Choosing the right arrow >>————>

[ontarget7]

From a tuning stand point I feel with bows today you can really get away with a lot and a fairly wide range of spine with perfect bareshaft results from up close and at 20 yards.
Now, with that said, I have wondered why some just group more consistent day in and day out down range. This question has come up on many occasions and to be honest, I really haven’t had an answer considering I can duplicate the results regardless of spine with perfect tune results.
This led me to more testing and the weaker end of the spectrum for spine on a given setup. Some days I feel things are spot on down range and then I’ll have those days that just don’t flow quite right to average group spreads even thou shots break clean.
This is far from scientific proof but through my testing, I feel we still have that window in a sweet spot per say with spine and the selection we make to get the most out of down range groups.
I feel it’s through our own inconsistencies, whether facial pressure, very subtle pressure changes at the grip, the slightest inconsistencies in the back wall as we pull through the shot etc.
These subtle and slight inconsistencies aren’t absorbed as well through that weaker spine range per say in comparison to an arrow with more optimal spine range that absorbs these small inconsistencies more. The end results are tighter down range groups and consistency day in and day out when you choose that optimal spine range wisely.
Anyways, figured I would share with those that may be interested that might be fighting inconsistencies but still having perfect tune results.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brendan]

Shane - have you ever played around with Dudley's HIL method? I sort of feel this is what you're getting to - long range group testing reveals the optimal spine for an individual setup.

I personally have always just used a program like OT2 to pick an arrow setup, try to stay optimal to stiff, and then the arrow shoots much better than I do... But, would like to spend more time really doing HIL testing once I'm really dialed in...

I was having a vertical dispersion issue with my RX1 Ultra when I was shooting real well, but I think that was vertical nock travel issues...

 

[nphunter]

Shane,

If i'm reading correctly you are trying to say that you have more consistent down range accuracy with a stiffer spine arrow on average? Have you ever found an arrow too stiff and caused a group to open up.

Brendan,

I've read a lot about the HIL method and I also plan to spend some time testing this, one of my thoughts on this is that by adjusting your limb bolts you are also slightly adjusting draw length as well as holding weight. So i wonder if these small changes have just as much effect on long range grouping as the actual spine.

 

[kicker338]

See in the pic. the arrow with the 4 fletch vane's, you still using that ???

 

[Brendan]

Brendan,

I've read a lot about the HIL method and I also plan to spend some time testing this, one of my thoughts on this is that by adjusting your limb bolts you are also slightly adjusting draw length as well as holding weight. So i wonder if these small changes have just as much effect on long range grouping as the actual spine.

The theory behind the HIL method is to change the dynamic spine of the arrow stiffer and weaker until you find what is most accurate for you.

You can do that via limb bolts, but also via different weight points or inserts without changing draw weight, etc.

Personally, I'm not going to back off on poundage on a hunting bow, so I'll use tip weights and a weighted insert system like Gold Tip FACT to do the testing...

You are right that changing the bow otherwise could have other effects. Depending on the bow, you could keep DL and holding weight unchanged using the string, limb stops, etc.

 

[ontarget7]

Shane - have you ever played around with Dudley's HIL method? I sort of feel this is what you're getting to - long range group testing reveals the optimal spine for an individual setup.

I personally have always just used a program like OT2 to pick an arrow setup, try to stay optimal to stiff, and then the arrow shoots much better than I do... But, would like to spend more time really doing HIL testing once I'm really dialed in...

I was having a vertical dispersion issue with my RX1 Ultra when I was shooting real well, but I think that was vertical nock travel issues...

Not only long range but I can even see it at 20 yards. Say your shooting a 5 spot target, even thou all arrows are hitting the X ring I will have more hugging the line with a spine that is not optimal vs one that is.

I have switched to the 260 spine Hexx for my 80# Evoke 31 with 75 gr brass. With these I had to tweak cam synch a touch out from perfect synch due to a stiff spine reaction when cleaning up vertical nock travel. With this cam system I can throw one of the letoff bars in a different position to accommodate cam synch and still have them hitting dead nuts at full draw.

Even thou the 330’s tuned money for tune settings and cam synch I feel the weaker spine for the 80#’s picked up on slight inconsistencies in my form flaws, where the 260’s although stiff are absorbing those small inconsistencies.

Overall, the 260’s even with slight changes in cam synch are grouping more consistent and tighter group spreads down range.

Keep in mind, both still tune perfect with bareshafts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ontarget7]

See in the pic. the arrow with the 4 fletch vane's, you still using that ???

All those arrows are 4 fletch actually
Yes, still use them




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk