Any science behind offset degree vs arrow weight or FOC?

[Beendare]

I agree with Matt and Mighty mouse…it is mental masturbation.

There are so many other factors more important than 1 deg of helical….I tested it, its insignificant.

Its funny to think there might be guys wringing their hands over this…while they are shooting with bad habits…...or an untuned bow.

 

[sacklunch]

I agree with Matt and Mighty mouse…it is mental masturbation.

There are so many other factors more important than 1 deg of helical….I tested it, its insignificant.

Its funny to think there might be guys wringing their hands over this…while they are shooting with bad habits…...or an untuned bow.

Even more hilarious. It's often the dudes who say "your time would be better spent at the range" or "i dont worry about that, it's insignificant" are the same dudes flinging arrows into the hoyt banner above the 20m line.

Everyone's an expert online.

Also, to say you test it on one arrow, at one speed, with one fletcing type, with one broadhead means nothing. Like it or not, for every variable in each setup, there is absolutely an exact offset that will be required to reach whatever the agreed upon definition of fully stabilized is and anything more than that offset is inducing parasitic drag. am I smart enough t
o k kw what that is or have run all those tests or have the data, nope. But that's why I asked.

I appreciate the anecdotal evidence being provided when clearly asking if any actually studies had been done.

 

[Billy Goat]

Even more hilarious. It's often the dudes who say "your time would be better spent at the range" or "i dont worry about that, it's insignificant" are the same dudes flinging arrows into the hoyt banner above the 20m line.

Everyone's an expert online.

Also, to say you test it on one arrow, at one speed, with one fletcing type, with one broadhead means nothing. Like it or not, for every variable in each setup, there is absolutely an exact offset that will be required to reach whatever the agreed upon definition of fully stabilized is and anything more than that offset is inducing parasitic drag. am I smart enough t
o k kw what that is or have run all those tests or have the data, nope. But that's why I asked.

I appreciate the anecdotal evidence being provided when clearly asking if any actually studies had been done.

You are going way too hard at this.

I think the responses you are getting are mostly correct, and I frequently see guys trying to buy X's rather than learn how to shoot. They think this next thing is going to be the ticket.


Does ES/SD variation really have that much to do with a hit at 450 yards? Or is it your wind calling and being able to shoot from field positions? It's fun to nerd out on the stuff, but the difference of a 1.25 moa gun and a .75 in field conditions is less than what our brain wants us to think. It's the Indian, not the arrow.

 

[sacklunch]

You are going way too hard at this.

I think the responses you are getting are mostly correct, and I frequently see guys trying to buy X's rather than learn how to shoot. They think this next thing is going to be the ticket.


Does ES/SD variation really have that much to do with a hit at 450 yards? Or is it your wind calling and being able to shoot from field positions? It's fun to nerd out on the stuff, but the difference of a 1.25 moa gun and a .75 in field conditions is less than what our brain wants us to think. It's the Indian, not the arrow.

Again, assuming someone's proficiency behind a rifle or a bow is your problem. 2nd problem is the lazy mentality that thinking a single digit ES/SD won't provide a better outcome for the same shooter than a SD of 30+. it may not matter to you, and that's fine if a medicocre result is what you strive for in life. I'm not here to judge.

If I was worried about my shooting, I'd be asking for help (or get a coach). I've worked with a few in my day, my form is not my concern. And one can only shoot so many years arrows in a day, if one really wanted to improve, they'd spend some extra free time making a more accurate projectile.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Do a scientific study yourself. No one else in the archery arena has anything that remotely approaches science, including dorge and especially ashby.

Or learn from the experienced guys telling you it doesn't matter.

 

[sacklunch]

Again, assuming someone's proficiency behind a rifle or a bow is your problem. 2nd problem is the lazy mentality that thinking a single digit ES/SD won't provide a better outcome for the same shooter than a SD of 30+. it may not matter to you, and that's fine if a medicocre result is what you strive for in life. I'm not here to judge.

If I was worried about my shooting, I'd be asking for help (or get a coach). I've worked with a few in my day, my form is not my concern. And one can only shoot so many years arrows in a day, if one really wanted to improve, they'd spend some extra free time making a more accurate projectile.

Thats the differwnce between you and I...I wouldn't shoot a .75 moa rifle if you paid me...throw a new barrel on and spend some time at the reloading bench (assuming you're as good a shot as you imply) it should be pretty easy to get down into the sub .5moa range, heck even .25 on a hu ting rifle isn't unheard-of and hold that out to ethical big game distances.

 

[sacklunch]

Do a scientific study yourself. No one else in the archery arena has anything that remotely approaches science, including dorge and especially ashby.

Or learn from the experienced guys telling you it doesn't matter.

The experienced guys...or the "experienced" posters? Big dif.

 

[Billy Goat]

Thats the differwnce between you and I...I wouldn't shoot a .75 moa rifle if you paid me...throw a new barrel on and spend some time at the reloading bench (assuming you're as good a shot as you imply) it should be pretty easy to get down into the sub .5moa range, heck even .25 on a hu ting rifle isn't unheard-of and hold that out to ethical big game distances.

So you are telling me your hunting guns hold better than .75 moa through a 10 shot group day in and day out?


I use to think I had sub .5 moa guns, til started to shoot more. Realized what that actually meant, and that it's not a lucky 3 or 5 shot group.


But it's like everyone who shoots 5" groups at 50 yards with a bow. Everyone on the internet does it, go shoot a Fita round, see what it really is.

 

[MattB]

The experienced guys...or the "experienced" posters? Big dif.

Some are both, but you don’t know enough to tell the difference.

The mere fact that you offered 12 data points in your OP without mentioning what BH you intend to shoot suggests you don’t even understand what you are trying to solve for.

As Billy Goat stated, the exercise is to have enough fletching drag at the rear end of the arrow to compensate for the drag introduced to the front end of the arrow by the point. The former is primarily a function of vane length, vane height, vane stiffness, and offset. Trying to single out a fixed value for one of those variables without consideration to the others or what your are trying to counteract on the front end of the arrow is simply ignorant. The answer is dependent on the other factors and will vary significantly between a field point and a big fixed blade.

 

[sacklunch]

So you are telling me your hunting guns hold better than .75 moa through a 10 shot group day in and day out?


I use to think I had sub .5 moa guns, til started to shoot more. Realized what that actually meant, and that it's not a lucky 3 or 5 shot group.


But it's like everyone who shoots 5" groups at 50 yards with a bow. Everyone on the internet does it, go shoot a Fita round, see what it really is.

Yes, they do, it's not magic. Might i suggest you spend some more time at the range or more time at the reloading bench worry about "the things that don't matter".

 

[sacklunch]

Some are both, but you don’t know enough to tell the difference.

The mere fact that you offered 12 data points in your OP without mentioning what BH you intend to shoot suggests you don’t even understand what you are trying to solve for.

As Billy Goat stated, the exercise is to have enough fletching drag at the rear end of the arrow to compensate for the drag introduced to the front end of the arrow by the point. The former is primarily a function of vane length, vane height, vane stiffness, and offset. Trying to single out a fixed value for one of those variables without consideration to the others or what your are trying to counteract on the front end of the arrow is simply ignorant. The answer is dependent on the other factors and will vary significantly between a field point and a big fixed blade.

It could be calculated with wind tunnel and high speed cameras, for a given ammount of components and variations on those weights/configs. No I don't have the software experience or hardware or experience to make that happen. But please, keep trying to tell me that it's impossible to solve, simply becaise you dont have the ability either, it's not. Again, the question was asked if any study had been done, not what Matt B's unsolicited opinion on the validity of study was.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Again, the question was asked if any study had been done, not what Matt B's unsolicited opinion on the validity of study was.

To be fair, you also asked for inputs and suggestions based on experience:

Any inputs, suggestions based on experiences?

The general opinion of those who have responded (myself included) is that these minor details of fletching configuration (2° vs. 3° angle, 3 vs. 4 vanes, 2" vs. 3" length, etc) have little practical effect. These opinions are based on anecdotal experience, not formal scientific study. I have not found any formal scientific studies attempting to quantify vane angle vs. drag vs. accuracy, etc. Bill Vanderheyden (of Iron Will) recently sponsored a study at University of Colorado that addressed some aspects of what you've asked about, but the study hasn't been published yet. Bill discussed it here if you're interested: https://mcdn.podbean.com/mf/web/9iyyz8/IronWill.mp3

 

[waldo9190]

Devils advocate only...then why do they make variable offset jigs?

Different arrow diameters and fletching lengths = need to be able to adjust fletching offset angle.

How is this for correlation? Had a couple vanes get partially torn off (hit by another two arrows) at league the other night and I didn't notice. Next shot with that arrow, both vanes fell off on launch but I SOMEHOW still managed to 12 ring the target. Bow tuning, form, and arrow setup are so so so much more important. There is such a small percentage of archers who are good enough to be able to quantifiably notice a difference that it isn't worth our time.

Moral of the story, find a fletching setup that will stabilize broadhead of choice and shoot more.

Oh, and make sure your fletching setup looks good. Look good = shoot good.

 

[Marbles]

 

[MattB]

Again, the question was asked if any study had been done, not what Matt B's unsolicited opinion on the validity of study was.

No one has studied it, because everyone who knows anything understands it is a pointless exercise. If there was only one vane and only one broadhead on the market, one could study that and try to isolate that but would still need to account for any variations between the bow and the shooter.

 

[sacklunch]

No one has studied it, because everyone who knows anything understands it is a pointless exercise. If there was only one vane and only one broadhead on the market, one could study that and try to isolate that but would still need to account for any variations between the bow and the shooter.

You don't need to account for shooter bow variations when you remove the shooter from the scenario. There is equipment capable of doing so, surely. Not saying it's practical it may not be, but hilarious you're so determined to die upon the hill of "it doesn't matter" or its impossible to test. You shoot 1.25 moa rifles like Billy Goat and call it good? What's "worth it" is subjective term, we can disagree on that. But you're refusal to admit it can be tested is comical.

 

[MattB]

You don't need to account for shooter bow variations when you remove the shooter from the scenario. There is equipment capable of doing so, surely. Not saying it's practical it may not be, but hilarious you're so determined to die upon the hill of "it doesn't matter" or its impossible to test. You shoot 1.25 moa rifles like Billy Goat and call it good? What's "worth it" is subjective term, we can disagree on that. But you're refusal to admit it can be tested is comical.

Not at all, but again., you don't know enough to understand how ignorant your question is.

Since you are a rifle guy, what is the most accurate 30-06 load with IMR-4831 in all rifles? Grains, to the tenth of a grain.

 

[sacklunch]

Not at all, but again., you don't know enough to understand how ignorant your question is.

Since you are a rifle guy, what is the most accurate 30-06 load with IMR-4831 in all rifles? Grains, to the tenth of a grain.

Don't know, but in most shooting circles, the popular bullets, barrels/twists/lengths, seating depth, powders, primers, etc will have all been tested pretty methodically. Even without breaking it down by individual components, its pretty easy to find hundreds if not thousands of data points for certain loads/nearly to the grain, in certain calibers that will identify an accuracy node. You also won't find many BR shooters (no, im not one) who will classify anything as a waste of time (except maybe a conversation with you?) as far as brass prep. But again, if mediocre is the name of your game, who am I to judge.

 

[Marbles]

You don't need to account for shooter bow variations when you remove the shooter from the scenario. There is equipment capable of doing so, surely. Not saying it's practical it may not be, but hilarious you're so determined to die upon the hill of "it doesn't matter" or its impossible to test. You shoot 1.25 moa rifles like Billy Goat and call it good? What's "worth it" is subjective term, we can disagree on that. But you're refusal to admit it can be tested is comical.

You are the one set to die on a hill you know little about when multiple experienced people have taken the time to give you feedback.

Don't know, but in most shooting circles, the popular bullets, barrels/twists/lengths, seating depth, powders, primers, etc will have all been tested pretty methodically. Even without breaking it down by individual components, its pretty easy to find hundreds if not thousands of data points for certain loads/nearly to the grain, in certain calibers that will identify an accuracy node. You also won't find many BR shooters (no, im not one) who will classify anything as a waste of time (except maybe a conversation with you?) as far as brass prep. But again, if mediocre is the name of your game, who am I to judge.

Rudeness says much about you and nothing about the person you are being rude to.

 

[MattB]

Don't know, but in most shooting circles, the popular bullets, barrels/twists/lengths, seating depth, powders, primers, etc will have all been tested pretty methodically. Even without breaking it down by individual components, its pretty easy to find hundreds if not thousands of data points for certain loads/nearly to the grain, in certain calibers that will identify an accuracy node. You also won't find many BR shooters (no, im not one) who will classify anything as a waste of time (except maybe a conversation with you?) as far as brass prep. But again, if mediocre is the name of your game, who am I to judge.

How many grains of powder, to the tenth of a grain? Or is the answer, "it depends"? Which is inconceivable because I read that a really smart guy on the internet thinks that all the variables can somehow be isolated by using "equipment capable of doing so".