# New Easton RX-7 Indoor linecutter arrows for recurve



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

https://eastonarchery.com/arrows_/rx7-the-ultimate-indoor-recurve-arrow-shaft/

Anyone been following the release of the new Easton RX-7 arrows? Seems like they finally applied some of their x10 weak tail technology to their linecutters and I'm pretty excited to give them a spin. On the description it says that it tunes 1 dynamic spine size weaker than comparable x7 or x23 arrows so perhaps I may be able to shoot the 22-size 475 spine arrows without any funky tuning with 44lbs at 30 inches of draw (so no extended clickers and a point weight under 150 grains)


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

They are going to be interesting but I doubt I will invest in them. I know my limitations.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

fango - 

Most GOOD OR shooters have dropped the idea of "line cutters" years ago, yeah, I'm talking about indoors. 
You do understand the word "hype", right?

Viper1 out.


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> fango -
> 
> Most GOOD OR shooters have dropped the idea of "line cutters" years ago, yeah, I'm talking about indoors.
> You do understand the word "hype", right?
> ...


Haha, fat arrows with big feathers make me happy and if I can get them to shoot the same or better as my outdoor skinny arrows then that is a personal win for me in my book.

Theres enough world class shooters using fat arrows that Im at least confident it isnt hurting their performance.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

Man. I’m too gullible for them to keep making cool stuff. They have to stop. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Sometime around 2008-2009, I proposed to CX the idea of a large (23) diameter all-carbon arrow for recurve shooters with the same "tri-spine" technology that the CX NPX have. I felt it was a no-brainer. Apparently it was a "brainer" since making an all carbon arrow that large in diameter also weak enough, would make the wall thickness too think to be durable. At least, that's the answer I got. Hence the "middle diameter" CX Recurve RZ arrow, which has been adopted by a lot of barebow archers and a few forward-thinking recurve archers. I know that RZ immediately produced some of my highest ever indoor scores. 

It's logical that Easton would produce this arrow, but my question is what took so long? Top recurve archers have been using X7's for indoor competition forever. Easton has known about the benefits of a tapered shaft for finger shooters, also forever (since the tapered wood arrow days). It's surprising that they just now put the two together. Maybe Brady was finally able to talk them into it? I expect them to perform very well. It's the logical next step for indoor aluminum arrows.

Now, when will someone figure out how to do the same with carbons?


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

> What took so long?


That's what I was wondering when I was waiting for a large diameter tapered arrow


----------



## chase128 (May 29, 2015)

Seems relevant: 
(World OR Record for Indoor, shot at Nimes 2017 with line-cutter arrows)








Source url for pic- https://worldarchery.org/news/147255/brady-bests-own-world-record-point

:set1_draught2:


----------



## peanut_gallery (Mar 30, 2011)

I’ve wanted to try fat arrows, just to play around. If they sell them in 6 packs for not a crazy price I might check them out, don’t really feel I need a dozen. Almost picked up a 6 pack of CX X-Busters earlier this year. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

Ironically, these arrows wouldn't work for me if the spine they quote is accurate. My X-23 shafts matched my 350 spine X10's relatively well with a relatively normal point weight, but these new shafts at 420 are much too weak.

Also, why do we care about point weight being heavy for indoor arrows? 18m isn't really a struggle to reach, and there's no wind effects to make us worry about arrow speed. I don't really see what issue this solves.


----------



## Rael84 (Feb 22, 2016)

I'd bet the point weight is to make fatter arrows "feel" more like micro diameter shafts by leaving the bow faster.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

PregnantGuppy said:


> Also, why do we care about point weight being heavy for indoor arrows? 18m isn't really a struggle to reach, and there's no wind effects to make us worry about arrow speed. I don't really see what issue this solves.


If you have a perfect release, every single time, then point weight doesn't matter- but the more point weight you run, the greater the effect of a minor release variation on the cycling behavior of the arrow shaft. The rear taper helps mitigate this, but the heavier point can still work against you. 

This is a matter that doesn't get much discussion, but the fact is sometimes, a lighter point, within reason, can be more forgiving than one that's excessively heavy.


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

Viper1 said:


> fango -
> 
> Most GOOD OR shooters have dropped the idea of "line cutters" years ago, yeah, I'm talking about indoors.
> You do understand the word "hype", right?
> ...


Didn't Brady shoot fat arrows at Vegas a couple of years ago?


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

I don't think the debate over line cutters has been settled at all. It is a topic that comes up every indoor season. Many really good OR shooters shoot large diameter arrows. Many shoot small diameter arrows. Let the debate continue.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

SHPoet said:


> Didn't Brady shoot fat arrows at Vegas a couple of years ago?


In all fairness, he said "GOOD" not "EXCEPTIONAL!!!" :wink:

That being said, then people will point out that Brady could have shot toilet plungers at the target and still done as well.

To me though, the whole point of saying that because they are sponsored it doesn't prove anything doesn't hold water. The top people aren't going to shoot inferior gear BECAUSE they will no longer be top shooters and they won't get the gucci sponsorships. So, yes, they could still kick our butts using toilet plungers, but to beat the best of the best and keep those sponsorship dollars flowing, they are going to shoot the best gear they can get their hands on.

So, while I can't shoot Brady's gear anywhere near the same level he can, I can rest assured that it is some of the best gear available.

My $0.02, or $0.015 USD


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Brady set his World Record with 23 diameter Easton aluminum shafts. Plenty of top shooters worldwide still use maximum diameter shafts. 

Certainly a few of the top shooters use X10's exclusively, year-round, especially if indoors isn't a primary focus. But, that's not an attractive option for your average indoor league shooter in Omaha, Osaka, or Riom.

The purpose of the RX7 is to give people who aren't at the draw length or bow weight needed to make larger diameters work a chance to get the benefits of a "fat shaft" with a good tune, without resorting to super heavy points/excessive shaft lengths. 

This arrow opens the door for a lot more "regular folks" to get a combination that might just add a few points to the scorecard.

A number of top shooters tested the RX7 prototypes last year and had very good results.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

The argument that the top archers are going to only shoot the best gear regardless of sponsorship would be valid if there was a clear "best" piece of equipment among various manufacturers. But rarely is that the case these days. Most of the top bows, for example, are all equally good regardless of what the marketing people want you to believe. So when that's the case (as it is often) then the decision is easy - shoot the one that *pays* the best. For basically our lifetime, that's always been Hoyt/Easton. Why? Because archery is only a part of what they do and they can afford to spend "recreational" marketing dollars on archery because it's important to the people who run the company, seeing it's how they got their start. 

Top sponsored archers know better than to bite the hand that literally feeds them. For Brady to try another brand of arrow or bow right now would be the worst business decision he could make. He's smart, and he knows that. 

It's not a secret among the archery community that Brady wanted to stay with Mathews bows. But Mathews fumbled the recurve project terribly and were not committed to it, and Brady had to make a business decision - so he did what he had to do to support the pursuit of his goal.

Make no mistake, when you see top archers change from one brand to another, it's a business decision for them and almost never an equipment decision.

Having said all that, this arrow is unique to the market and I certainly would recommend that people try it and see for themselves whether it provides an advantage. I can tell you that had CX been able to make a 23x diameter all carbon arrow with their tri-spine technology, that's probably all I would ever shoot indoors. The combination of large diameter and a forgiving arrow for finger shooters makes a lot of sense.

George offers a bit of an explanation as to why it took this long to see it, and I appreciate him sharing that information.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John - 

Thanks for that.

SH -

And the running joke a few years back that while everybody was using line-cutters "Brady" came in with X-10s and won, so pick your year. 

And as far as the "new and improved" arrows opening the door for "average" shooters, it's more like Easton finding a new way to sell people stuff they don't need. I've proven with enough people, that there are very few who can out shot the cheapest (OK, almost cheapest) aluminum arrows on an indoor match. You have to understand where the limiting factor is, and like John said, it ain't the equipment. 

However, the only way of telling is to try them. Look and overall score differences over time and see exactly how may extra points you'll get with a fatter arrow. And if you're shooting a single spot (and I'm willing to bet most here are), you have another problem to worry about - glance offs. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Tony, you know as well as I do that most of the folks who should be shooting skinnies on a single spot are instead choosing to manufacture their own anxiety by shooting fat arrows in multiple spot faces.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John - 

To quote a friend of mine (Hi Nick :wave3: ), "Yeah, archery is like that". 

Viper1 out.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

>--gt--> said:


> If you have a perfect release, every single time, then point weight doesn't matter- but the more point weight you run, the greater the effect of a minor release variation on the cycling behavior of the arrow shaft. The rear taper helps mitigate this, but the heavier point can still work against you.
> 
> This is a matter that doesn't get much discussion, but the fact is sometimes, a lighter point, within reason, can be more forgiving than one that's excessively heavy.


Is this why so many people in the US shoot the x10 with a 100grn point as opposed to the 120s even at the higher spine weights? Seems like mostly Asian countries shooting 120s. Not sure how accurate that is, but it seems to be mostly true from what I’ve heard. 

I really like the idea of these, but I just hate fiddling with my set up too much. I probably will just shoot x10s. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Speedly (Jan 23, 2019)

Regarding the discussion about linecutters in general (and the assertion a couple of posters are seemingly making that they aren't worth anything), I've tested more than once if 23 diameter arrows help score better indoors against my outdoor arrows.

They shoot between 3-5% better than my skinny arrows, depending on the day.

Just because *you* don't like them doesn't mean they don't work for anybody at all.


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

>--gt--> said:


> If you have a perfect release, every single time, then point weight doesn't matter- but the more point weight you run, the greater the effect of a minor release variation on the cycling behavior of the arrow shaft. The rear taper helps mitigate this, but the heavier point can still work against you.
> 
> This is a matter that doesn't get much discussion, but the fact is sometimes, a lighter point, within reason, can be more forgiving than one that's excessively heavy.


I'd like to see data on that. I don't think I have ever heard anyone else claim that lower point weight can mitigate bad releases. In fact, I've often head people claim that increased arrow weight causes a more forgiving shot. I don't really subscribe to either philosophy, but I'd love to know any rationale you have for your



> Regarding the discussion about linecutters in general (and the assertion a couple of posters are seemingly making that they aren't worth anything), I've tested more than once if 23 diameter arrows help score better indoors against my outdoor arrows.
> 
> They shoot between 3-5% better than my skinny arrows, depending on the day.
> 
> Just because *you* don't like them doesn't mean they don't work for anybody at all.


I ran a statistical analysis once to quantify this. I had to make some assumptions that I no longer think represent most archers perfectly, but it should still be close enough to get us an idea. Basically, I modeled the distribution of arrows shots as a 2D normal distribution, so a Rayleigh distribution represents the distance to the center of the target, and then some slight modifications are done to account for arrow diameter. It's not perfect because many archers seem to cluster more or less than a normal distribution, but it worked well enough for some interesting conclusions.

I don't have the raw data, and I'd have to spend a bit of time that I don't currently have to get the exact details, but as a quick example an archer that averages about 9.25 with an X10 should average about 9.5 with maximum diameter arrows (so jumping from 555 to 570). This is about 2.7%, which is close to your estimate. However, once you get to a high enough level, most arrows are cleanly in the 10, so line breakers become less effective. By the time an archer averages 9.8 (or 588 on 60 arrows), the difference is very small. This also explains why top archers don't seem to care either way; by the time you're dropping maybe 5 points out of 600, line breakers barely make a difference.


----------



## Speedly (Jan 23, 2019)

PregnantGuppy said:


> I ran a statistical analysis once to quantify this. I had to make some assumptions that I no longer think represent most archers perfectly, but it should still be close enough to get us an idea. Basically, I modeled the distribution of arrows shots as a 2D normal distribution, so a Rayleigh distribution represents the distance to the center of the target, and then some slight modifications are done to account for arrow diameter. It's not perfect because many archers seem to cluster more or less than a normal distribution, but it worked well enough for some interesting conclusions.
> 
> I don't have the raw data, and I'd have to spend a bit of time that I don't currently have to get the exact details, but as a quick example an archer that averages about 9.25 with an X10 should average about 9.5 with maximum diameter arrows (so jumping from 555 to 570). This is about 2.7%, which is close to your estimate. However, once you get to a high enough level, most arrows are cleanly in the 10, so line breakers become less effective. By the time an archer averages 9.8 (or 588 on 60 arrows), the difference is very small. This also explains why top archers don't seem to care either way; by the time you're dropping maybe 5 points out of 600, line breakers barely make a difference.


Oh, undoubtedly when you're nearly always in the 10 ring anyways, the large diameter shafts don't make much of a difference. (God knows I'm certainly not shooting that well.) But the flip side of the coin also is that if I were that good and in competitions where single points can make the difference, you'd better believe I'm shooting the bigger arrows anyways, just for the insurance.

I understand that people don't want to spend time tuning their bows twice (or more) a year to switch back and forth, but for me, taking the time to do so helps me understand my equipment better, which results in better shooting.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys -

I can only go with my experience (which includes a fairly good number of people I've shot with and spoken to), the general consensus is that while you "might" pick up a few points using the fattest arrow allowed, the over all group size is worse with "line-cutters" than with standard size shafts. IOWs, if you gain 3 points by cutting a few lines and loose 10 by opening up your group, you end up at a loss. 

Now, I'm talking about decent, but not world class shooters (you know, most of us), averaging 270s of the FITA target and 280s on the blue. 

Speedly/PG, I have to disagree, if you're always in the 10 ring, that's where a line-cutter might make a difference. In that case a "bad shot" might be a scratch 10 or a 9, while for the rest of us a "bad shot" might be a 7 or worse. PG, you're going under the assumption the same group size would exist between the different arrows, that's the fly in the ointment and why simple statistics don't tell the whole story. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Seems to me that many are using old arguments against a new product the very design of which makes the old arguments moot. Most arguments appear to be based on the idea that you are trading off one design feature, forgiveness, for another, line-cutting. The new arrow design no longer requires a trade-off.


----------



## target1 (Jan 16, 2007)

Seattlepop said:


> Seems to me that many are using old arguments against a new product the very design of which makes the old arguments moot. Most arguments appear to be based on the idea that you are trading off one design feature, forgiveness, for another, line-cutting. The new arrow design no longer requires a trade-off.


Time will tell...but, how much money will be made while everyone is trying to find out?


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

target1 said:


> Time will tell...but, how much money will be made while everyone is trying to find out?


I always make the point that *within reason* archery is cheaper than habits like smoking, alcoholism, or gambling :darkbeer:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

target1 said:


> Time will tell...but, how much money will be made while everyone is trying to find out?


Actually, not that much. Consider the cost of a dozen aluminum arrows compared to the cost of "testing" things like high-end stabilizers, limbs, risers or small-diameter carbons or A/C's with tungsten points. By comparison, this test should be pretty cheap. 

I'm willing to give it a try, as I'm destined to be dropping into that zone where these arrows could prove helpful. I still like all my arrows to compete for a spot in my quiver. If these can beat out my CX recurve RZ's for indoors, then they get to play. Simple as that.


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

Viper beat me too it. Obviously if you shoot fat arrows as well as you shoot skinny arrows you will do better. But that is the question, do you? Not to mention that for many of us recreational shooters, they don't make fat arrows that will tune at our draw weight (although the CX Maxima recurve RZ might be a good middle ground).

James


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

fango0000 said:


> I always make the point that *within reason* archery is cheaper than habits like smoking, alcoholism, or gambling :darkbeer:


Don't forget "redheads!" :mg:


----------



## PregnantGuppy (Jan 15, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> Speedly/PG, I have to disagree, if you're always in the 10 ring, that's where a line-cutter might make a difference. In that case a "bad shot" might be a scratch 10 or a 9, while for the rest of us a "bad shot" might be a 7 or worse. PG, you're going under the assumption the same group size would exist between the different arrows, that's the fly in the ointment and why simple statistics don't tell the whole story.


Which is why I carefully quantified my post with the exact assumptions I made. I am well aware the model is not perfect, for more than one reason. All I wanted is a quantification of how much the arrow diameter affects the shot if we eliminate every other variable, and that's what I got. Further applications to actual shooting require careful consideration of other factors, as you point out.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

fango0000 said:


> I always make the point that *within reason* archery is cheaper than habits like smoking, alcoholism, or gambling :darkbeer:


Damnit. I smoke and drink while I roll the dice to see what gear I’ll buy next. You’re doing it wrong Greg! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John - 

You misread T1's post. He didn't say how much money will be spent, or how expensive stuff is, he said, how much will be made. 
I'm willing to bet - enough. He's right.

The intent of marketing isn't how much money one guy will spend, it the amount of money a company makes from a lot of guys buying new and improved stuff they don't need and repeating the process the next year. All, or most, companies do the same thing, listen carefully to most TV commercials (and read the disclaimers) and you'll see the BS. You've as much said it yourself, if "Brady" switches from Hanes to Fruit of the Loom, there'll be a run on Fruit of the Loom at Walmart, that's marketing.

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> John -
> 
> You misread T1's post. He didn't say how much money will be spent, or how expensive stuff is, he said, how much will be made.
> I'm willing to bet - enough. He's right.
> ...


You assume I misread T1's post. Not that much money will be made, compared to what they make on bats or bicycle frames or all the other things Easton does outside of archery. I think sometimes archers forget that Easton's name is recognized by the public for everything BUT archery. LOL 

This is peanuts for Easton. A real niche item especially considering it was made for finger shooters (probably less than 5% of all archers worldwide) Probably why it took so long to produce. But I'm glad they did. Had these been out 15 years ago, you better believe I would have been using them.


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

Gregjlongbow said:


> Damnit. I smoke and drink while I roll the dice to see what gear I’ll buy next. You’re doing it wrong Greg!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nice :set1_rolf2:


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John - 

I know that T1 posted one thing and you (and others) replied to some thing else. That's the "what about ..." tactic used by a certain political party and all it does is deflect from the real issue. Let's be real, it Easton wasn't going to make money from it, they wouldn't do it - no company would. Altruism hasn't been Hoyt/Easton's strong suit in decades. 

You know, with a lot of things, I preface stuff, by saying "I'm cheap", well the fact is, I have no problem spending money on something I need or even just want, but I do have a real BIG problem being sold a bill of goods, especially when it's obvious. As I said, it's common practice, and for once it's where the Internet and public forums serve a purpose - providing push back. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I guess we see this one differently Tony. This looks like a unique and useful product to me, and one that shouldn't be cost prohibitive for intermediate and advanced archers of 
most economic brackets. If I've fallen for some marketing hype, then at least testing it won't cost me an arm and leg. Heck, some people bought sunglasses that cost more than a set of these arrows.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John - 

That's cool, but I give the guys with the Oakleys the same argument . :glasses9:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not averse to trying new things, but I have to see some hint of truth in a real world scenario, before I try something. In my experience, the equipment is almost never the limiting factor. 

So, like T1 said, time will tell. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I would have said the same had I not seen a marked improvement in my indoor recurve scores with the CX recurve RZ's. With almost no practice, I strolled down and shot one of the best indoor scores I've shot in years (in the 580's) and my form and endurance were awful. I was catching 10's when I had no right to. 

The irony here is that even if Brady were to use these arrows to shoot a perfect 600, one could only ever attribute a 1 point improvement to the arrow. LOL


----------



## lcaillo (Jan 5, 2014)

Uh, John, IMNSHO, if you shot the score with legal equipment, you deserved it and have a right to be proud of it. The recognition of the limitations in your form and endurance is simply evidence of your expectation of excellence, which got you to the level that you achieved.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

John - 

We've all caught 10's we shouldn't have, the reality is the better trained you are, the more things you can get away with. 
There's also a principle named for a former student (name withheld), that basically stated the more time off you have the better you shooter 

I'm sure that a lot of people can can recall one change that "made a real difference", unfortunately there are usually other factors involved, not the least of which is luck. And the real question becomes, how long did that "real difference" last. 

Not easy questions. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## gilbertj (Jan 9, 2015)

In my limited experience, I have shot very similar numbers with X10s and X7 2014 Cobalts indoors. Averaging around 285-290 on a FITA 3 spot. Find how I shot them makes a bigger difference than the arrow I'm shooting.


----------



## jhinaz (Mar 1, 2003)

When Brady began shooting 23s he told me he shot the same scores with X10s and 23s, and the reason he chooses to shoot 23s is because of shoots-off situations where they measure closest to the center. 
If the X10 and 23s basically hit the same hole for him the outside edge of the 23 will be closer to the center of the target than will the X10. Made sense to me. - John


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

jhinaz said:


> When Brady began shooting 23s he told me he shot the same scores with X10s and 23s, and the reason he chooses to shoot 23s is because of shoots-off situations where they measure closest to the center.
> If the X10 and 23s basically hit the same hole for him the outside edge of the 23 will be closer to the center of the target than will the X10. Made sense to me. - John


Yes. Locally I've lost multiple shootoffs for the same reason. My NPX vs an X10 or an X7


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Any Barebow archers try setting up the 22 size RX-7 with a insert and screw in points for tuning? I called Easton tech support and was told they do not recommend inserts or make inserts for the RX-7’s in any size.. that said LAS states the 22 uses 2214 point end components but Easton does not make a 2214 insert. In RPS inserts they make 2212, 2213, and 2216. Easton does not even make a variable weight glue in point for this shaft and neither does TopHat. 

I am thinking of just getting 2213 inserts but am curious what others if any are using with the 22’s for BB indoor.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Can't comment on the new RX7, but for X7's I use 2212 one-piece bullet points (they make a 2213 also) and pound crimp-on fishing lead down the shank. To seal the end, either use solder (maybe super glue or even hot melt?) or hit the end of the shank with a torch to melt the lead to seal it off. Filled almost to the top came to 204gr.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> Seems to me that many are using old arguments against a new product the very design of which makes the old arguments moot. Most arguments appear to be based on the idea that you are trading off one design feature, forgiveness, for another, line-cutting. The new arrow design no longer requires a trade-off.


Only question I have left is about the total arrow weight. With these arrows having a dynamic spine one size weaker than a parallel shaft, that means I would need a 2315 where I normally would use a 2312. I will take the added durability of the thicker wall, but a 2315 is going to be a very heavy arrow, which might negate any forgiveness offered by the weaker tail. I still need to do some testing, but the total arrow weight does concern me - particularly for recurve. If I were still shooting nfaa trad., I would love it.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys - 

I guess what I'm questioning is: what kind of "difference" are you expecting and when?
Would it matter to a guy in the 240/300 range? 270 range or maybe 290? 
Do we really expect scores to jump 5 points across the board? 

I'm sticking with my first assumption, that it's doing Easton more good that the shooters. 

Carry on. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

We heard you Tony.


----------



## Hny_Bdger_Rcher (Feb 2, 2019)

What's the point of the rear taper?


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

FYI .. with some expert assistance from my friend at LAS it was determined a PDP 2212 insert fits the best in the RX-7 size 22. I have 2 22’s and 2 23’s coming to determine my best match for my indoor rig. Easton 2212 was very snug and the 2213-2215 insert was loose. Thank’s a bunch John and John for your help as it saved me trip up to Lancaster to find a suitable fit. 

Hope this helps anyone else who may need this info


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

Hny_Bdger_Rcher said:


> What's the point of the rear taper?


weaken the tail


----------



## MartinOttosson (May 31, 2011)

Hny_Bdger_Rcher said:


> What's the point of the rear taper?


Looking at the numbers, it is really minor rear taper in regards of outer diameter. If the numbers are correct the difference between the fattest part of the shaft in the front and the thinnest part in the back is 0,15 mm. That is the thickness of a paint layer more or less and it is not going to be visible unless you measure it with a micrometer tool. The spine effect of the variation in wall thickness along the shaft is going to be much, much bigger. I would say that the shaft has an invisible taper in the wall thickness, rather than look cool as a rear tapered shaft as some seem to believe. The 420 for example is going to _look_ more or less exactly like a X7 2312 or 2314 in terms of tube shape. 

For OR it sounds like a great idea. I am probably going to buy a set to use with my OR rig. For stringwalking barebow however a soft rear needs testing and approval before we can be sure that it works good. The forces of the rear end of the shaft is totally different when stringwalking compared to shooting split finger. I have done some test with rear tapered carbon/alu arrows with stringwalking and that turned out to behave really strange and did not work at all. Tapering can be done different however so it might turn out to be great for stringwalking too. Time will tell.


----------



## Johnny6696 (Sep 6, 2019)

Waiting to see how they perform


----------



## dfrois (Apr 19, 2014)

MartinOttosson said:


> ...
> The spine effect of the variation in wall thickness along the shaft is going to be much, much bigger. ...


Sorry, but I don't understand how this can be. The difference is less than 1/128 of an inch. That is half the difference between a 2312 and a 2212, normal shafts. So, unless the wall thickness also varies, I don't see how such a minor difference can have a bigger effect than going to the next softer tube (2312 to 2212).

Am I missing something?

DF


----------



## dfrois (Apr 19, 2014)

From easton's website:

For X7
Model GPI Spine O.D. OEM Length
2114	9.9	.506	.328 32.5

For RX7: Point O.D. Nock O.D. I.D. Spine Length GPI
RX7 21-525	0.3282 (2114)	0.3240	0.3000	525	32.5	303	9.3

So, only 25 spine points gained, for the same front OD...and that is probably due to the 0,15mm difference.

Besides, Easton only mentions a "...rear taper...", but I found no official mention of a variation in wall thickness. Does anyone knows something that they are not telling us?

I am very interested in this, since I use 2114s that are a bit too long, and a bit too stiff. So, I am exactly the kind of consumer this is targeted to...but I think the spine gain needs to be far more substantial than 25 points in 500. Especially in view of the price difference between RX7 and X7...

DF


----------



## dfrois (Apr 19, 2014)

Sorry, that came out poorly formatted. 

X7 2114 has 506 spine. 
RX7 21-525 has 525 spine. 
Both shafts have a Point O.D. of 0.328. 

So, less than a mere 0.5% gain in spine...from 506 to 525.

DF


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

Update: Ran into a snag with the 23 and a 125gr point insert once I got it to a good bareshaft tune length and my bidrop..... as of right now I went back to my RZ’s as I am not willing to give up my Gabriel to use a arrow with a 23/64th hole punch. With exception of this current issue I have never experienced anything erratic or negative using a bidrop and it has been so reliable and trouble free I never had to even know it was there. I like KISS methodology in gear I just use stuff that works without having to think about using it


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

It would fold due to total arrow weight? That is why I moved from bidrop to zniper...


----------



## JimDE (Aug 3, 2008)

If I had to guess it is the 4 large mark crawl and the steeper angle of force nock to rest with a shorter arrow at 23/64 which puts more mass further over the arm of the bidrop. Without doubt I could bend and play with the bidrop to get it stopped but why? My RZ’s are shooting good, faster and a straighter angle of impact at 18m. 

I bought my bidrop back when Demmer shot the WA field in Europe using one... as I said I like things that just work without having to think about them. Cocking the arm every shot and inconsistencies of operation to various crawls just wasn’t for me. I went right back to my bidrop and the zniper with 2-3 short and long wires I ordered for it now sits in a ziplock bag in my gear bag. 

When I shot compound my rest of choice was Barner fallaway rests which performed flawlessly for me shot To shot no matter which bow they were on (I still have 3 regular barners and one overdraw barner sitting on old cable style compounds I once shot) because they were designed to fall due to bow inertia. The zniper is friction activated where the force of the shaft moving forward has to apply enough dynamic friction to the rest that it overpowers the magnetic force holding it up. To a fixed crawl for a fixed distance you can get it to fall consistently shot to shot. Change the angle of force to the arm by crawling up and down the string then the arm may not consistently fall. I don’t need to have that in the back of this old man’s mind shot to shot. Oddly arm remaining up or falling actually at 30 m and under (the distance I tested it at) really did not seem to adversely effect arrow impact but I expect things to do s intended shot to shot or it does not stay. 

I may futz with it again someday but right now I see no reason to.


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

dfrois said:


> Sorry, that came out poorly formatted.
> 
> X7 2114 has 506 spine.
> RX7 21-525 has 525 spine.
> ...


The rear taper makes the arrow dynamically behave much weaker than the "525" they cite for the spine. 
I set my 525s up (120gr point, 5.5 inch banana feathers with bushing and super nock, 31 inch arrow) and the bareshafts tune about 6-7 inches weak @ 18 meters for my setup. I shoot 44lbs at 30inches of DL. 
- Normally this spine would tune if it was a parallel shaft. 

I bought a set of 475s now to see how they will do. My 525s will be reserved for my lighter limbs with 40lbs OTF.


----------



## MTrainer (Oct 11, 2013)

Do you thing the RX-7 521 21 is still taper or it is more a 2114?


----------



## huckduck (Nov 24, 2014)

my friend got the 475s (he usually shoots 450 x10s). and says that these RX7s are extremely punishing.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Alright, I'm gonna have to order some of these just to give them a go. I've always liked aluminum indoors, even if my PB indoor scores were all shot with carbons. LOL


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

I tuned the 475s perfectly. 
44lbs otf at 30in DL

120gr tophat DWAC points, 5.5inch banana feathers, super nocks with total arrow length about 31.25in


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I got a great tune at 18 meters w 525/21's. 120 on the front, 3.5" metallic spyder vanes, beiter in-nocks into the stock super uni bushings (because I have like 80 of them lol). Cut around 27" of aluminum, short enough that I don't need an extended clicker, unlike parallel shaft fat aluminums or parallel fat carbons. I also did not need to run a colossal amount of point weight, which my personal testing showed to be super-punishing on plucks.

47#, 28" draw length, no weird settings on my bow in terms of brace height/nock set height/tiller.

As far as forgiveness, they are more punishing than my X10's/Nano Pro Extremes, and a hair more punishing than Pro Recurve RZ. I find that strict attention to follow through is required, which for me is actually a good thing, as I'm in the process of rediscovering a good, repeatable shot, and the strict adherence required is beneficial. 

Certainly I'm happy enough with their overall performance to give them a real test drive for indoor seaason.


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

huckduck said:


> my friend got the 475s (he usually shoots 450 x10s). and says that these RX7s are extremely punishing.


Please help my non-native English here - to me, that would mean they are extremely hard to use/tune, which seems to be the opposite what it means based on limbwalkers reply...


----------



## Shinken (Nov 3, 2012)

Tuned the 525 21 at 40# OTF. 28" length shaft with NIBB point and Beiter nocks.
They are not forgiving of failing to follow through (maintain back tension) which is not a bad thing since they'll force me to shoot correctly.
X10 were more forgiving of my mistakes but I think with time I might get better scores from these because I will have learnt to shoot better.


----------



## alithearcher (Sep 18, 2017)

If you have tuned RX-7s, could you please share and compare to your outdoor arrows? I shoot 450 X10s and ordered 420s.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Shooting 525 RX 7's, and 500 X10's. In fact, for me, they tuned nearly identically. My RX7's are about 1/4" shorter (arrow shaft length only) than my X10's. However, keep in mind that I'm using the steel X10 points, which add a fair bit of stiffness due to their long shank.


----------



## Shinken (Nov 3, 2012)

525 RX7 NIBB points 28" shaft and 600 X10 Tunsten point 100 grains. Both tune a bit weak (minimally) which I prefer at 40# OTF.


----------



## dfrois (Apr 19, 2014)

fango0000 said:


> The rear taper makes the arrow dynamically behave much weaker than the "525" they cite for the spine.
> I set my 525s up (120gr point, 5.5 inch banana feathers with bushing and super nock, 31 inch arrow) and the bareshafts tune about 6-7 inches weak @ 18 meters for my setup. I shoot 44lbs at 30inches of DL.
> - Normally this spine would tune if it was a parallel shaft.
> 
> I bought a set of 475s now to see how they will do. My 525s will be reserved for my lighter limbs with 40lbs OTF.


I believe you, but, if so, that would be even more noticeable for short draw lengths, no? If so, that's good news for me. 

Do you (or anyone else) have data for comparison between RX7 and normal X7 arrows, of comparable spine, after a good tune? That seems, to me, a more interesting comparison than to outdoor AC arrows, such as X10 or ACE.

If anyone that has a good setup with X7s tries the RX-7, I'm sure many would be interested in hearing about the results.

DF


----------



## Shinken (Nov 3, 2012)

I was shooting 2014 X7s last year with the same setup I listed earlier. So going to RX7 21, I have gain a tiny bit of diameter for the arrow. I suspect I could tune RX7 22 and tune those decently with my 40#. They will likely be a bit stiff.


----------



## liquidator4711 (Aug 4, 2016)

Maybe I’ve been doing something strange, but as a barebow shooter I’ve seen very strange bareshafts behavior with the 420/23 rx7 - I’ve previously tuned both 2212 and 2312 shafts without issues (as well as SuperDrive 23/.475). It’s been super responsive to small tuning changes, moving the bareshafts from weak 5cm up to 50cm outside of the target (weak) - and movable to the stiff side as well. I wonder if the weak tail has some strange interaction with string walking, but haven’t seen that with e.g. ace or maxima pro rz or nano pro extreme before (all with weak tails). 
I tried tuning it at two different times, with same strange behavior (feathered arrows shooting ok to excellent), but the weirdness of the bareshafts make me not trust them at this point and have moved back to SuperDrive 23 instead - who tuned perfectly fine on the same bow with just a little bit of nocking point / bow weight adjustment.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

>--gt--> said:


> Brady set his World Record with 23 diameter Easton aluminum shafts. Plenty of top shooters worldwide still use maximum diameter shafts.
> 
> Certainly a few of the top shooters use X10's exclusively, year-round, especially if indoors isn't a primary focus. But, that's not an attractive option for your average indoor league shooter in Omaha, Osaka, or Riom.
> 
> ...


George, I would like to say thank you. I got some RX7s and they are as advertised. Shooting about 4 to 5 points higher with these arrows than my ACEs. 

The issue I have had with aluminum's in the past is that they would give me some extra points due to their line cutting, and then I would shank one, and just like that they would take away the points I just picked up, so usually I shot about the same scores with aluminum and micro diameter shafts. Not with the RX7s. They are shooting as well as the ACEs, and I'm picking up those 4 to 5 points due to their line cutting. Again thank you George.


----------



## josh_gml (Jun 21, 2019)

I would like to test the RX7 23-420 with 359 against the X23 2312 with 423 spine iam using atm. Seeing that some have succes tuning the rx7 i might be able to use a lighter point weight then the 170gr iam using now.

The only thing that might hold me back is the fact that they tuned so nice on my setup when i tuned it outdoors at 30m.


For reference i use 70-40 limbs and my arrows are 29.75" long, i guess my draw weight is about 46 but i would have to check that.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Joe McGlyn's 1166 this past weekend was shot with RX7's. They are legit. Probably what I'll be using next indoor season.


----------



## tassie_devil (Aug 15, 2018)

Highest spine is the 21-525. I'm shooting 700 spine VAPs at the moment, if I could thought I'd benefit from switching to an indoor arrow should I pile on the point weight for an RX7 or be better with one of:
- CX X-busters come at 700 spine 
- Maxima pro RZ in 650. 
- 1914 / 1916 in straight aluminum around the 700 mark?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

tassie_devil said:


> Highest spine is the 21-525. I'm shooting 700 spine VAPs at the moment, if I could thought I'd benefit from switching to an indoor arrow should I pile on the point weight for an RX7 or be better with one of:
> - CX X-busters come at 700 spine
> - Maxima pro RZ in 650.
> - 1914 / 1916 in straight aluminum around the 700 mark?


I would listen to gt's advice about not loading up too much point weight in indoor arrows. If anyone knows this, he should. That said, I'll guarantee you Brady had 200+ grains in his 2512's at Vegas. He had to, in order to tune them at his length, so it's probably not that big a deal. I've shot great scores with X-busters as a barebow arrow, so I wouldn't hesitate to use them. I just set a US record with Maxima RZ's so I can't speak ill of them either. Great arrow. Of the three you mention, I'd go with the RZ's honestly. They are a very forgiving arrow. But since I can still shoot the 22's in RX7, and maybe even the 23's, that's probably what I'll be using next indoor season.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Brady's shot is so good that he could probably shoot a 1" X10 stabilizer with a conical weight on the front and still shoot 290+ lol.

I gave them a pretty good workout this indoor season, and I stand by my original post on this, in that I found these to be more punishing than my skinny outdoor arrows, and just a hair more punishing than my Pro Recurve RZ's. That being said, they were way more forgiving than 2314's with 200 on the front and still I needed an extended clicker, putting the node way out in front of the plunger.

They are worth a good look. But as has been pointed out ad nauseum, good shooting with any size arrow trumps crap shooting with fat arrows.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I would listen to gt's advice about not loading up too much point weight in indoor arrows. If anyone knows this, he should. That said, I'll guarantee you Brady had 200+ grains in his 2512's at Vegas. He had to, in order to tune them at his length, so it's probably not that big a deal. I've shot great scores with X-busters as a barebow arrow, so I wouldn't hesitate to use them. I just set a US record with Maxima RZ's so I can't speak ill of them either. Great arrow. Of the three you mention, I'd go with the RZ's honestly. They are a very forgiving arrow. But since I can still shoot the 22's in RX7, and maybe even the 23's, that's probably what I'll be using next indoor season.


 I listened to an interview of Brady from CAM and when asked about those arrows he used in Vegas, he said they weren’t tuned, but hit. He said he could read the decal as it went to the target, but they just hit where he was aiming. I found that interesting, and not really sure what to do with that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> I listened to an interview of Brady from CAM and when asked about those arrows he used in Vegas, he said they weren’t tuned, but hit. He said he could read the decal as it went to the target, but they just hit where he was aiming. I found that interesting, and not really sure what to do with that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


LOL I've seen that. I attribute it to multiple harmonic nodes that achieve the same result.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> LOL I've seen that. I attribute it to multiple harmonic nodes that achieve the same result.


Well the more I think about it, if you can get the arrows to hit the target at an angle, wouldn't that give your arrow more surface area to score with? Maybe he is on to something, now the question is how can I get an arrows to shoot sideways and hit where I'm aiming every time. :set1_thinking:


----------



## diewindowsdie (Dec 2, 2018)

Does anyone has actual experience with RX7 (I'm especially interested in 23 - max OD)? Easton arrow chart puts it in T8 group (x10 450 seemed to be too stiff for me so I'm gonna use 500 spined carbon arrows in a week) - most arrows in T8 group has spine somewhere around 500, except for RX7-23, which is 420. For the reference, I use 70 inch bow, has ATA draw length about 31.5" (my x10s are 31.5" excluding point length), now I have about 47-48 pounds of draw weight at my fingers, but I'd like to draw less weight, about 43 pounds. So, I'm not sure if I should trust Easton arrow chart, and there is no way I can try these arrows before buying, so I'm asking you guys for advice here.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> Well the more I think about it, if you can get the arrows to hit the target at an angle, wouldn't that give your arrow more surface area to score with? Maybe he is on to something, now the question is how can I get an arrows to shoot sideways and hit where I'm aiming every time. :set1_thinking:


The answer to that is yes you can. But only if you can shoot the bow the same way every time.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

diewindowsdie said:


> Does anyone has actual experience with RX7 (I'm especially interested in 23 - max OD)? Easton arrow chart puts it in T8 group (x10 450 seemed to be too stiff for me so I'm gonna use 500 spined carbon arrows in a week) - most arrows in T8 group has spine somewhere around 500, except for RX7-23, which is 420. For the reference, I use 70 inch bow, has ATA draw length about 31.5" (my x10s are 31.5" excluding point length), now I have about 47-48 pounds of draw weight at my fingers, but I'd like to draw less weight, about 43 pounds. So, I'm not sure if I should trust Easton arrow chart, and there is no way I can try these arrows before buying, so I'm asking you guys for advice here.


Based on your specs, I'd go with the 22's - esp. if you want to go down in weight. I draw a smidge over 32" and that's what I'm going with next indoor season. When I shot 2312's, I had to use 125 grain points to tune them at 48#, but then I tune weaker arrows than most folks for some reason.


----------



## diewindowsdie (Dec 2, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> Based on your specs, I'd go with the 22's - esp. if you want to go down in weight. I draw a smidge over 32" and that's what I'm going with next indoor season. When I shot 2312's, I had to use 125 grain points to tune them at 48#, but then I tune weaker arrows than most folks for some reason.


Is there any advantage in using RX7-22 over X7 2212 or 2213? I mean, their outer diameter is the same and I'm pretty sure I will be able to tune my bow somewhere around 43# with these. Also, it is cheaper than RX7 - not sure why should I prefer RX7 then..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

diewindowsdie said:


> Is there any advantage in using RX7-22 over X7 2212 or 2213? I mean, their outer diameter is the same and I'm pretty sure I will be able to tune my bow somewhere around 43# with these. Also, it is cheaper than RX7 - not sure why should I prefer RX7 then..


Based on the tapered tail section, the RX7-22 should tune a little weaker than the parallel shaft. The whole point of the RX-7 is to give finger shooters a little more clearance and forgiveness. Same principle as the A/C/E, X-10, NPX and SST outdoor arrows. It's really a wonder why Easton didn't create this shaft even before they created the A/C/E. I'd be surprised if they couldn't have made them decades ago.


----------



## diewindowsdie (Dec 2, 2018)

limbwalker said:


> Based on the tapered tail section, the RX7-22 should tune a little weaker than the parallel shaft. The whole point of the RX-7 is to give finger shooters a little more clearance and forgiveness. Same principle as the A/C/E, X-10, NPX and SST outdoor arrows. It's really a wonder why Easton didn't create this shaft even before they created the A/C/E. I'd be surprised if they couldn't have made them decades ago.


Thank you. I have checked again - for RX7-22 you should use 2214 points. 2214 spine is 425, RX7-22 spine (average, I guess) is 475, which is totally what you wrote above.


----------



## eman57e (Jan 21, 2016)

So I made the switch from X7's to the RX7's thinking very much the same (wont see much of a difference). Gotta say I was wrong. The RX7's seem much more forgiving and I have to assume its the taper. The taper is so slight that it is hard to even see but really makes a difference. I went up in Spine and heavier on the points and they tuned really really well. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## diewindowsdie (Dec 2, 2018)

eman57e said:


> So I made the switch from X7's to the RX7's thinking very much the same (wont see much of a difference). Gotta say I was wrong. The RX7's seem much more forgiving and I have to assume its the taper. The taper is so slight that it is hard to even see but really makes a difference. I went up in Spine and heavier on the points and they tuned really really well. Just my 2 cents.


Thanks, that is kinda what I was wondering about these - any experienced-based feedback and that is what you provided. Thanks once again


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm missing something because I didn't get the same results as others have here. I normally shoot 2212 X7; 200gr pts; 4" feathers; DW 37#; DL 29". They tune/fly great.

I have RX22 cut same length and with 150gr pts they are stiffer than the 2212. I didn't try 200gr because that wasn't the goal. 

These appear, emphasis on appear, to be 2214 in the front half and 2212 back half. All the RX sizes have what looks like a weld in the blue section toward the middle. Truly tapered internally or welded, I'm not getting how, if true, a 2214 and 2212 can be weaker that a 2212. 

Educate me because I really want these to work based on their success. 

And they are the best looking shafts ever.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

@seattlepop: same components on the back end for both sets? I believe you are correct on the RX7 2214 front half vs the 2212 all the way through. If so , then you may very well need the 21's.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

calbowdude said:


> @seattlepop: same components on the back end for both sets? I believe you are correct on the RX7 2214 front half vs the 2212 all the way through. If so , then you may very well need the 21's.


Yes, uni bushing fit both just fine hence my assumptions. I think you are correct regarding the 21's being my best option. But then you know that 1/64" is going to cost me a gazillion points.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop said:


> Yes, uni bushing fit both just fine hence my assumptions. I think you are correct regarding the 21's being my best option. But then you know that 1/64" is going to cost me a gazillion points.


Technically, isn't it only 1/2 of 1/64th of an inch, or 1/128'th of an inch?


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Technically, isn't it only 1/2 of 1/64th of an inch, or 1/128'th of an inch?


Ah, line-cutter perspective, spot on.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

@seattlepop: true on the points loss. The predicted loss is approximately 15 points per 30 arrows for every 1/128" of diameter beneath 23/64. Therefore, by using my patented archerytalk inspired score predictor, X10's should score no better than 210. Waitaminute....... calculator may be somewhat faulty.... :wink:

Seriously though, I'm really going to run these hard for indoor, thanks to Covid19 I have had the time to work on my own shot, as I literally have no students, and the university club is also shut down. My preliminary experiences suggest that they are close to Pro Recurve RZ's in overall performance. And they do look really sharp! This is the first time my arrows match my blue riser!


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

I'm confused by what points will work with these? Are most people just using the insert, and screw in points? Glue in points don't see to provide enough point weight options.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I just went with GT's recommendation and bought 120 grain pro points (glue in). Didn't bother with inserts and points. I don't recall any particular difficulties tuning, and the spine rating was spot on with X10's. In other words I use 500 X10's and I got the 525's. I cut the RX7's nearly the same length as the X10's (shaft only) to get them to bareshaft tune.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

calbowdude said:


> I just went with GT's recommendation and bought 120 grain pro points (glue in). Didn't bother with inserts and points. I don't recall any particular difficulties tuning, and the spine rating was spot on with X10's. In other words I use 500 X10's and I got the 525's. I cut the RX7's nearly the same length as the X10's (shaft only) to get them to bareshaft tune.


This. Don't overthink it Greg. If your on the stiff side, get the 120 pro points. If you're on the weak side, get the nibbs.


----------



## Gregjlongbow (Jun 15, 2016)

All I can find though are 21s or 23s. Does the 21 fit with glue to fill in the gaps? Sorry, I came after aluminum, and I don't really understand the sizing.


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

What's the advantage over say a 2312, is it just thicker wall up front for "durability?"


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Huh, that's weird, 2214 points were availabe direct from Competition Archery Products/Pro Points. I would give them a call on that.

As far as a thicker wall, they are indeed a lot tougher. I've totally creased 12 wall arrows just from shooting a single spot, whereas the 14 wall arrows just get a mark on them


----------



## Flickgeo (Jan 20, 2019)

I just got a dozen RX-7’s 19-525, I also shoot VAP-500’s. My experience is that the RX-7 is far more forgiving indoor than the VAP’s. Scores went from 270-280! The thing is, my Hoyt Eclipse with 26lb limbs loves .500 spine arrows, got suspect advice from my bow shop, a compound specialist, but tuned as well as I can and kismet!


----------



## "TheBlindArcher" (Jan 27, 2015)

Thought I would ask here instead of starting a new thread as it's the RX7s I'm considering- Given that runout is not an issue, is it better to trim a little from each end, from the front, or from the tail? Suppose you want to take off 2-3" is there a difference in reaction if it is taken from the front versus the back? What if there is a runout issue, and some you trim from the front and some from the tail, will they dynamic/reactionary spine differently? Just trying to wrap my head around the whole tapered shaft thing.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

^
Great question, Archer. Cutting which end would weaken the shaft more - or would taking from the front (stiffer) or back (weaker) offset somewhat?


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Removing the softer tail section makes this a parallel shaft, and therefore removes some of the pluck forgiveness (with finger shooters). Removing from the rear also would make the arrow react stiffer in a greater fashion than removing from the front I suspect. In other words, 1" off the rear will cause the arrow to react stiffer than if 1" was removed from the front. 

If runout is not an issue, cut from the front. If runout is a concern, get the straight shafts and cut from both ends.


----------



## Black46 (Oct 16, 2013)

So, normally I just shoot my skinnies year around but will need new outdoor arrows next year so I'm thinking I might give these a try over the winter. I have a few old 2112s that I've been able to tune with 100gr points. My understanding from reading the above is that even though the 2112 spine is .590 and the RX7-21 is .525, the dynamic spine of the two will likely be very close. Do I have that right?

Paul


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

No, I would suspect that the softer tail will still result in a weaker reaction for RX7, versus X7. I would think that getting 120 points for the RX 7, and leaving them 1/2" long to start would be a good initial setup. You can always cut down if the RX7's are too weak.


----------



## drolander1 (Aug 8, 2016)

Now that they have been out for a few indoor seasons what do you guys think about the RX-7 arrows?


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Still my go-to arrow for indoor, since Carbon Express got rid of the Pro Recurve RZ arrows. Got a set for my olympic bow, and then got another set for my barebow, left just a bit longer for tuning. I'm holding less weight on the barebow.

Plus if you nuke one, they hurt a lot less than flagship super skinny arrows (X10, ACE, 5X, VXT 1...). Replacing is way easier too, just buy the same size. No need to worry about weight code or spine-aligning or what have you. Build them the same and away you go. JMHO of course


----------

