Definitive arrow study-Yates/ Easton

BBob said:
Did he not say it was the opposite of that? Bumping FOC up correlates to tighter groups. Next I want to see testing with crosswinds.
View attachment 1072551
Click to expand...
Thanks Bob, dang i screwed that up. He said the chart shows19% arrow tested best but then he went into an explanation on why thats not the best way to interpret it.

Now that i look at his charts, many of those setups are very close to each other.
 
The arrow that intrigues me is the 5.0 340 with 200 grains. It had the 2nd best group in the FOC test.

My bow is set at 65 lbs, 30.5 draw. My current arrow build is a 5.0 300 spine 28.5 Carbon to carbon with a 50 grain insert and 125 grain tip, AAE Max stealth.
I am wondering if I should drop to a 340 spine, 75 grain insert 125 grain tip and cut the arrow at 28”. I have enough room and could make it work. I would be an inch longer than the test but pulling 5 lbs less draw weight.
Does anyone have any thoughts on it?
 
dtrkyman said:
Why is it such an issue with FOC. It is worse than broadhead arguments, Yates himself even went on to try and over explain why the increased FOC was better, like he was shocked and butt hurt , yet all other improvements were not debated.

It is like they don't want it to work, who cares what works just shoot it.

If you keep the arrow spine in the proper range increased FOC makes sense, I have a couple current arrow builds in the 15-20% range and they perform fantastic!
Click to expand...
I think the reason is that some of us were really hoping that increasing to high FOC would not show a significant accuracy improvement because we enjoy shooting arrows on the lighter end of the spectrum due to the “range forgiveness” they offer through flatter trajectory. This is something Yates has said he’s an advocate for.

Adding point weight is a two pronged beast because it often forces the shooter to move to a heavier spine thus requiring even more point weight to achieve the higher FOC.

I am currently experimenting with a 416 grain arrow and loving the tighter pin gaps, ability to practice past 114 yds and faster speed. The build is 12.5% foc. For me to add point weight I would have to move to a stiffer spine first which is an immediate 28 additional grains. . Very quickly putting me back toward 485+ grain setup to chase 15% foc and higher.
 
Still doesn't really explain why it is so controversial, if it groups better it groups better, everyone can decide which they prefer, accuracy or range forgiveness.

Nothing is free so you choose what you think works best.

If the lighter weight lower foc arrow wins everyone would be screaming from the top of their mountain I told you so!

I want a mix of accuracy penetration and speed, my Elk/whitetail arrow is 470 grains at 270 fps. Mule deer I would likely drop to 385 -400 grains and close to 300 fps.

Shot a Javelina with a 365 grain arrow well over 300, why? Why not, tipped with a 2 inch rage it worked perfectly.

I always advocated for people building an all around arrow to be around 400 grains, so your build sounds fantastic, but what if that 485 15% build just flat out shot better?

I literally have dozens of options to play with arrow builds, and let long range groups determine what I chose, the 470 grain arrow I choose for elk/whitetail has 175 grains up front, foc 16-17 percent and most importantly it is accurate and forgiving!

I actually wound up with the heavy weight up front trying to build a bullet proof front end, I made my own footers from aluminum arrow shafts to beef up the half outs I was using.
 
Beendare, have you increased your FOC yet??
I didn’t watch the video but from reading this thread it looks like your “Definitive” arrow study you got us all pumped up about says 19% was best. Which if I read it correctly, you lost your bet of 10-15%. And did this debunk the 10-12% that “we’ve know since the 40s”? Did he say how far it’ll fly with 19%?
Surely you’re not going to keep shooting your subpar 10-15% are you?
 
MightyWhitey said:
Beendare, have you increased your FOC yet??
I didn’t watch the video but from reading this thread it looks like your “Definitive” arrow study you got us all pumped up about says 19% was best. Which if I read it correctly, you lost your bet of 10-15%. And did this debunk the 10-12% that “we’ve know since the 40s”? Did he say how far it’ll fly with 19%?
Surely you’re not going to keep shooting your subpar 10-15% are you?
Click to expand...
What did I do that you are such a butthurt A hole?

Yes, I was wrong and surprised, my prediction using Eastons recommendations was low. Now I'm wondering, Why are the pros that rely on accuracy consistently in the Easton range when this study proves otherwise?

The 1940s testing was on the most efficient arrow energy combo- nothing in this study criteria on that.


As Yates hinted there are multiple factors but one thing appears to be true from the charts that also surprised me, severly over spined arrows are not as accurate with BH's.

I doubt I will switch to low profile 4 fletch, and for sure not add FOC as that adds weight and makes trajectory worse.

I do appreciate them testing at 70y even if I will never take a shot that long.

Well done Mr Yates, Mr Litke from Precision Cut archery and all others involved.
 
Oh I’m just giving you a hard time because you’re the loudest anti Ashby chest thumper around here.
And it was fun to watch from the sidelines while you did your victory dance 10yds from the goal line only to have somebody from your own team nock the ball out of your hand on the 1yrd line.

I may be wrong about your stance on Ashbys stuff, but I feel like his FOC recommendations were the main cause of your Ashby derangement syndrome?

I almost feel bad telling you this, but the 19% foc result of the definitive arrow study you posted to shut the door on this foc nonsense once and for all, landed right there in Ashbys percentage recommendations.

I would’ve just walked on by if you weren’t so loud and somewhat condescending to people who have different opinions on the subject.

But you set yourself up so well I couldn’t help myself from poking at you a little. And that you’re so spun up and cross eyed about it all that you interpreted the results backwards just made it irresistible.

So be careful where you get your information from. You just might prove yourself wrong. Grin
 
yeesh… this turned sour fast. Ashbey pushed FOC way past 19%. Many trad guys have a sour taste in their mouth from pushing the envelope for 25-30% FOC.

Personally I stopped giving a damn about FOC and just started tuning with 140-200fr of point weight, cause I like 125 gr heads, and I can live with whatever insert that gets me there.
 
I kept up with a bit of this stuff and also watched the video Iron Will put out about a month ago. For the sake of interest, I measured the FOC of both my current compound arrows and current recurve ILF arrows, and they both ended up around 18%. :ROFLMAO: That was pure coincidence as it wasn't a number I was aiming for at all. I just picked a broadhead weight I felt suited what I needed, saw a total arrow weight around where I needed, and picked an arrow that seemed reasonably stiff but tuneable for the setup.

No complaints with performance on any of the game animals I've shot with either of those setups over the last 6-7 months either, but I also haven't put an arrow throguh a large enough animal to justify getting too caught up in the hype.
 
Trumpkin The Dwarf said:
yeesh… this turned sour fast. Ashbey pushed FOC way past 19%. Many trad guys have a sour taste in their mouth from pushing the envelope for 25-30% FOC.

Personally I stopped giving a damn about FOC and just started tuning with 140-200fr of point weight, cause I like 125 gr heads, and I can live with whatever insert that gets me there.
Click to expand...
Well hopefully the trad guys can get rid of that bad taste now that the definitive study has been released, and 19 is closer to 25 than it is to 10, or even 12.

I always assumed, and I may be wrong, that higher foc was just a byproduct of heavier heads that were used for greater structural integrity due to them having more material.
And I can’t see anything wrong with having a more sturdy head.
 
MightyWhitey said:
Well hopefully the trad guys can get rid of that bad taste now that the definitive study has been released, and 19 is closer to 25 than it is to 10, or even 12.

I always assumed, and I may be wrong, that higher foc was just a byproduct of heavier heads that were used for greater structural integrity due to them having more material.
And I can’t see anything wrong with having a more sturdy head.
Click to expand...
I don't think it matters, honestly. Most trad guys can't shoot a 2" difference at 30 yards, let alone 70.
 
Going to need to try some of the AAE HP Hybrids with my trad bow is what I learned. This correlates with the vane choice IW went with as well. Higher profile, short, with the hybrid material. Also what Cody Greenwood keeps preaching with the TrueFlight 2” https://www.3riversarchery.com/trueflight-2-inch-shield-cut-feathers.html

Then again, I’ll just keep working on form 😆
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top