# Olympic recurve tuning help



## KenYeoh (Feb 21, 2010)

Hi all,

I've recently began to tune my bow and have run into a few issues.. Any help would be appreciated greatly. 

Currently I am shooting 29.5 in. 520 ACE arrows cut from the front only. They are fitted with 120 grain ace points and Easton g nocks and p2 elivanes. 

I have a draw length of 29 inches and am shooting 40 lb. long W&W prime limbs on a 25" riser. I don't have access to super accurate scales, but different scales suggest that at the fingers I hold 46-48 lbs. 

What I don't get is why my arrows tune stiff. I am a left handed archer and they consistently tear left in paper. This is with a stiff plunger, center shot, and bareshafts. 

Did I buy arrows that were too stiff? Is there any way to weaken the arrows without turning in the limb bolts more?

Thanks for the help,
Ken


----------



## KenYeoh (Feb 21, 2010)

Oh and also I have a brace height of 8.75 in. and the tear runs nearly 3 inches across


----------



## huffy (Jun 20, 2004)

Paper tuning is not a good way to tune a recurve. At that short distance the arrow will still be oscillating from side to side as a result of the finger loose. I would suggest bare shaft tuning.

Best wishes, Mark Huff


----------



## m013690 (Sep 3, 2011)

If you're lefty and the arrows are going left, that's a weak indication, which I just confirmed with OnTarget2! software.

I actually just finished dialing in my A/C/Es, and I got a perfect tune on them with OnTarget! telling me they should be justly stiff. I'm not an expert at all, but if my results are a good indication for A/C/Es, you might want to back off the limb bolts a bit and lighten the points.

I found my perfect tune when OT2! said my arrows would be 0.042 stiff on dynamic spine. To get yours to there, the program says to ease your draw weight back to 44.5# and lighten your points to 80 gr.

Again, I'm not an expert, just speaking from my recent tuning experience with a new set of A/C/Es which I finished dialing in this week. But I have my bareshafts actually making contact with my fletched shafts, and my walkback tuning looks like a plumb line from 18m out to 50m, so I must have done something right.


----------



## KenYeoh (Feb 21, 2010)

m013690 said:


> If you're lefty and the arrows are going left, that's a weak indication, which I just confirmed with OnTarget2! software.
> 
> I actually just finished dialing in my A/C/Es, and I got a perfect tune on them with OnTarget! telling me they should be justly stiff. I'm not an expert at all, but if my results are a good indication for A/C/Es, you might want to back off the limb bolts a bit and lighten the points.
> 
> ...



The point is to the right and the nock end is to the left. This indicates a weak shaft? I always thought this indicates a strong shaft.. At any rate, when I dial my limbs in, the bareshaft leaves a bullet hole tear instead...


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

KenYeoh said:


> The point is to the right and the nock end is to the left. This indicates a weak shaft? I always thought this indicates a strong shaft.. At any rate, when I dial my limbs in, the bareshaft leaves a bullet hole tear instead...


For a leftie, point right/nock left is stiff.

Try bareshaft planing for tuning.


----------



## m013690 (Sep 3, 2011)

Sorry. I misread. You said they tore left in the paper, and I read that the bareshafts were going left. Duh. My fault.

That said, I second the other guy's advice. Go to straight bareshaft tuning. I tried paper tuning and I was chasing my tail. It's really not very useful for a recurve. Not in my experience anyway.

I also would reaffirm what I said about the suggestions of the software. It shows your arrows are tuning weak. And, from my experience, a proper tune seems to come in (on my A/C/Es anyway) when the program shows slightly stiff, which would indicate your arrows are even weaker still. I would back that up with personal data. My arrows are A/C/E 570s, shooting 38" on the fingers, with 30" carbon-to-carbon length. They are tuned just right. Your shafts are only 1/2" shorter, but you're drawing 10# more with 30 gr. more weight in the points than I have and lighter vanes to boot. I'm fairly confident suggesting that your arrows are probably really weak, and maybe even WAAAAAY too weak.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Paper tuning I have found is extremely hard to do with any fingers shooter. An interesting tear I've seen with recurve guys trying to paper tune is a point and fletch tear to the left and you can see the shaft tear on the right. Almost 3.5"!. It was an extremely weak spine for the weight.

Paper tuning would tell you if your nock height or tiller is off but as mentioned above it's not worth trying to paper tune left/right if you are shooting with fingers.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

IMHO paper tuning is much better suited to compounds, wherein the arrow oscillatory movement is minimized thanks to the release. Shooting fingers causes arrow planing even with a world class release, and bareshafts will oscillate fairly dramatically. 

I third the advice of bareshaft tuning. I also agree that the arrows are a bit weak if anything. At your draw length and poundage, 470's are a better fit.


----------



## KenYeoh (Feb 21, 2010)

Thanks for the help and input everyone. 
I just did some bareshaft tuning from 18m with a stiff plunger and centershot set up. Still says the arrows are too stiff!!

I'm really at a loss for what to do now..


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

KenYeoh said:


> Thanks for the help and input everyone.
> I just did some bareshaft tuning from 18m with a stiff plunger and centershot set up. Still says the arrows are too stiff!!
> 
> I'm really at a loss for what to do now..
> ...


I'll bet that you could shoot some really good scores with the bow set up the way it is now.

You can also increase brace height and / or make a lighter string.


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

Try weakening the plunger and see what happens.


----------



## KenYeoh (Feb 21, 2010)

Greysides said:


> Try weakening the plunger and see what happens.


It's centershot with a stiff plunger


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

If I've got my head around the leftie thing, weakening the plunger, preferably moving the arrow out a little, might allow the fletched and BS to group together.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

You could try some regular beiter in nocks. 
They made my arrows act to weak, switching over to pin nocks stiffened them up enough to get some great bareshaft grouping out to 70m whereas they struggled to even hit the target before.


----------



## KenYeoh (Feb 21, 2010)

I did have beiter pin nocks, but the problem was that they clamped onto the arrow too well. They went over the bushing, and after 50 shots or so with each arrow, the nocks were cracking at the part where they went over the bushing. So I swapped to the Easton G nocks. Might have to give that a go


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Centershot? Finger shooters should be just out from centershot. in the case of a left handed shooter the arrow point should be just to the right of the string when sighting down the center of the bow.

I know it sounds counter intuitive to move the arrow point to the right to get rid of right bare shafts but if the arrows are actually acting weak and trying to push in a stiff plunger, it will push the arrow more to the right. A corrected flight with feathers or vanes will straighten out more quickly however the bare shaft will not correct as it comes off the rest and plunger and veer off to the right more.

Also having the point of the arrow to the left of the string as you release (your fingers will push the nock end and string to the right)
your arrow will act "weaker" since the nock end will not be lined up with the point end. This will cause the arrow to try to bend more and may actually be bottoming out your plunger making it seem like the opposite is happening. So you want to move your arrow point a little more to the right so hopefully it will be in line with the string as the string begins it's travel towards the target.

Without a very high speed video of your arrow coming off your bow, it would be very hard to tell what exactly is happening. We can only go by the results and try making adjustments one at a time, and see what changes happen.


----------



## Bean Burrito (Apr 20, 2011)

He is correct in having the arrow at centreshot with a stiff plunger, this is an excellent tuning method and is advocated by James Park and plenty of other excellent shooters.

Increase your draw weight a bit. You're probably only 1.5-2.5 turns off a dead on tune. If not then try a string with 2 less strands (if safe) or using shorter serving. More point weight if an option. Those arrows should be tunable from experience.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

HikerDave said:


> I'll bet that you could shoot some really good scores with the bow set up the way it is now.


no doubt of that. at 18M on a 40cm groups like that should some very nice scores (250-265s assuming 30 arrow rounds)

If I bare shaft tested my current teaching rig with the current arrows I am shooting, I should be able to put the fletched arrows in the 8 ring with an average of 9.
The bare shaft would be almost off that bale.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Bean Burrito said:


> He is correct in having the arrow at centreshot with a stiff plunger, this is an excellent tuning method and is advocated by James Park and plenty of other excellent shooters.


I am not going to dispute the centershot/stiff plunger possibility however without seeing KenYeoh shoot, I believe there is a lot of other things going on that might need to be addressed. We are not all "excellent" shooters or as consistent. Most of us can improve our release a great deal. Without a very clean release (all the time) such that we are not pushing the string off to the side, tuning with centershot I find very difficult to do. (not saying it can't be done) Probably groups better if you get the tune right, but would be less forgiving to form errors if I recall correctly.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

dchan said:


> If I bare shaft tested my current teaching rig with the current arrows I am shooting, I should be able to put the fletched arrows in the 8 ring with an average of 9.
> The bare shaft would be almost off that bale.


FYI my teaching rig is an LAS/Rolan bow 22lb wood laminated limbs (twisted) 66" bow dacron string, BH of 8.5" Shibuya DX plunger and hoyt super rest. Single x7 30" stabilizer, Plastic cartel super club site. arrow position from centershot, Point is about 1 arrow width from center.
My arrows are 620 ACE with 120gn points pin nocks and 1.75" 3d Duravanes. 29" ish draw length. Want to talk overly stiff arrows? However, at 18m I'm constantly breaking nocks so I know they will group well.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

I meant that you should try a regular nock. From the picture IT looks like your using pin-nock? Or am i seeing it wrong? A plastic nock that goes in to the shaft weakens the shaft opposed to a pin.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

First thing I would do is verify your holding weight. At the minimum setting your limbs will be around 42#, not upwards of 48#. You don't say if the 29.5" is full length arrow or raw shaft, but TAP shows they should be fine with a raw shaft of 28.5" and weak at 29.5 with 120gr pts. I have 520 ACE's with raw shaft of 28.75" (29.5 DL) and they tune nicely at 40# w/ 120gr pts.

I would also note that your paper tuning showed stiff which was verified outside. I think paper tuning gets a bum rap as I find it very useful. Not for final tuning, of course, but you can learn a lot from paper tuning. Perhaps it is mis-named. It should be called paper testing, not tuning. You can test a lot with paper, "tuning" happens outside at longer distances.


----------



## DK Lieu (Apr 6, 2011)

julle said:


> You could try some regular beiter in nocks.
> They made my arrows act to weak, switching over to pin nocks stiffened them up enough to get some great bareshaft grouping out to 70m whereas they struggled to even hit the target before.


I agree that switching from a pin-nock system to a standard insert-nock should help weaken the dynamic spine of the arrow. The pin itself is around 8 gr. A G-pin-nock is around 4 gr. So your current nock system is around 12 gr. altogether (pin plus nock). I believe that a Beiter insert nock is around 6 gr., so would be 6 gr. lighter than your present system. From my experience, removing/adding weight to the tail has around 2 to 3 times the effect of adding/removing weight to the point. So removing 6 gr. from the tail would have the same effect as adding 12 - 18 gr. to the point.


----------



## Bean Burrito (Apr 20, 2011)

dchan said:


> no doubt of that. at 18M on a 40cm groups like that should some very nice scores (250-265s assuming 30 arrow rounds)
> 
> If I bare shaft tested my current teaching rig with the current arrows I am shooting, I should be able to put the fletched arrows in the 8 ring with an average of 9.
> The bare shaft would be almost off that bale.


It probably could. I've noticed that tuning isn't massively important for mid level scores at 18m- I've shot in the low 270's with a bow with dramatically stiff arrows, and usually in the 280's with a well tuned bow. For me, the tune is what brings out a 10 instead of a 9 when I'm shooting on form.

I wouldn't leave the shafts that stiff, I would definitely increase draw weight if an option. Swap for Beiter insert nocks as well.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Bean Burrito said:


> It probably could. I've noticed that tuning isn't massively important for mid level scores at 18m- I've shot in the low 270's with a bow with dramatically stiff arrows, and usually in the 280's with a well tuned bow. For me, the tune is what brings out a 10 instead of a 9 when I'm shooting on form.
> 
> I wouldn't leave the shafts that stiff, I would definitely increase draw weight if an option. Swap for Beiter insert nocks as well.


My point here is..

Since there is nothing in KenYeoh's profile on what level of shooter he is, and by inspecting that target he has up as well as the 4 arrows he shot, nothing points to a 250+ shooter. No spot on that target is "shot out" showing that he is grouping arrows well. The two fletched arrows are about 2 rings apart, high right:low left. Same with the Bare Shaft. It would be nice to see a group of 6-8 arrows and 2 bare shafts to see what is really going on. The effort to get a perfect tune in my opinion is pre-mature. If that is not the case, I apologize. While it might gain a point or 2 for an intermediate archer, fixing form at the level I see (again I have not seen him shoot or know what kind of scores he is posting regularly) I think is time better spent fixing form at this level.

In an advanced archer, if you are shooting 280s out of 300 at the 40cm Target I consider that an advanced archer, yes that tune will show marked improvement.
Trying to tune out poor form just doesn't really work.


----------



## agillator (Sep 11, 2011)

I don't buy the argument that one shouldn't fuss over tuning below a certain score threshold. Certainly given limited time to practice there has to be an appropriate balance between time spent tuning and time spent working on technique, but a low-quality tune interferes with the learning process by allowing the shooter to question whether group size is due to tune or form. The tune and the equipment quality should be kept sufficiently well ahead of the shooting skill level in order to remove any doubt that performance issues are due to technique. 

Tuning also requires a good deal of practice. Confidence in one's tuning skill needs to be developed. Given the amount of wrong expert information out there the formidableness of that task should not be underestimated. 

To Ken, the OP. Believe your eyes. Your spine is too stiff. My guess is that it is too stiff by about 100.


----------



## KenYeoh (Feb 21, 2010)

agillator said:


> I don't buy the argument that one shouldn't fuss over tuning below a certain score threshold. Certainly given limited time to practice there has to be an appropriate balance between time spent tuning and time spent working on technique, but a low-quality tune interferes with the learning process by allowing the shooter to question whether group size is due to tune or form. The tune and the equipment quality should be kept sufficiently well ahead of the shooting skill level in order to remove any doubt that performance issues are due to technique.
> 
> Tuning also requires a good deal of practice. Confidence in one's tuning skill needs to be developed. Given the amount of wrong expert information out there the formidableness of that task should not be underestimated.
> 
> To Ken, the OP. Believe your eyes. Your spine is too stiff. My guess is that it is too stiff by about 100.


Ah, I forgot to mention that I have shot upwards of 265 in practices before, and 250 in tournaments. (Should really update my profile)
The target face is actually not mine, but one I found in my club's storage locker!

Also, I am not tuning because I need to improve my scores, but because I will be shooting a full fita for the first time in a few days....
When my bow is not tuned, I feel that when I move backwards from 90 meters, my shots drift in one direction or another and I feel that I will lose many points that way (having to adjust left/right instead of just up/down)


----------



## KenYeoh (Feb 21, 2010)

agillator said:


> I don't buy the argument that one shouldn't fuss over tuning below a certain score threshold. Certainly given limited time to practice there has to be an appropriate balance between time spent tuning and time spent working on technique, but a low-quality tune interferes with the learning process by allowing the shooter to question whether group size is due to tune or form. The tune and the equipment quality should be kept sufficiently well ahead of the shooting skill level in order to remove any doubt that performance issues are due to technique.
> 
> Tuning also requires a good deal of practice. Confidence in one's tuning skill needs to be developed. Given the amount of wrong expert information out there the formidableness of that task should not be underestimated.
> 
> To Ken, the OP. Believe your eyes. Your spine is too stiff. My guess is that it is too stiff by about 100.


Thanks, just needed the extra clarification on this!


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

KenYeoh said:


> Ah, I forgot to mention that I have shot upwards of 265 in practices before, and 250 in tournaments. (Should really update my profile)
> The target face is actually not mine, but one I found in my club's storage locker!
> 
> Also, I am not tuning because I need to improve my scores, but because I will be shooting a full fita for the first time in a few days....
> When my bow is not tuned, I feel that when I move backwards from 90 meters, my shots drift in one direction or another and I feel that I will lose many points that way (having to adjust left/right instead of just up/down)


Ah, more context.

Makes a lot of sense now.. That helps..


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

agillator said:


> I don't buy the argument that one shouldn't fuss over tuning below a certain score threshold. Certainly given limited time to practice there has to be an appropriate balance between time spent tuning and time spent working on technique, but a low-quality tune interferes with the learning process by allowing the shooter to question whether group size is due to tune or form. The tune and the equipment quality should be kept sufficiently well ahead of the shooting skill level in order to remove any doubt that performance issues are due to technique.
> 
> Tuning also requires a good deal of practice. Confidence in one's tuning skill needs to be developed. Given the amount of wrong expert information out there the formidableness of that task should not be underestimated.
> 
> To Ken, the OP. Believe your eyes. Your spine is too stiff. My guess is that it is too stiff by about 100.


Don't get me wrong, Tuning appropriate for the level of archer is important. Without the new context from KenYeoh what I saw was a student (profile) with some nice gear, only 19 posts at the time, and a picture that looked like someone that might be struggling with other issues. Most very experienced archers or "gear nuts" would probably have known that while paper testing does have its merits, and tells us a bit, doing so with a fingers shooter often causes all kinds of false readings. 

If you had an archer struggling with keeping a group within the 6 ring and shooting around 220/300 would this level of tuning be appropriate? 

I agree tuning needs to stay ahead of the ability of the archer. For my 220 shooter I would be teaching my archer how to check and measure his gear, BH, tiller, nock position and plunger depth. I would be teaching them how to change brace height and using their ear to find the sweet spot for brace height. I would be checking for vane/fletch clearance and changing arrows to accomplish this. Too many times we get carried away (myself included) in trying to find the best tune down to a few clicks of the plunger and a few grains in the right place when 2 hrs of targeted release practice might solve a lot more. (and by the way change the tune)

As a coach however, I will still say that in most cases performance is affected by technique. a good quality tune really just makes the equipment more forgiving to our errors.

I would say his setup (based on all evidence) was an overspined arrow. What I was questioning is, how much time should be spent trying to get that perfect if the OP was still a 230 shooter and just starting to venture to slightly longer distances.


----------



## KenYeoh (Feb 21, 2010)

I have been shooting 70m for about a year now, so no problems there. I was just not able to make heads or tails of my arrow stiffness, as they *should* not be coming out this stiff.


----------



## Bean Burrito (Apr 20, 2011)

Are you sure the arrow is dead on centreshot? Having it set incorrectly will give misleading results from a stiff plunger test.


----------



## shootemstraight (Jan 13, 2007)

To the OP - I would suggest that you go ahead and do a walk back test. That should tell you a little more about what's going on and if you can tune those arrows. I am not thrilled with my tune, but am shooting a similar stiff arrow (but I'm right handed). However, they do "work". Yes, I'd love a "perfect tune", but you SHOULD be able to get these to work. If you don't want to increase you bow weight and can't increase your point weight, start your walk back tuning.


----------



## bdeisarcher (Nov 2, 2011)

dchan said:


> My point here is..
> 
> Since there is nothing in KenYeoh's profile on what level of shooter he is, and by inspecting that target he has up as well as the 4 arrows he shot, nothing points to a 250+ shooter. No spot on that target is "shot out" showing that he is grouping arrows well. The two fletched arrows are about 2 rings apart, high right:low left. Same with the Bare Shaft. It would be nice to see a group of 6-8 arrows and 2 bare shafts to see what is really going on. The effort to get a perfect tune in my opinion is pre-mature. If that is not the case, I apologize. While it might gain a point or 2 for an intermediate archer, fixing form at the level I see (again I have not seen him shoot or know what kind of scores he is posting regularly) I think is time better spent fixing form at this level.
> 
> ...


He's an advanced archer. His release is pretty clean (much better than mine at least).

Kem, Looks like you should suck it up and dial in the limbs some more


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

For what it's worth, I have always used paper tuning as the primary means of tuning. I just tuned up my new A/C/E's in less than 12 shots. One thing to note is that Hoyt, Easton state that a recurve finger shooter should adjust the "center shot" so the arrow is slightly left of "center shot" (Right Handed). Also note that it is recommended to mark the center of your limb to use as a guide and adjust your "center shot" accordingly. I know on a few occasions I overlooked that and actually had it to close to the riser creating clearance problems.

If you suspect clearance problems we always used to use baby powder on the riser and arrow rest area or lip stick on the rooster vanes. That way you could see using either method if your arrow was actually hitting your riser/arrow rest.


Hope that helps...


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

bdeisarcher said:


> He's an advanced archer. His release is pretty clean (much better than mine at least).


Yup. Got it.. Ken updated us earlier.. Pretty clean with a dead on centershot however is often not good enough. It better be VERY clean. it's like riding a real fine line. Little errors are magnified when you start trying to tune that position.


----------



## Bean Burrito (Apr 20, 2011)

Bob Furman said:


> For what it's worth, I have always used paper tuning as the primary means of tuning. I just tuned up my new A/C/E's in less than 12 shots. One thing to note is that Hoyt, *Easton state that a recurve finger shooter should adjust the "center shot" so the arrow is slightly left of "center shot"* (Right Handed)


There are other ways of doing things, not just the way Easton tells you to. He has the centreshot set dead centre as this is part of a tuning method advocated by many good shoers- and James Park who recently received his phd in mechanical engineering, focusing on arrow dynamics. 

The basic process is:

Plunger button stiff and dead on centreshot
Shoot bareshafts and fletched shafts, set sight, adjust draw weight to bring the fletched and bareshafts together (at about 18m)
Do not move the sight from this stage, set ir correctly before moving on
Set the plunger to "something nice" (about 500g)
Move arrow slightly outside of centreshot (edge of end of shaft on string)
Either fine tune plunger pressure or plunger position to make your arrows group dead centre (do NOT shift sight)

Fine tuning can be done as per usual

Paper tuning is a very poor way to tune a recurve bow. As the arrow leaves the bow the arrow will have a natural flex due to finger release, leading to different tears as distance changes (eg. left-centre-right-centre-left-centre-right etc.). Oscillation depends on release, arrow tune, length, etc. An arrow could read extremely weak, then when the test is repeated at another distance it could show as perfect, then at another extremely stiff, and anywhere in between. I'd actually like to do this someday, paper test a tuned rig with X10's with photos in order of every distance to show why it will never work. Unless you're clever enough to figure out exactly how far the arrow should be flexing at what point away from the bow, and your release is completely consistent, then paper tuning will not give good results. If it "worked" for you, then you got lucky with the distance you shot at, or your bow is tuned poorly (probably both).


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Bean Burrito said:


> There are other ways of doing things, not just the way Easton tells you to. He has the centreshot set dead centre as this is part of a tuning method advocated by many good shoers- and James Park who recently received his phd in mechanical engineering, focusing on arrow dynamics.
> 
> The basic process is:
> 
> ...


Well, consider that Park (and Stonebraker) are in fact clever enough. All of your concerns are addressed in Tuning for Tens. For example, you only stand far enough away from the paper to test the reaction of the arrow shortly after it leaves the bow. Not down range where fishtailing will reverse the arrow rotation and flip to the other side. Come on people, common sense. 

Paper testing works if you know what to look for, and bullet holes isn't one of them. Perhaps some confusion comes from the use of paper "testing" in a manual titled "Tuning for Tens", where the paper "testing" portion is not for fine-tuning your bow but for testing whether or not your selected arrow spine is tune-"ABLE" and whether or not your nock point is within range so as to not shoot yourself in the foot. Once you have a tune-"ABLE" arrow, you can paper "test" further to get it close enough to make outside distance tuning much easier. Paper testing does not in any way replace outside testing and tuning, but there is much you can learn from it.


----------

