Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
10-18-2002, 02:47 PM
#1
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,994
Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
Just noticing something. JeffB has sung the praise of the ACCs for their consistent spine and weight, saying no fliers out of a dozen. Yet they are "only" rated at .003" straightness. There are many high end carbons out that tout superior straightness, down to .001", and weights too. Yet they rarely mention spine, and Jeff says a dozen will still usually yield a few fliers.
So, am I correct in gathering that when looking at specs, assuming a reasonably straight arrow, a consistent spine is the best indicator of identical flight? Would this still be correct assuming a drop away rest is employed?
So, am I correct in gathering that when looking at specs, assuming a reasonably straight arrow, a consistent spine is the best indicator of identical flight? Would this still be correct assuming a drop away rest is employed?
10-18-2002, 03:56 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 3,058
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
(In my best Ed Mcmahon voice)
You are CORRECT SIR! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
Out of the 3 tolerances usually mentioned, they are in order of importance, Spine, weight and then straightness.
Beamn ICSH are a perfect example. Pretty poor straightness tolerances, good weight tolerances per dozen, but excellent spine match. And they shoot like a house-a-fire...for a little while... but that's another tale.
Even with a drop-away, the arrow will flex, and it has to flex consistently to get consistent accuracy.
JeffB
You are CORRECT SIR! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
Out of the 3 tolerances usually mentioned, they are in order of importance, Spine, weight and then straightness.
Beamn ICSH are a perfect example. Pretty poor straightness tolerances, good weight tolerances per dozen, but excellent spine match. And they shoot like a house-a-fire...for a little while... but that's another tale.
Even with a drop-away, the arrow will flex, and it has to flex consistently to get consistent accuracy.
JeffB
10-19-2002, 07:17 PM
#3
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,994
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
Keep it up Jeff. You are oh so close to selling me on the ACCs
Seriously, is durability an issue with them? When I shot aluminum, it seemed like I was always buying arrows, and I wasn't really too hard on them. Once I went carbon, I swore I'd never go back. I want the best shooting most consistent shafts out there, but once I get some I don't want to have to keep buying them. Please sell me some more...
Seriously, is durability an issue with them? When I shot aluminum, it seemed like I was always buying arrows, and I wasn't really too hard on them. Once I went carbon, I swore I'd never go back. I want the best shooting most consistent shafts out there, but once I get some I don't want to have to keep buying them. Please sell me some more...
10-19-2002, 07:36 PM
#4
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 3,058
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
RB,
Well as I said in the other thread, I have not had the durability problems some others have had with them. I'm careful as to how I pull them out of 3D targets, but I've seen pepople yanking on them and twisting them around like a rubber band, so I often wonder.
Of course due to their construction style some hit types will be more detrimental. For example, I put some through my bag target last week (by accident), and they stuck in the oak tree behind it...I ended up bending the tips trying to get them out (they were that deep). With the IC carbons they might have survived and they might not have..depends on the brand..most would have split at the insert had the insert pushed back into the shaft, or more commonly internal cracks in the weave (a "bend" ) which will affect spine, and hence grouping ability.
Generally if say aluminums on a scale of 1 to 5 for durabilty are a 2. Then many of the IC carbons and the ACC's are a 3.75 to 4. Some of the IC carbons (Goldtips especially, though I have heard of wierd happnestance with newer Goldtip shafting from my dealer frend who started carrying them for 2K2) and pultrudeds would garner a 5.
In any event, I find the increased accuracy and consistency more than worth it...no worries about flyers, no worries about weight, straightness or spine, and no worries when I go to buy a new dozen whether that new dozen will be 10-20 grains lighter or heavier on average or the spine will be slightly different than the last dozen I bought, so I don't have to re-tune and re-sight.
My 2 coppers
JeffB <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
Well as I said in the other thread, I have not had the durability problems some others have had with them. I'm careful as to how I pull them out of 3D targets, but I've seen pepople yanking on them and twisting them around like a rubber band, so I often wonder.
Of course due to their construction style some hit types will be more detrimental. For example, I put some through my bag target last week (by accident), and they stuck in the oak tree behind it...I ended up bending the tips trying to get them out (they were that deep). With the IC carbons they might have survived and they might not have..depends on the brand..most would have split at the insert had the insert pushed back into the shaft, or more commonly internal cracks in the weave (a "bend" ) which will affect spine, and hence grouping ability.
Generally if say aluminums on a scale of 1 to 5 for durabilty are a 2. Then many of the IC carbons and the ACC's are a 3.75 to 4. Some of the IC carbons (Goldtips especially, though I have heard of wierd happnestance with newer Goldtip shafting from my dealer frend who started carrying them for 2K2) and pultrudeds would garner a 5.
In any event, I find the increased accuracy and consistency more than worth it...no worries about flyers, no worries about weight, straightness or spine, and no worries when I go to buy a new dozen whether that new dozen will be 10-20 grains lighter or heavier on average or the spine will be slightly different than the last dozen I bought, so I don't have to re-tune and re-sight.
My 2 coppers
JeffB <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
10-20-2002, 08:44 AM
#5
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Grand Forks ND
Posts: 258
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And they shoot like a house-a-fire...for a little while... but that's another tale. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
I'd like to hear the tale. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
I've heard this before about the BlackHawk Vapors. I've been shooting the same dozen for quite a while and haven't noticed it, BUT I'm sure it is my shooting ability (or lack of).
Why do they do this, and which arrows are prone to it?
I'd like to hear the tale. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
I've heard this before about the BlackHawk Vapors. I've been shooting the same dozen for quite a while and haven't noticed it, BUT I'm sure it is my shooting ability (or lack of).
Why do they do this, and which arrows are prone to it?
10-20-2002, 09:19 AM
#6
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Middletown PA United States
Posts: 3,625
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
Good post here. Jeff is right about spine tolerance. Many of the manufacturers list the straightness of .001 like it's the gods-end of arrow quality when it's not. Keep going Jeff, I'm into this pretty good. Have recently gone back to my ACC's after a few year stint with ICS. Yeh, the ACC's just group better--all the time.
10-21-2002, 07:39 AM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,994
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
Jeff, I was checking out the ACCs, and noticed they are now offering an ACC Kinetic, supposedly about 40-50 grains more weight. Do you have any experience with them?
Also, I've seen you recommend the uni-bushing time after time, but every pic of the new ACC kinetic I've seen just has a press in
G-nock, no uni-bushing. Is this for a particular reason?
I see some ACCs in my near future, birthday is in 3 weeks
Also, I've seen you recommend the uni-bushing time after time, but every pic of the new ACC kinetic I've seen just has a press in
G-nock, no uni-bushing. Is this for a particular reason?
I see some ACCs in my near future, birthday is in 3 weeks
10-21-2002, 08:22 PM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 3,058
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And they shoot like a house-a-fire...for a little while... but that's another tale. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
I'd like to hear the tale. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
I've heard this before about the BlackHawk Vapors. I've been shooting the same dozen for quite a while and haven't noticed it, BUT I'm sure it is my shooting ability (or lack of).
Why do they do this, and which arrows are prone to it?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Well it's the way they are constructed.. the fibers are all parallel or perpendicular. There is no "reinforcement" at the corners like some IC carbons (Goldtip & CX, e.g). As they get shot quite a bit or when they take a hard impact, the layers shift slightly...causing them to basically bend.
The advantage to this system is it's easier to get consistent spine.
Hope that helps <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And they shoot like a house-a-fire...for a little while... but that's another tale. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
I'd like to hear the tale. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>
I've heard this before about the BlackHawk Vapors. I've been shooting the same dozen for quite a while and haven't noticed it, BUT I'm sure it is my shooting ability (or lack of).
Why do they do this, and which arrows are prone to it?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Well it's the way they are constructed.. the fibers are all parallel or perpendicular. There is no "reinforcement" at the corners like some IC carbons (Goldtip & CX, e.g). As they get shot quite a bit or when they take a hard impact, the layers shift slightly...causing them to basically bend.
The advantage to this system is it's easier to get consistent spine.
Hope that helps <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
10-21-2002, 08:23 PM
#9
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 3,058
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Good post here. Jeff is right about spine tolerance. Many of the manufacturers list the straightness of .001 like it's the gods-end of arrow quality when it's not. Keep going Jeff, I'm into this pretty good. Have recently gone back to my ACC's after a few year stint with ICS. Yeh, the ACC's just group better--all the time.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Another True Believer who has seen the light folks! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
JeffB <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
Good post here. Jeff is right about spine tolerance. Many of the manufacturers list the straightness of .001 like it's the gods-end of arrow quality when it's not. Keep going Jeff, I'm into this pretty good. Have recently gone back to my ACC's after a few year stint with ICS. Yeh, the ACC's just group better--all the time.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Another True Believer who has seen the light folks! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
JeffB <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
10-21-2002, 08:34 PM
#10
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 3,058
RE: Consistent Spine or Straightness for best groups
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Jeff, I was checking out the ACCs, and noticed they are now offering an ACC Kinetic, supposedly about 40-50 grains more weight. Do you have any experience with them?
Also, I've seen you recommend the uni-bushing time after time, but every pic of the new ACC kinetic I've seen just has a press in
G-nock, no uni-bushing. Is this for a particular reason?
I see some ACCs in my near future, birthday is in 3 weeks<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Happy Early B-Day! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
I DO have experience with the original A/C Kinetics which was Easton's first attempt about 2 years ago. They had the uni-bushing and G nock. They shot great, but the camo faded very quickly and rubbed off. They were about the same as a normal A/C shaft with the camo finish added. They have brought them back this year in a slightly different makeup.
I think there are two reasons why they do not have the unibushing
1) It's now the same shaft as the Beman Matrix and they just camo it..they (the Beman and A/C KII) have a slightly larger inside diameter than an A/C/C 3-60, and a slightly smaller diameter than a A/C/C 3-71 so the uninbushings don't quite fit right. The Super nocks they use however have a tab that grinds down when they install the nock for a tight fit.
2) they are already are about 30 to 40 bucks more per dozen than standard A/C/C's , and the unibushings and G-nocks would price them another 10 to 12 bucks higher even if they did make the perfect size for them to fit.
I think that the Goldtip g-nock bushing would fit better (since it is slightly larger in diameter) than the Easton A/C 3-60's though I have not tried it myself.
Personally I would just go w/ the standard A/C shafts.
Hope that helps!
Edited by - jeffb on 10/21/2002 21:38:10
Jeff, I was checking out the ACCs, and noticed they are now offering an ACC Kinetic, supposedly about 40-50 grains more weight. Do you have any experience with them?
Also, I've seen you recommend the uni-bushing time after time, but every pic of the new ACC kinetic I've seen just has a press in
G-nock, no uni-bushing. Is this for a particular reason?
I see some ACCs in my near future, birthday is in 3 weeks
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>Happy Early B-Day! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
I DO have experience with the original A/C Kinetics which was Easton's first attempt about 2 years ago. They had the uni-bushing and G nock. They shot great, but the camo faded very quickly and rubbed off. They were about the same as a normal A/C shaft with the camo finish added. They have brought them back this year in a slightly different makeup.
I think there are two reasons why they do not have the unibushing
1) It's now the same shaft as the Beman Matrix and they just camo it..they (the Beman and A/C KII) have a slightly larger inside diameter than an A/C/C 3-60, and a slightly smaller diameter than a A/C/C 3-71 so the uninbushings don't quite fit right. The Super nocks they use however have a tab that grinds down when they install the nock for a tight fit.
2) they are already are about 30 to 40 bucks more per dozen than standard A/C/C's , and the unibushings and G-nocks would price them another 10 to 12 bucks higher even if they did make the perfect size for them to fit.
I think that the Goldtip g-nock bushing would fit better (since it is slightly larger in diameter) than the Easton A/C 3-60's though I have not tried it myself.
Personally I would just go w/ the standard A/C shafts.
Hope that helps!
Edited by - jeffb on 10/21/2002 21:38:10