Black Eagle Arrows???????

[Coyote Commander]

Im arrow shopping. Its been a while since ive bought arrows.

Im looking at the 250 spine Black Eagle Carnivores with around 165 grains up front or the 300s with less point weight.

Anybody shoot them? A google search yields overall good reviews, but it looks like they may have had some problems back in 2012.

Anybody know of another "light", stiff spined shaft out there? I need MINIMUM of a 300 spine, preferably stiffer (ideal spine is going be around .285...but I can fudge it with length and point weight if I have to go 300 spine) and want to stay under well under 10 gpi so I can run a lot of point weight without getting into the 500+ grain total arrow weight (want to stay under 500 grains.....preferably 460-470 but it dont look like thats happening).

 

[5MilesBack]

The problem that you're going to run into with a lighter GPI arrow in a .300 spine or stiffer is durability. The lightest .300 spine arrows I have are Victory HV's at 6.9 gpi, and they are ridiculously fragile. Their heavier brother, the regular Vforce Victory 300's are 9.9 gpi and they are more fragile than a thin diameter thick-walled shaft like the Axis, Kinetic, TR, or Rampage. You also have to consider the weight you throw on it up front, that in itself makes the shaft a little less durable with the decreased dynamic spine.

 

[Coyote Commander]

Durability is a concern but it's down the list a ways.
I've heard the Carnivore shafts are pretty tough.

What's the difference between the Victory vforce and vforce HV? Looking at their website it seems there is none.

 

[Tilzbow]

Try the Black Eagle Deep X-Impact in the long draw, .250 spine model. Comes in at 9.5 GPI, heavy wall, real durable. The weight and spine tolerances are real tight and mine are shooting and grouping great to 100 yards with field points and 80 yards with fixed blade broadheads. I'm running a Firenock Aero outsert and 125 grain point and my arrow weight is 466 grains. I don't care for the Firenock outsert given it's too difficult to get aligned perfect so broadheads spin perfect so I'll be looking for a better option next year. You can use Deep Six Injexion inserts with these shafts but I don't want to switch to Deep Six broadheads.

 

[5MilesBack]

What's the difference between the Victory vforce and vforce HV?

About 3gpi. The HV's are super lightweight, the regular Vforce are more of a typical hunting shaft. Mine are 6.9gpi and 9.9gpi, but I think the newer HV300's are 7.2gpi.

 

[Archelk]

I bought a dozen of the BE rampages 300's about 2 months ago and I have had zero issues. Fly great and I shot one by accident into a steel post ( forgot to move my slider sight). My helix broadhead penetrated the steel past the head and when I finally removed the broadhead I had zero issues with the shaft. Running the firenock outserts and 125gr heads with an extra 40grains GT weights inside the shaft. I think I'm around 450 grains and they are shooting great. Have not shot them past 80 yards yet but out to 70 with my helix BH's have been accurate as hell. If you want tougher/more weight look at their deep impacts

 

[MattB]

This is neither here nor there and may not be related to the OP's request, but the current high FOC fad is an interesting one, driven largely by Ashby's Natal Study. One of the take-aways from this Study is that ultra-high FOC has a positive influence on penetration. Many folks who are chasing high FOC (the vast majority of which don't have issues with poor penetration in the first place) are acheiving it through using light, less durable shafts. What I find interesting about this is that the study lists structural integrity of the arrow (which is being compramised through the use of light shafts) as the #1 contributor to penetration to optimize a less important factor (high FOC) - so in essence folks are ignoring more relevants findings within the study in order to acheive a less relevant one.

 

[shootist]

I have used BE Rampages and Carnivores with good success. I've had absolutely no issues and I highly recommend them.

 

[ChadS]

This is neither here nor there and may not be related to the OP's request, but the current high FOC fad is an interesting one, driven largely by Ashby's Natal Study. One of the take-aways from this Study is that ultra-high FOC has a positive influence on penetration. Many folks who are chasing high FOC (the vast majority of which don't have issues with poor penetration in the first place) are acheiving it through using light, less durable shafts. What I find interesting about this is that the study lists structural integrity of the arrow (which is being compramised through the use of light shafts) as the #1 contributor to penetration to optimize a less important factor (high FOC) - so in essence folks are ignoring more relevants findings within the study in order to acheive a less relevant one.

This^^^

 

[Coyote Commander]

This is neither here nor there and may not be related to the OP's request, but the current high FOC fad is an interesting one, driven largely by Ashby's Natal Study. One of the take-aways from this Study is that ultra-high FOC has a positive influence on penetration. Many folks who are chasing high FOC (the vast majority of which don't have issues with poor penetration in the first place) are acheiving it through using light, less durable shafts. What I find interesting about this is that the study lists structural integrity of the arrow (which is being compramised through the use of light shafts) as the #1 contributor to penetration to optimize a less important factor (high FOC) - so in essence folks are ignoring more relevants findings within the study in order to acheive a less relevant one.

Its been a while since ive read any of Ashby's writings, and he did go to length on how shaft integrity was important. After all, if the shaft snaps before the arrow is done doing its job, than all the FOC, KE, and momentum in the world will be for not.

However, in one of his updates, he did mention a direct correlation between light tail weight (i.e., a lighter shaft) not failing as much as one with a heavier tail weight (heavier shaft) when dealing with the "extreme" FOC shafts. Law of motion, etc etc. I believe he used a basketball and bowling ball held by a person in a car as a comparison.

He also mentioned that more testing was necessary in this department.

One also has to take into account what he was testing on. Cap buff. There is NOTHING in N. America that can compare. Even a moose doesnt come close to the muscle and bone mass of a buff. Shooting heavy arrows with heavy points, out of some heavy bows, into a brick wall of a target like a buff, one would expect to require a much tougher shaft.

Unless one goes to an EXTREMELY light shaft with an extremely thin wall, I just dont see durability being that much of a huge deal in well made, modern carbon shafts, at least for N. American game. Plus, when it comes to hunting shafts at least, one is greatly limited in just how light they can go just by the spine measurement, especially those of us requiring a stiff spine.

 

[Coyote Commander]

I gotta give a nice kudo's to Black Eagle as well.

I emailed Randy asking if I could get a different color nock on my shafts other than the standard black they come with. He said just mention it in the notes and they'll throw em in. So I ordered a dozen shafts yesterday on the 4th. Got an email a couple hours later that the order was processed and ready to ship. On a holiday! They also threw in the dozen white nocks at no charge.

Im impressed thus far.

 

[MattB]

I have 2 friends who chased high FOC by using light for stiffness shafts and they started breaking arrows when they believed the shouldn't have and went back to heavier and more durable shafts. Neither had any issues with penetration on animals before they decided to make their setups less effective in an attempt to make them more effective. For those who have read Ashby's stuff, he recommends a 650 gr. minimum and strongly prefers hardwood shafts over carbon or aluminum. He himself shoots a 785 gr. compressed cedar shaft. I just don't get why people who want the "whole effect" pick and chose from his data.

There is another thread on here from a guy who bought single bevel heads and is expressing his confidence that they will work just like Ashby suggests - but he lacks many of the arrow attributes that COMBINE to result in the findings that Ashby published.

Edit: as an aside, I just went back and re-read some of the summary material from the Natal Study, and the 3 criteria for a reliable arrow system were 1) structural integrity, 2) as much arrow weight as an archer can shot accurately, and 3) a solid single-blade broad head. I just wonder why folks are willing to sacrifice durability (#1 criteria) and aim for a finished arrow that is well below the 650 grs. that is Ashby's prescribed minimum (#2 criteria) in an effort to increase FOC which isn't even a primary determinants of penetration? To each their own and best of luck, but I just throw it out because of my friends who are a year ahead of you in devising what they thought would be the ultimate hunting arrow only to determine that chasing high FOC thing was a turd hunt.

 

[ChadS]

So when the head of your arrow hits something hard, energy is sent back into the shaft right? So if the shaft is stiffer/heavier will that not keep more if the energy moving forward than a light flimsy shaft that would dissipate that energy out by flexing and vibrationg more?

Thats just how I seem to theorize it in my small brain.

 

[Coyote Commander]

So when the head of your arrow hits something hard, energy is sent back into the shaft right? So if the shaft is stiffer/heavier will that not keep more if the energy moving forward than a light flimsy shaft that would dissipate that energy out by flexing and vibrationg more?

Thats just how I seem to theorize it in my small brain.

Yes.

But even Ashby recognized a correlation between the heavier tail weight arrows and the lighter ones when it came to damage. I believe it was 16% versus 12% or so, respectively, hardly a huge difference. He did footnote that there was not enough data to make a conclusion.

The "flexing" thing though, SHOULD be a moot point if comparing two like spined shafts of different weights. A .300 spine is a .300 spine (in theory), regardless of whether it weighs 8 gpi, 9 gpi, or 10 gpi. So, "flex and vibration" should be equal, or near equal enough to be a of minor importance.

 

[ChadS]

Yep. Makes sense

 

[MattB]

So when the head of your arrow hits something hard, energy is sent back into the shaft right? So if the shaft is stiffer/heavier will that not keep more if the energy moving forward than a light flimsy shaft that would dissipate that energy out by flexing and vibrationg more?

Thats just how I seem to theorize it in my small brain.

I believe the theory is that high FOC arrows (weight concentrated towards the front of the arrow) have light back ends so there is less bending at impact which likewise reduces shaft drag arrow, and the arrow is less influenced directionally by the back end of the arrow when they hit at angles that might otherwise result in energy-robbing deflection. That all works well in theory, but in practice: 1) Ashby achieves that effect through a 785 gr. finished arrow whereas folks here are desiring the same benefit (to some degree) with a sub-500 gr. finished arrow, and 2) using a shafts that results in a 785 gr. finished arrow does not result in lessened shaft durability to the same degree that a high FOC arrow in the sub-500 gr. finished weight range would.

 

[Tilzbow]

"....... 2) using a shafts that results in a 785 gr. finished arrow does not result in lessened shaft durability to the same degree that a high FOC arrow in the sub-500 gr. finished weight range would.

It seems to me the FOC %, whether high or low, would have zero impact on the durability of the shaft behind the point upon impact. I can see an issue upon release with a FOC arrow but to say the point has an affect on what's behind it at impact seems counterintuitive.

 

[5MilesBack]

The "flexing" thing though, SHOULD be a moot point if comparing two like spined shafts of different weights. A .300 spine is a .300 spine (in theory), regardless of whether it weighs 8 gpi, 9 gpi, or 10 gpi. So, "flex and vibration" should be equal, or near equal enough to be a of minor importance.

Except those are "static" spines. As soon as you build your arrow and shoot it, they're all going to have differing "dynamic" spines. And how much they flex or vibrate upon impact would be part of the dynamic equation.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I have 2 friends who chased high FOC by using light for stiffness shafts and they started breaking arrows when they believed the shouldn't have and went back to heavier and more durable shafts. Neither had any issues with penetration on animals before they decided to make their setups less effective in an attempt to make them more effective. For those who have read Ashby's stuff, he recommends a 650 gr. minimum and strongly prefers hardwood shafts over carbon or aluminum. He himself shoots a 785 gr. compressed cedar shaft. I just don't get why people who want the "whole effect" pick and chose from his data.

There is another thread on here from a guy who bought single bevel heads and is expressing his confidence that they will work just like Ashby suggests - but he lacks many of the arrow attributes that COMBINE to result in the findings that Ashby published.

Edit: as an aside, I just went back and re-read some of the summary material from the Natal Study, and the 3 criteria for a reliable arrow system were 1) structural integrity, 2) as much arrow weight as an archer can shot accurately, and 3) a solid single-blade broad head. I just wonder why folks are willing to sacrifice durability (#1 criteria) and aim for a finished arrow that is well below the 650 grs. that is Ashby's prescribed minimum (#2 criteria) in an effort to increase FOC which isn't even a primary determinants of penetration? To each their own and best of luck, but I just throw it out because of my friends who are a year ahead of you in devising what they thought would be the ultimate hunting arrow only to determine that chasing high FOC thing was a turd hunt.

I'm running a really high foc of center on my set up. Deep impacts 30gr outcert/ 125grain head and rampage with 53 grain ss incert/outcert with 100grain head. All arrows are cut to 26". (70 insanity/28" ) They are alots more durable then any other arrows I've shot(CE bluestreaks, GT hunter, Vaps, CE max/hunter).

with todays efficient cam design Ashbys studies arent as relevant on arrow weight especially on north american game animals.

You want to shoot 600plus grs knock your self out but with todays cams and broadhead designs even the dreaded mid scapla, isn't stopping 400gr arrows as it was 10 years ago.

 

[MattB]

It seems to me the FOC %, whether high or low, would have zero impact on the durability of the shaft behind the point upon impact. I can see an issue upon release with a FOC arrow but to say the point has an affect on what's behind it at impact seems counterintuitive.

The point I was trying to make is that in order to get a sub-500 gr. high FOC arrow one would have to use a pretty stiff/light shaft, and in doing so would give up durability which is counterproductive to Ashby's #1 criterion for arrow penetration.

You are correct in that the point weight would have little to no impact on the durability of the shaft.