Let me try to be clear, because I often am not. The tuning of ones bow is an effort to balance forces throughout the flight of the arrow. The finer forces induced by the selected point (target, broadhead) at launch are tuned out, as much as possible, to use the least amount of blunt force vane steerage after the launch (the vanes can provide a major parachute effect - see Kupper experience above). The combination of point design, arrow spine, arrow diameter, rest alignment, yoke tune, arrow material, vane design, FOC, and the myriad of other features work together (or against each other) to produce the final POI variability. But you are correct RosinBag, the greatest variable still is the Indian.
Still would like to see a couple rounds from someone like Shane (no pressure) who has a reputation for tuning and shooting. I'm guessing his POI variability is going to be more linear (archer limitations over distance) than parabolic as predicted by the velocity calculations.
Just staying with the thought of the thread, so does this mean a good archer has a 1" group per ten yards only for field points? A hunter would then need to use a different standard in determining his effective range when using a broadhead. Just asking everyone there thought as I am working on a different article that incorporates effective range and traditional accuracy metrics.
Still would like to see a couple rounds from someone like Shane (no pressure) who has a reputation for tuning and shooting. I'm guessing his POI variability is going to be more linear (archer limitations over distance) than parabolic as predicted by the velocity calculations.
Just staying with the thought of the thread, so does this mean a good archer has a 1" group per ten yards only for field points? A hunter would then need to use a different standard in determining his effective range when using a broadhead. Just asking everyone there thought as I am working on a different article that incorporates effective range and traditional accuracy metrics.