BGfisher

Well hells bells!!!!!!!! Dave, I thought that comment would have riled somebody up long before this. You're certainly right about broadheads flying ugly with underspined shafts. Been there and done that.

Might I change my original statement about computer geeks? I really meant those guys that use computer programs to choose arrows. Here is where I agree with you again and say enough shooting knowledge makes their use "not necessary". They're nice to play around with, but I for one don't need to know that shaft "A" needs to be 1/8" longer than shaft "B" for a given weight point, etc, etc. I figure some of these variables can be "adjusted" with the limb bolts on the bow.

davepjr71

I agree with what you are saying. A little length difference doesn't really matter. I think sometimes we can get too caught up in what technology tells us instead of using our own brains. I'm sure that is what you meant with you comment about using your own head to figure things out.

I will say though that when you do not fit into a chart the programs do help you eliminate arrows that could be underspined enough to cause eratic arrow flight.When I first started shooting the GT's last year they were 29" long and I had BH flight problems that I did not find out about until late summer. They shot great with practice tips all spring and summer. You would think that a 7595 arrow would be ok for a 75 lb bow. However,screw on a 125 gr tip and an extra 1" in DL and you find out they are not. Ran it through OT2 and found out that I had to cut 2" off of the arrows to get them to where they atleast shot well. The time I savedtrying to figure out a length and moeny saved from not having to buy new arrows are the benefits of a program.

BGfisher

I get what you're saying. I really have issues with Gold Tip. If you go by their labeling a 7595 should be good to 95#. Yeh, at what length? The truth is the spine rating on them is .340" and you know darn well that's not even good for 75# at something around 28-29". It isn't going to happen. They really need to update the labeling of their XT and Expedition series to account for the more aggressive cams on today's bows. Easton does it periodically. I just don't care for their carbon arrows, other than the Litespeeds.

You also probably know from experience that, within reason, almost any underspined arrow will group decently with target or field tips in them. They might fly ugly as the dickens and very fast, but they'll group. Throw some blades on the front and things change dramatically.

What I was referring to about using computer programs is that a lot of guys get so caught up in trying to nitpick arrow length, point weight, fletching style and such that they lose sight of the idea that most times all that's needed to get good flight from a chosen shaft is to add or subtract a turn from the limbs on the bow. Guys get too caught up in HAVING to shoot a certain poundage. And there are other factors involved, too, such as a little bit of hand torque or a bow that isn't balanced well. There are many factros that the computer programs just can'taccountfor. But I do have to admit that they will get you very close for starters.

Barry

davepjr71

Your last paragraph is well put.I use the program to get close andafter that only if i feel like playing around.Last year was my first time using carbons and going through all the spines (not sizes posted by manufacturer) is confusing at times.

Canuck_2

You're absolutely right, and I wouldNEVER boot a broadhead just for that very reason!

L8KER

I shoot GT XT and love them.