Arrow spine software says “too stiff.”

[4ester]

According to the man Tim G. no such thing as too stiff in a modern compound with drop away rest.

Stiff arrows aren’t as forgiving to shooter flaws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[justin davis]

That has not been the case for me back when I was shooting sub MOA.....stiffer spine has been the way to go for a hunting arrow on multiple bows.

I See wayyy too many guys thinking they are spined right using the charts then cannot get their BH's to tune. It seems to me the charts and software is geared toward making the lightest weight arrow and spine that will shoot. The software is only as good as inputted info.....we know the software is wrong on KE and MO calc off arrow energy.....so why is it the end all on 'perfect arrow'? Then there is the fact that not all bows cast an arrow the same...no way a calculator has that exact data input.

Not to knock the calculators.... they get you close....but the proof is in testing.

Do you have a Hooter shooter?

Otherwise a guy would have to shoot a few hundred arrows double blind [which is hard to do] logging each group. Each arrow would have to be tested for the exact same straightness...as THAT can make a big difference.

I did that^ test for BH straightness.

I used to have a micrometer rigged to my straightener and I could tell the difference to within .001" of straightness. I shot a group nok tuned arrows [for spine consistency that all shot perfect with FP's] that when on the straightener with fixed BH's were .004" against a group of .002". There was a significant difference in groups with the straighter arrows [long time ago] but as I recall it was up to 2" at 40 yds. Two one thousands makes a difference. An interesting side note- it seems the orientation of the .004" arrows mattered too...as certain arrows were consistently bad....others not so bad. [ I meant to go further with this testing but its difficult to control every variable]

In my visual testing, just spinning on a table vs against the straightener, I could just see .004" when spun on a table- not a wobble but just wasn't perfect. .003" and less was undetectable.

So is your comment an anecdotal one....or have you run exacting tests on this?

_____

____

No I don’t have a hooter shooter. It’s just hillbilly testing in the back yard ha.

I shoot at 100 yards in my yard quite a bit for practice. With my old arrows I had some
Really great groups. Sometimes I could get groups with arrow basically touching at 100. Broadheads shot fine. I’ll attach a few pics of a couple of my best groups at 100 before arrow switch.


The new arrows actually have better tolerances (spine tolerance). With the new arrows I can’t get that good of a group at 50 yards. Shooting same bow and everything except for the arrow. I obviously had to retune with the new arrows. Been shooting them since December and they just don’t seem to shoot as well.

2 pics of group with the old arrows. And a pic of the new arrow with a bareshaft and fletched at 20 when I tuned

 

[Arctic Hunter]

While I agree with the idea that you are better off being too stiff than too weak when tuning broadheads. But when it comes to accuracy, I think you can be too stiff.

If it were reasonable to think you couldn’t be too stiff, I would think all the top shooters in the world would be shooting the stiffest arrow made as short as they could cut it. And they wouldn’t load up their 27 diameter indoor arrows with so much point weight, and leave them long.

 

[OR Archer]

Software is a ball park as far as if it’ll actually tune and shoot well. I think it’s a useful tool to help narrow down shaft and point selection without forking out a ton of money, but until you actually build it and start tuning with them will you actually know. Software can only predict so much. It can’t factor in grip pressure, facial pressure, release activation, back wall pressure, etc which will all affect tuning and accuracy. I’ve tuned enough bows in my lifetime to not rely on what they say. If I were to go by software my current arrows are off the charts stiff yet they tune and group phenomenal even with broadheads.

 

[Kbhillhunter]

I've always wondered about Archer's Advantage.

What did you put in for your "release type"? That seems to have a big effect on the final result.

This exact thing caught my attention. What is the difference between tied loop and jaws? Because tied loop was too stiff and jaws was optimal.

 

[5MilesBack]

I don't mess with the software programs much. I much prefer to just set up what I want to shoot and then tune the bow to that arrow setup. My current arrows I'm testing are RIP TKO Elite 250's cut to 30" carbon to carbon with 200gr up front, shooting 75lbs and almost 33" draw. That should be pretty weak, but so far they're shooting great. I always value accuracy over everything else, with durability coming in second. As long as I can get those two together in a hunting arrow, I'm happy.

 

[Beendare]

Absolute perfect form and you can get away with shooting light arrow spine. Every pro I know has this light arrow trajectory oriented mentality and of course they all have perfect form so they can get away with shooting weak.

The problem with Bowhunting scenarios, we are not always standing on flat ground with all the Time in the world to execute a shot like at a target range Or 3D shoot.

3 good reasons I use and over spined Arrow; they tune well, they are more durable And they give you just a little more arrow weight.

..

 

[MT257]

Might seem like a no brained question here, but I’m currently in the situation of deciding to go with Easton 5mm 340 with standard hit and 100 grain fp(413gr) or a rip tko 300 75 gr brass insert and 100 gr fp(455gr). Bow is 27.5” dl and 70lb using a Stan prefix. Those that say they see accuracy differences can you elaborate what your seeing? I can seem to shoot these shafts what I would call equally as well, but I want to know if I’m overlooking something to see an accuracy difference between the two.

 

[roosiebull]

Shoot what you are confident in is the main thing. With that being said, I have not looked at a spine chart in several years. I build an arrow that will for sure not be weak and not worry about spine charts... it’s easier.

may past few years of arrow builds have been close to weak, but I wasn’t worried if I had to shed 25gr of point weight.

I have shot arrows that probably show weak on a chart but aren’t. Spine calculators are a ballpark but not precise, which is why I don’t mess with them, I feel I can get closer than they can just from lots of previous arrow builds.

spine charts or calculators are fine if you stay in normal ranges, but start getting 200gr+ of point weight and they seem pretty worthless.

I looked at one when I first picked up a recurve and decided I could build and tune an arrow faster than decoding a spine calculator, haha... really gets weird with the natural variances in bows and individual shooter input

 

[MattB]

That has not been the case for me back when I was shooting sub MOA.....stiffer spine has been the way to go for a hunting arrow on multiple bows.

I See wayyy too many guys thinking they are spined right using the charts then cannot get their BH's to tune. It seems to me the charts and software is geared toward making the lightest weight arrow and spine that will shoot. The software is only as good as inputted info.....we know the software is wrong on KE and MO calc off arrow energy.....so why is it the end all on 'perfect arrow'? Then there is the fact that not all bows cast an arrow the same...no way a calculator has that exact data input.

Not to knock the calculators.... they get you close....but the proof is in testing.

Do you have a Hooter shooter?

Otherwise a guy would have to shoot a few hundred arrows double blind [which is hard to do] logging each group. Each arrow would have to be tested for the exact same straightness...as THAT can make a big difference.

I did that^ test for BH straightness.

I used to have a micrometer rigged to my straightener and I could tell the difference to within .001" of straightness. I shot a group nok tuned arrows [for spine consistency that all shot perfect with FP's] that when on the straightener with fixed BH's were .004" against a group of .002". There was a significant difference in groups with the straighter arrows [long time ago] but as I recall it was up to 2" at 40 yds. Two one thousands makes a difference. An interesting side note- it seems the orientation of the .004" arrows mattered too...as certain arrows were consistently bad....others not so bad. [ I meant to go further with this testing but its difficult to control every variable]

In my visual testing, just spinning on a table vs against the straightener, I could just see .004" when spun on a table- not a wobble but just wasn't perfect. .003" and less was undetectable.

So is your comment an anecdotal one....or have you run exacting tests on this?

_____

____

Justin pretty much is a Hooter Shooter.

 

[justin davis]

Might seem like a no brained question here, but I’m currently in the situation of deciding to go with Easton 5mm 340 with standard hit and 100 grain fp(413gr) or a rip tko 300 75 gr brass insert and 100 gr fp(455gr). Bow is 27.5” dl and 70lb using a Stan prefix. Those that say they see accuracy differences can you elaborate what your seeing? I can seem to shoot these shafts what I would call equally as well, but I want to know if I’m overlooking something to see an accuracy difference between the two.

So I’m not 100%. But shooting an arrow that is close to optimal for me on my last arrows. Shot tighter groups..and was more forgiving of a less than perfect release. These new arrows that are “really stiff.” Don’t group as tight. And are more unforgiving of shots and perfect form.

I guess I would need to try .340’s in the same arrow and tune and shoot that and compare. That might be the only way to answer my own question.

 

[OR Archer]

What now are you shooting now?

 

[CodeMonkey]

Shoot what you are confident in is the main thing. With that being said, I have not looked at a spine chart in several years. I build an arrow that will for sure not be weak and not worry about spine charts... it’s easier.

may past few years of arrow builds have been close to weak, but I wasn’t worried if I had to shed 25gr of point weight.

I have shot arrows that probably show weak on a chart but aren’t. Spine calculators are a ballpark but not precise, which is why I don’t mess with them, I feel I can get closer than they can just from lots of previous arrow builds.

spine charts or calculators are fine if you stay in normal ranges, but start getting 200gr+ of point weight and they seem pretty worthless.

I looked at one when I first picked up a recurve and decided I could build and tune an arrow faster than decoding a spine calculator, haha... really gets weird with the natural variances in bows and individual shooter input

The one useful-ish chart I've been able to find is from Day Six. https://www.daysixgear.com/pages/faq

They have charts for 50 grain and 100 grain insert systems.

 

[justin davis]

What now are you shooting now?

I’m shooting an RX3 Ultra. Been shooting that for last couple years

 

[Hoot]

Justin, I find the same thing, with my prime I shoot the same 4mm fmj .330 as you with 175 up front and they are way more forgiving and group tighter than .300’s

this year I am shooting an rx4 ultra, I just got 80 pound limbs for it, 29” draw. I’ll be in the same boat as you trying to find the best combo this year...

 

[dkime]

I’m shooting an RX3 Ultra. Been shooting that for last couple years

Justin,

You have the ability to shoot well enough to really play with setups and gain a deeper understanding. IMHO the concept of erring on the stiff side for tuning is a bit of a Bandwagon logical fallacy. This is not to say that it isnt capable of achieving a good tune, Your groups, my groups, everyone else's groups are a testament to this. However, what I am discovering is that we error on the stiff side because all of the common tuning practices in today's day in age are geared toward that setup. I use AA for a lot of folks setups and for my own setup to get me close, but one day I found myself asking what the heck I was doing putting so much of an emotional investment into a little green graphic on my computer screen. (Perry makes a fanctastic software and his value to the industry is unparalleled) I agree that form plays a huge role in the ability of a guy like Jesse to run 580s with 120 up front at 60/28. But that too is a fallacy, because why would a guy like that depend on his form to buy his families groceries, if a slightly stiff spine didn't group better? For me, I am treading lightly toward playing with hunting setups on the other end of the spectrum. I want an optimum to maybe slightly weak setup right now to see if they will actually group as good as my Outdoor shafts. Accuracy is an aggregate, of the right amount of arrow, the right amount of talent, and the right amount of bow technician. We see a lot of info these days being focused heavily on the arrow build side because the other two can't be bought. I am not trying to stir the pot with this because frankly I am simply trying to learn for myself what MY optimal setup is going to be. The issue with simply swapping out something as simple as a point weight, or a vane setup or a nock and seeing that it doesnt magically shoot better is that when you change one thing you change everything. I can easily get 100s and 125s to group equally as well at distance, but they require different tunes. The same would be said for any vane combo, spine combo, or nock to shaft combo. This is a million layers too deep, but if you get bored sometime maybe spend two weeks or just playing with those optimum shafts and give them a fair shake. That's the kind of stuff i am playing with these days.

DK

 

[justin davis]

Justin, I find the same thing, with my prime I shoot the same 4mm fmj .330 as you with 175 up front and they are way more forgiving and group tighter than .300’s

this year I am shooting an rx4 ultra, I just got 80 pound limbs for it, 29” draw. I’ll be in the same boat as you trying to find the best combo this year...

They are good arrows. Looks like Easton is discontinuing them. So that’s why I was experimenting with other arrows.

 

[justin davis]

Justin,

You have the ability to shoot well enough to really play with setups and gain a deeper understanding. IMHO the concept of erring on the stiff side for tuning is a bit of a Bandwagon logical fallacy. This is not to say that it isnt capable of achieving a good tune, Your groups, my groups, everyone else's groups are a testament to this. However, what I am discovering is that we error on the stiff side because all of the common tuning practices in today's day in age are geared toward that setup. I use AA for a lot of folks setups and for my own setup to get me close, but one day I found myself asking what the heck I was doing putting so much of an emotional investment into a little green graphic on my computer screen. (Perry makes a fanctastic software and his value to the industry is unparalleled) I agree that form plays a huge role in the ability of a guy like Jesse to run 580s with 120 up front at 60/28. But that too is a fallacy, because why would a guy like that depend on his form to buy his families groceries, if a slightly stiff spine didn't group better? For me, I am treading lightly toward playing with hunting setups on the other end of the spectrum. I want an optimum to maybe slightly weak setup right now to see if they will actually group as good as my Outdoor shafts. Accuracy is an aggregate, of the right amount of arrow, the right amount of talent, and the right amount of bow technician. We see a lot of info these days being focused heavily on the arrow build side because the other two can't be bought. I am not trying to stir the pot with this because frankly I am simply trying to learn for myself what MY optimal setup is going to be. The issue with simply swapping out something as simple as a point weight, or a vane setup or a nock and seeing that it doesnt magically shoot better is that when you change one thing you change everything. I can easily get 100s and 125s to group equally as well at distance, but they require different tunes. The same would be said for any vane combo, spine combo, or nock to shaft combo. This is a million layers too deep, but if you get bored sometime maybe spend two weeks or just playing with those optimum shafts and give them a fair shake. That's the kind of stuff i am playing with these days.

DK

Yea your spot on. I’m gonna try a setup of the same arrow but more optimal spine and compare to what the “too stiff” shot like.

I feel that contrary to what a lot of guys say is that you might actually be too stiff and accuracy suffers. Maybe a more optimal spine is the best

 

[5MilesBack]

I feel that contrary to what a lot of guys say is that you might actually be too stiff and accuracy suffers.

I agree with that. I'm not so sure that the accuracy would be bad enough to be a problem while hunting, but during the other 11 months out of the year it could sure drive you crazy when arrows aren't slapping together.

 

[Billy Goat]

I know I have always said that you will get more accuracy at range with a weaker spine. However good luck putting a broadhead on the front and seeing the same thing. Can't compare field arrows to broadhead tipped hunting arrows. Even Easton has said the same thing with two different charts, one for field/target archery, another for hunting.

The difference in accuracy for me has normally been minimal. For a target bow I definitely run on the weak side, but a hunting setup I go stiff.