the Grizzly Alaskans with 200 up front pretty well. The bow scales 48 at 30 on that riser.
Thanks Ed.
By the way Tyee, did you spine test the arrows spaced at 30" or 28". I am saying longer carbon shafts seem to have less spine than longer aluminum shafts.
"You need to check the results from last year. There's a bow called the Centaur which a customer sent in, that is sold to the public and was at the top of the event. I hear it is pretty durable."
I did look at that thread and you are correct. Very impressive. If you go back through the traditional bowhunter magazines and look at the bow reviews you will see the Centaur and the Black Swan are within a fps of each other. The tests done by Blacky are the most standardized of any I have seen. The fastest bow I have read his review on is the Predator recurve which was one fps faster than the ACS and 2 fps faster than the Black Swan. I know Centaurs are nice durable bows as are many others. Nobody said this was the fastest bow made only the fastest Arvid has made to date. I am sorry if I have offended anyone.
I spined the arrows at 29.75 inches read my post carefully and you will see a basically agreed with you on the carbon loosing spine deal they don't loose spine any faster because they are carbon it is cause they are smaller in diameter
And now alot of things make sense a victory 250 is not 250 spine at all that is just a number designation similar to the numbers on carbon express it has nothing to do with deflection. I believe they are 400 spine I will double check this and report back, easton 300 with 200 up front makes sense and I can see it tuning. grizzstick alaskan is 400 spine as well with that 60grn insert and a 200grn tip I can see that flying out of that bow really well. So something are alot more clear. In the other post made it sound like a arrow spined at 250 wasnt stiff enough well it was a 250 victory that spines at 400 and I can jive with that. so thats it. I would like to try this bow but no test drive and no 30 day buy back
When I get mine maybe we can get together and see how it shoots. I am looking forward to the bow.
sound good Greg
HATCHCHASER What issue was that?
tyee here is victory spines
Arrow Size GPI Spine Length
X-Ringer .250 9.1 .250 30"
X-Ringer .350 7.6 .350 30"
I don't remember which issue. Each bow was in a different issue. I know the Centaur, Black Swan, ACS, and Predator have all been in TBM. I know they have been the fastest tested with Blacky's standards. There are a few more that are real close. And maybe some he tested that did not go into TBM. I know he has a few on his site that I would like to see the numbers on. I have every issue since 2007. Unfortunatley they are packed up in storage cause we just moved.
I know that Centaur's are great bows and Jim is a great guy, I just don't want to wait 14+ months to get a bow and that is why I am looking very heavily into black swan. Just can't decide btw the 1 or 3 piece hybrid or the wave.
My next one will be a classic longbow. :goldtooth:
I won't fall in love with, nor will I discredit the wave until I see some amo testing. Now I will say that a 34#@28 bow pulling 1-2# per inch is nothing special. Almost every 34# bow pulls 1-2# per inch. Pulling 3# per inch from 28-32 shows a sudden increase in the rate of draw weight progression, or stacking. So that would mean the bow is average out to 28 and stacks past that. These numbers lead me to believe that the bow at 60# would pull about 2.5-3.5# per inch to 28(average) and 5.25# per inch from 28-32. 5.25# per inch does not scream smooth to me. Now this is just predicted draw weight progression. AMO testing could prove otherwise, but I won't believe it until I see it.
Blacky\\'s Centaur test click here (http://www.centaurarchery.com/bowreview.htm)
Black Swann test click here (http://www.africanarcher.com/blackSWAN.html)
Predator bow report click here (http://www.bowreports.com/recurve-bows/predator/review-eng.pdf)
i couldn't find Blacky's ACS report. i can't wait to see his review of the new Black Swann.
Jesse, the force draw is plotted out for the same pair of limbs on each of the riser choices. Out to 32" it is 3# an inch on either riser. The risers choice changes the preload. The backmount riser puts more in the riser so draws 28" and less will get a more efficient bow and the bellymount is good out at least to the 32" it was charted to.
Arvid was on the board chaired by Norb Mullaney that wrote the AMO specs by the way.
That's Norb Mullaney--not Herb.
Thanks for catching that Chad. Fixed it.
this is an interesting first for me ...
a hybrid 55# longbow with a centershot shelf that demands 75#-100# spine arrows?
what am i missing?
It's a recurve.
QuoteOriginally posted by vermonster13:
It's a recurve.
ok, a recurve it is - wasn't sure by looking at the pics if only the loops touched the limb nocks.
still, that's a buncha spine for such a low holding weight bow. why does this bow require so much arrow spine, particularly if its center shot? i have 50-55# near center shot longbows that work well with carbons no stiffer than .500 35-50#.
This bow is a 41@29 Hybrid shooting CX Heritage 250 which spines at .373 with 175 grain tips. The bow shouldn't be able to shoot that but(a bunch of folks shot this bow at ETAR including Chad Holms).
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f311/vermonster13/ETAR036w.jpg)
I don't know the why, but the Swans tend to handle heavy spines well.
Longer arrows makes a big difference. I have a black swan 45@30" and I am shooting mfx 400's full lenth with a 250 grain head and they are a little weak. I might feel comfortable cutting a half inch off and that could make up the difference. A 29" carbon acts alot stiffer than a 31.5". I like to shoot arrows no shorter than 31". With a solid 30" draw and a big hand I don't want the broadhead touching my finger.
QuoteOriginally posted by vermonster13:
This bow is a 41@29 Hybrid shooting CX Heritage 250 which spines at .373 with 175 grain tips. The bow shouldn't be able to shoot that but(a bunch of folks shot this bow at ETAR including Chad Holms).
I don't know the why, but the Swans tend to handle heavy spines well.
I've been following this thread, mostly because I'm very confused about what's being discussed here with respect to arrow spine. Here's what you posted earlier...
QuoteOriginally posted by vermonster13:
It likes a seriously stiff spine. ACC 300s with 100 up front worked ok until about 28 yards when they showed weak. The CX Trads in the pic had 145 up front and were good out to about the 20 yards that pic was of. I tried some Victory 250s, but at 31" they were way to weak. Seems that some carbons lose spine faster than others.
If the bow was slightly weak with ACC .300 spine shafts and 100grain tips, how could it shoot OK with CX shafts spinning .373 with 175-grain tips? The CXs are a lot weaker, and you were using a heavier tip. And how then could a Victory 250 (which spines at .250) be even weaker still?
QuoteOriginally posted by rastaman:
Blacky\\'s Centaur test click here (http://www.centaurarchery.com/bowreview.htm)
Black Swann test click here (http://www.africanarcher.com/blackSWAN.html)
Predator bow report click here (http://www.bowreports.com/recurve-bows/predator/review-eng.pdf)
i couldn't find Blacky's ACS report. i can't wait to see his review of the new Black Swann.
I have the ACS Report and it is 1fps slower than the predator.
QuoteOriginally posted by Jason R. Wesbrock:
QuoteOriginally posted by vermonster13:
This bow is a 41@29 Hybrid shooting CX Heritage 250 which spines at .373 with 175 grain tips. The bow shouldn't be able to shoot that but(a bunch of folks shot this bow at ETAR including Chad Holms).
I don't know the why, but the Swans tend to handle heavy spines well.
I've been following this thread, mostly because I'm very confused about what's being discussed here with respect to arrow spine. Here's what you posted earlier...
QuoteOriginally posted by vermonster13:
It likes a seriously stiff spine. ACC 300s with 100 up front worked ok until about 28 yards when they showed weak. The CX Trads in the pic had 145 up front and were good out to about the 20 yards that pic was of. I tried some Victory 250s, but at 31" they were way to weak. Seems that some carbons lose spine faster than others.
If the bow was slightly weak with ACC .300 spine shafts and 100grain tips, how could it shoot OK with CX shafts spinning .373 with 175-grain tips? The CXs are a lot weaker, and you were using a heavier tip. And how then could a Victory 250 (which spines at .250) be even weaker still? [/b]
Jason that is a different bow. I was just putting it up to show that the Swans tend to like higher spines. It is a hybrid and 41@29. The Wave that liked the 250s is 51@29.
dave, what are the spex of the wave and the hybrid, and what are arrow types, weights and spines that you've found work well with each?
QuoteOriginally posted by vermonster13:
Jason that is a different bow. I was just putting it up to show that the Swans tend to like higher spines. It is a hybrid and 41@29. The Wave that liked the 250s is 51@29.
Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still confused.
I shoot a TradTech Titan with Winex limbs (which are considered very fast) that pulls 56# @ 32" (5# more weight and 3" more draw length than your Wave) and it bare shaft tunes perfect with a .340 and 125-grain heads (plus a 20-grain insert). My Thunderstick MOAB (another top end fast hybrid) pulls 57# @ 32" and bare shaft tunes with the exact same arrows.
How much weight are you putting on the front of a .250 spine shaft to get it flying well out of a bow only pulling 51# @ 29"? In order to get a .300 spine shaft to tune well out of either my Titan or MOAB, I have to put a total of 265 grains up front. I can't imagine how much I'd have to front load a .250.
I'd give even money that if I set up the fastest compound on the market for a finger shooter pulling 51# @ 29" that a .250 shaft and a 125-grain head would still be overspined.
I don't know much about carbon arrows, but if Jason can find someone to take that bet I want in on it.
Ok, I have to admit--I cheated and looked at the chart.
http://www.huntersfriend.com/carbon_arrows/hunting_arrows_selection_guide_chapter_3.htm
Doesn't each individuals release come into play with how a bow tunes with what arrow.
The release can make a difference, but not a huge one. I can't see the absolute best release in the world vs. the absolute worst release in the world, shooting the most unforgiving and finicky bow in the world, making that kind of difference. I haven't shot with Jason, but I would be quite comfortable putting money on him having a good release.
"ACC 300s with 100 up front worked ok until about 28 yards when they showed weak."
That statement has really been puzzling me. How does an arrow--aluminum, carbon, wood, aluminum/carbon composite--loose spine downrange a certain distance?
I think what he is saying is the groups were close enough out to 28 yards that you couldn't infer any tuning issues. At 28 yards, he noticed they started to indicate a weak condition. The further distance you tune from, the finer the tuning. (I guess I assumed he is bareshaft tuning, I don't know)
Wow--if that's the case, he (they?) should be shooting professionally. I'd love to be good enough that I had to back up nearly 30 yds. to do my fine-tuning. :notworthy: I must have it backwards, because for me the feathers have plenty of time to stabilize the arrow by then, unless the spine is WAY off?
Any chance ya'll will be at the IBO Trad World's in TN this year? I won't embarrass myself by trying to shoot beside someone that good, but I do love watching an excellent shooter perform.
I don't think anyone said they were a good shooter. With bareshaft tuning, just keeping it on the bale is good enough. After enough shots the trend becomes apparent. Seems people are reading information into the posts that isn't there. I believe OL Adcock mentions bareshafting is possible out to 70 or 90 yards.
Ok, I missed the bare-shafting part. Back to the first part of my statement--I can only wish I was that good!
If that wasn't the case (bare shaft shooting), can someone explain to me how a shaft looses spine after a certain distance downrange?
Chad
Sounds like this thread is turning into a witchhunt. Let's stick to the sharing of a new bow not picking it apart. Myself included. I don't think anyone is being misleaded about the efficiency of Black Swan bows. They are in the top 5 of the bows I have seen tested in speed and efficiency.
I use bare-shafting when picking arrows and tuning. 30 yds is a long shot bare-shafting. You better have a good release and the arrow spine right, and no wind. You also have to have the right target--a bag target is useless for bare shaft testing.
Just keeping it on the bale isn't good enough to detect spine problems, especially if it takes 28 yds for them to show up. For that to be the case, you have to be a very consistent shooter.
Bare shafting with such stiff arrows makes the feat even more amazing, if that was the case.
I'm just curious--read quite a bit on this thread that I've never seen in person, or even heard of before. It's quite intriguing.
I can't speak for the longer draws, but there has to be something to that with this bow. I shot this particular Wave bow over the weekend and with my 27" draw, I found a Beman MFX400 full length with standard aluminum insert, 300 gr head, 4x4" low profile on a onestringer wrap was pretty close. Since I only had it for the weekend, I didn't want to spend the time perfecting arrow tune but just get some close enough to play with it.
However, I could tell that I wasn't getting into the real "sweet spot" of this bow's power curve at only 27". Over drawing it past my normal anchor to 28 and then maybe 28 1/2" it felt like it was just starting to come into it's own. I'm not a student of force curves, only of the purely subjective feel of how a bow shoots/handles, since for me, the paper numbers mean nothing to me in the field. So from my completely unscientific but first hand testing, I think this bow will shoot completely differently @ 30+ than at 27-28". It certainly did for me.
And Chad, though I'm certainly no IBO caliber shooter, I find it pretty easy to bareshaft tune out to at least 30...sometimes to 40 if conditions are right and I'm shooting as good as I can. The further out I tune, the better my flight is overall. There is a distinct difference between how my arrows fly when tuned to 20yards and arrows tuned to 30+. There are very minor increments in cutting at this point but the differences show up dramatically at the longer tuning distances.
I just know I am on the list and look forward to tuning mine in a few months. I just hope I don't have to get ANOTHER new target. I got a Black Swan Hybrid and the thing shot the arrows through the target so I had to buy a new one.
Were you shooting the back or belly mount?
It was the back mount....I believe Dave sent me the one in this picture.
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f311/vermonster13/KinkyLimbs015.jpg)
QuoteOriginally posted by LBR:
a bag target is useless for bare shaft testing.
Not to hijack the thread, but why would this be? Using OL's method of relational bareshafting, what difference would the target matter? I use a dirt mound but only because that's what I got....but can't see any reason why target type would make any difference unless you weren't using the relational method (where it's the difference between the location of impact of the bareshaft vs. the fletched shaft).
The arrow doesn't stay still at impact in a bag target.
The way I bare shaft, and if I understand it correctly the way O.L. describes it (Don Stokes showed me some years ago), you pay attention to your nock end position as well as where the arrow hits the target. Can't do that with a bag, or just any target. You need a soft foam target that allows the arrow to penetrate and stay in the target at the same angle it impacts, at least to get an accurate reading.
That's interesting...when I read about OL's method on his website nock position had nothing to do with it...it was totally how the bareshaft lands in relation to the fletched shaft. That's why I switched to the relational method. My nocks are always nock left and high, no matter what the spine of my arrow. However, using the relational method I get real tuning results.
From OL's site "Some how, bad information has been passed down from archer to archer for many years on the correct method to bare shaft tune. Some might be familiar with, or heard of a technique of bare shaft testing that requires getting close to your target and analyzing nock left/right/up/down patterns for tuning purposes; That is not a good method and causes great confusion! Bare shafts sticking in a target at an angle or flying through the air sideways can be caused by shooter as well as equipment and you can not tell the difference reliably. The correct way is bare shaft "planing"; Determining adjustments based on bare shaft groups in relation to identical fletched shafts at longer distances. A fletched shaft always goes close to where it's pointed, bare shafts or wide broadheads will not. Nothing in your form can cause this to happen. So by "reading" the relationship between bare shafts or wide broadheads we can fix tuning issues while not allowing form issues to confuse us."
So using this method, the type of target is irrelevant.
The way OL describes it, you ignore nock orientation in the target and only pay attention to where the different arrows (bareshafts/fletched/broadheads) group.
I'm not a great shooter by any stretch of the imagination, but when using the planing method of tuning (aka bareshafting) I can see the difference between arrows that look perfectly tuned at 20 but show issues at 30. Especially if I'm comparing bareshafts with fletched and broadhead arrows at longer distances.
LBR: That statement has really been puzzling me. How does an arrow--aluminum, carbon, wood, aluminum/carbon composite--loose spine downrange a certain distance?
I ditto that question. I don't undestand how a spine can show good out to thirty and then show weak at 30 yards either. That just goes against all my 50 plus years of experience. If it is a valid statement someone ought to explain it so I can understand it and why.
Guess we crossed posts JC
The bow looks interesting. I'd have to shoot it or see some more test results before passing judgement. Is Arvid sending one of these to Blacky?
A spine that shows it's acceptable at 10-20 may be revealed as not at further tuning distances because the tuning difference is magnified at the longer distance. At 20, my tuning may look very close...at 40 I can see it's not as close as it could be. It doesn't lose spine downrange, it's just that the longer range let's you see the tuning differences to a greater degree.
Jeremy, some guys may fall in love with this bow for a number of reasons...but for me, I'll stick with the ones on my rack. That's the great thing about traditional bowhunting and archery today...there's something for everyone.
I stand corrected on OL's tuning method. The way Don explained it has worked well for me. O.L.'s method may be better, but neither is fool-proof, especially at a long distance. The further the distance, the better/more consistent you have to be to get reliable results.
Back to the point: how the heck does an arrow loose spine at 28 yds.? I may be missing something here, but as best I can tell a weak spine is a weak spine, at 5 yds or 50 or 150.
Sure, it will show up more at longer distances (bare shaft), but you also have to be better and more consistent the longer the shot. If your release and anchor is inconsistent, you have unreliable results--those mistakes show up more at longer distances too. The poundage you are pulling will vary by at least a few lbs if you draw short on one and long on the next, plus variations in your release adding to that. That can throw the spine off by itself.
Still haven't heard if there was even a bare shaft shot to begin with. I'm assuming broadheads weren't shot? Is 28 yds a magic number when bare-shafting?
One more time, the arrow doesn't lose spine over the longer distances....you can just see the differences better the further away you go. At 20 let's say my bareshafts land 1" roughly to the right of my fletched shafts. Now, for some, that may be good enough. But now move to 30 and they might be 4-5". I tune a bit more and get it closer...then move to 40...repeat. Now back at 20 it might still be 1" but it's certainly not 4-5" at 30 anymore...so I have tuned more accurately using the longer distance to magnify the relation between bare and fletched shafts groupings.
Again, we are talking about relational averages here. You won't hit it every time because of the human errors you mentioned, but the averages of how the shafts relate to each other are clear, especially at the longer distance.
Not sure about what Dave or others did or didn't do since I wasn't there, this is just how I do it. As I said, I didn't do a full out bareshaft setup it while I had it because I didn't want to start messing up shafts for a bow I wasn't going to keep. However, the arrow I spec'd bareshafted pretty close to where it should have been...I doubt I would have had to cut it very much at all to make it as good as I could shoot it.
As far as 28 yards being some special number, not to me but that number may have significance to others.
Jason I draw a 30" arrow to the shelf on the bow. The 41@29(hybrid) and 53@30/48@30(Wave) are the markings on the limbs to give a reference point. The 250s are four fletched. The back mount bow holds more energy than the belly mount and has a shorter brace. It makes a 3" difference in power stroke. The belly mount is also 5#s less and was much more spine tolerant. It shot everything from 2016s to 300s front loaded.
The 250s on the Wave were four fletched and as we moved back the group would move right a little more at each distance. When I get the bow back from JC I'll get to shoot it more but most likely those limbs will live on the belly-mount riser for me. I like the draw feel for my draw better on that riser.
28 was the limit of space we had to shoot in my backyard that day. When I get to take it elsewhere I'll shoot her farther.
One thing about bareshafting at longer distances. If you shoot 10 arrows and have 3 bad releases, you can't judge much from 7 good shots. If you shoot 100 shots and have 30 bad releases, you now have 70 shots which may or may not show a pattern. If you see a pattern, change the tip weight and shoot a few hundred more shots. If the pattern is gone or lessened, you have improved the arrow flight. The worse your form is, the more shots it will take to see a pattern, but most likely, a pattern will eventualy show up. To me, tuning is something I do everytime I shoot. I always include a bareshaft in my shots. If it takes 1000 shots for the pattern to show, I've had fun shooting and improved my arrow flight too.
Well said Greg. I don't always do it but I often throw a bareshaft in my pocket or quiver when I'm shooting just to reconfirm things.
"One more time, the arrow doesn't lose spine over the longer distances....you can just see the differences better the further away you go. At 20 let's say my bareshafts land 1" roughly to the right of my fletched shafts. Now, for some, that may be good enough. But now move to 30 and they might be 4-5". I tune a bit more and get it closer...then move to 40...repeat. Now back at 20 it might still be 1" but it's certainly not 4-5" at 30 anymore...so I have tuned more accurately using the longer distance to magnify the relation between bare and fletched shafts groupings."
I understand and agree. You missed my point. To see a 1" difference at 20 yds, you have to be a good shot. Accuracy like that is not common with traditional shooters. How many people can shoot well enough to see a consistent 1" variance @20 yds? Or even a consistent 4" variance at 30 yds? A very small percentage. Archers of that caliber are competeing on a world level, or at least should be.
As I said, you have to be a dang good shooter to notice a difference so small that it only starts showing up at 28 yds and beyond.
It comes down to a simple phrase: Can you shoot the difference? Most can't, at least not starting at 28 yds. I wish I was that good. I'm not a lousy shot, but I'm not nearly good enough to start seeing a 1" variance in my groups at 28 yds.
Anyhow, now we know there was no bare-shafting to begin with.
imo, everything about archery is personally subjective, and that huge variability can mean if you shot my *excellent* bow and arrow, it might just be a *dog* to you. i take bow and arrow marketing rap with a shaker of salt 'cause the rubber meets the road when *I* try it all out.
if every *great, fast, wonderful, killer, fabulous, superb* bow was truly as advertised, there shouldn't be many used bow ads in the classifieds forum, eh? :D
there are two arrow spines to consider: static and dynamic. static is ballpark, dynamic is what counts and what matters for arrow tuning.
arrow spine, static or dynamic, doesn't change of its own volition. changing arrow spine requires a physical property alteration, such as in mass weight or balance. shooting an arrow out of a bow doesn't change either its static or dynamic spine. this is basic wysiwyg stuff.
static arrow spine is the applied weight deflection reading you see on a spine meter. multi directional arrow shafting (carbon, aluminum) spine is very close to 360 degrees around the shaft.
dynamic arrow spine begins upon arrow release, and goes through some measure of paradox that's defined by the release type and its efficiency (the trigger), the bowstring (the transmission) and the first physical obstruction the arrow encounters other than the ambient atmosphere (the rest, the arrow plate, the riser). there are so many other factors to include, such as arrow shaft and nock straightness, arrow balance, fletching type & size & location, nock point location and type, and many others including what launches the arrow, human or machine.
if you paper tune, the backstop doesn't matter at all since yer punching holes in suspended paper that's a good distance from the butt.
if you target tune, the butt must be made of a multi directional material, such as ethafoam (polyethylene). stuffed bag and layered foam butts are unidirectional and will give false tuning indicators.
I tune via grouping as JC does. The string is an 8 strand Ultra-Cam endless loop.
LBR when I get it back I'll do some serious bare shafting with it and tuning.
The bow is a fun bow to shoot. If it is something you're interested in than go for it, if not that's fine too. There are a lot of quality bowyers on here and I shoot other stuff myself as some know. lol
This bow won't cure cancer or guarantee a B&C buck for you. It will give you a smooth draw, good performance and effciency. It will do it's part so long as you do your's as will 99% of the bows made today. Different strokes for different folks.
Chad, I think there are many traditional shooters who can shoot the difference. Maybe not with every shot, but shooting multiple arrows for averages yes I think they can. The patterns may look like shotgun patterns but the "averages" of those patterns can easily show 4" differences at 30 yards. And I don't think it takes world class archers to do it because I know I'm not a world class archer but I can see those differences on a regular basis. My point is, if you can bareshaft at 20, bareshafting at 30 or more will only get you more precise results because of the very nature of how the distance magnifies the issues...it may take using the averages of the groups of multiple shots but in the end it will work. At least in my experience and in the experience of some other "non-world level" archers I know.
Rob, I wish I had a release good enough to paper tune, that would make things much easier on me. Curious about your point with stuffed bag butts giving false tuning indicators. Unless you are using nock tuning, and not the aforementioned relational grouping method popularized by OL, I still can't understand how the type of target would effect tuning indicators.
I think one of the problems is that on OLs site, the diagrams make it appear that the way the arrow is sticking in the target matters. The diagram shows nock high, nock low, etc. But he clearly says (in the text) to ignore that using his method. All that matters is where the bareshafts hit the target in relation to the fletched shafts. The target material doesn't matter. But that is for OL's method. You can also tune by how the arrow is sticking in the target, then the target material matters greatly. It's personal preference.
"This bow won't cure cancer or guarantee a B&C buck for you"
You mean I need to cancel my order now? I was expecting this bow to solve all my problems.
Oh, I don't have cancer and I don't hunt so I'm still gonna ride the Wave. I use my camera to take the trophy photos. Its much easier to pack out a photo than an elk!
imo, paper tuning is for targeteers and not trad bowhunters. i don't paper tune. i will bareshaft into a polyE or sytrofoam (blown foam) butt. a stuffed bag butt will not allow an arrow shot into it to remain in its flight path, it will distort as the bag stuffing material shifts around on arrow impact. the same is true for a layered foam butt as an arrow shot into it will be influenced by the compression of the foam layers.
i dunno what all this tuning stuff hasta do with the quality of any trad bow. there are far more important features to look for, imho.
and besides, the bow is still not as important as the arrow.
QuoteOriginally posted by Rob DiStefano:
imo, paper tuning is for targeteers and not trad bowhunters. i don't paper tune. i will bareshaft into a polyE or sytrofoam (blown foam) butt. a stuffed bag butt will not allow an arrow shot into it to remain in its flight path, it will distort as the bag stuffing material shifts around on arrow impact. the same is true for a layered foam butt as an arrow shot into it will be influenced by the compression of the foam layers.
It doesn't matter if the bare shaft hits the target, turns sideways, and does a River Dance. What matters is where it impacts relative to the fletched shafts, which will be determined by how if flies through the air. FWIW, Adcock didn't invent the bare shaft planning method. Heck, Easton has had it in their tuning guide for decades, and they likely got it from someone else.
For the record, most good "targeteers" prefer bare shaft tuning to paper tuning; it's more precise.
;)
I see what you mean Rob, but to me that would only matter if you were tuning by nock orientation alone. Once the shaft hits the target, it doesn't matter to me if it turns sideways or not...it's where the fletched impacts in relation to bare shafts.
I don't think the tuning has anything to do with the quality of the trad bow itself, but to me it sure has a lot to do with the overall performance you get out of a the bow setup as a whole.
I don't know...without the bow the arrow is useless and vice versa so I don't think one piece of the equation is any more important than any other...none can do the work intended without the other. They work together as a whole, or not at all.
You're view is just skewed because you have one set of arrows that shoot out of any bow you own. Remember, I'm one of those handful of guys on the planet that can't get AD's to fly out of any bow, let alone all of them. :p
Like I said, didn' mean to hijack the thread, just kind of strayed into that with all the questions/statements that have focused on the tuning portion of this bow.
While I never intended this to be a tuning thread, it sure has got this bow a lot of views on here, so thanks guys! :D
Jason, crossed posts. I also agree, I don't think OL invented it, that's why I usually say "popularized by OL" like I did above. I don't remember where I saw it first but it was a looooong time before the internet.
I remember the days when you grabbed up a handful of arrows and numbered them...shot them a bunch and put the numbers that landed right in the quiver and wrote where you needed to aim for the others on the shaft itself and used them for stumpin. Back then, I mostly saw just target archers tuning and then later on compound shooters. I didn't need tuning but I sure do shoot better with it.
QuoteOriginally posted by Jason R. Wesbrock:
QuoteOriginally posted by Rob DiStefano:
imo, paper tuning is for targeteers and not trad bowhunters. i don't paper tune. i will bareshaft into a polyE or sytrofoam (blown foam) butt. a stuffed bag butt will not allow an arrow shot into it to remain in its flight path, it will distort as the bag stuffing material shifts around on arrow impact. the same is true for a layered foam butt as an arrow shot into it will be influenced by the compression of the foam layers.
It doesn't matter if the bare shaft hits the target, turns sideways, and does a River Dance. What matters is where it impacts relative to the fletched shafts, which will be determined by how if flies through the air. FWIW, Adcock didn't invent the bare shaft planning method. Heck, Easton has had it in their tuning guide for decades, and they likely got it from someone else.
For the record, most good "targeteers" prefer bare shaft tuning to paper tuning; it's more precise.
;) [/b]
with bare and fletched arras, it's both the relative points of impact on a butt (distance) and the nock location (angle) that matter to me. one without the other don't mean much at all.
for what 'record'? i dunno what 'targeteer' you have in mind, and not that it really matters squat - i mean fita fingers freestyle. we paper tuned first, bare shaft tuned second, coarse tuned to 30 meters, micro tuned out to 90 meters. it starts with the paper, you want to see that clean, fletched arrow hole to know yer in the ball park before moving on.
all of this stuff is getting to be techno jibber jabber that i don't see how any of it relates to the the topic's bow in question.
we need to end this thread ,.,..