# why don't we use backward stabilizers



## NoNoS (Jan 20, 2013)

In Olympic recurve shooting, the bow is casted forward to release the force of the bow instead of having to control it. Coach Lee's book has a nice chapter on the topic.


----------



## oldpro888 (Dec 31, 2010)

50 years of shooting, I started wither curves. I like a little forward press to be sure I am coming apart. I have a rear but like a little jump forward. So I get it, it is easier to collapse with a recurve, no wall


----------



## atjurhs (Oct 19, 2011)

NoNoS said:


> In Olympic recurve shooting, the bow is casted forward to release the force of the bow instead of having to control it. Coach Lee's book has a nice chapter on the topic.


I think this reply fits under the first answer I listed above, so to me it doesn't really answer the question, sorry


----------



## atjurhs (Oct 19, 2011)

oldpro888 said:


> 50 years of shooting, I started wither curves. I like a little forward press to be sure I am coming apart. I have a rear but like a little jump forward. So I get it, it is easier to collapse with a recurve, no wall


so what you're saying is that it's a personal thing, but why does every olympic style archer I've ever watched shoot with the forward rocking?


----------



## NoNoS (Jan 20, 2013)

I don't know if there is a rule against it but my point is that biomechanically you would not want to have a bow with a backward stabilizer.


----------



## atjurhs (Oct 19, 2011)

NoNoS said:


> I don't know if there is a rule against it but my point is that biomechanically you would not want to have a bow with a backward stabilizer.


ok, but why?


----------



## ryan b. (Sep 1, 2005)

Lots of bows have a provision for a back weight. You can increase the bows mass behind the riser and add even more weight to the stab resulting in heavier mass weight but keeping the roll that you like. You don't have to have the bow roll; you can balance it neutral or have a very slow roll but I'm pretty sure the physics dictate the bows force projects forward regardless of the way it tips. 

Ex. No stab: bow jumps fwd but rolls/ tips back. 
Neutral balance (common in barebow) : bow jumps fwd but stays vertical/ no roll.
" Normal" stab setup: bow jumps fwd and the fwd center of gravity causes bow to tip/ roll fwd at whatever speed you've decided you get along best with.


I think vbars are acting like the "rear facing" stabs. The difference is just in the preferred balance.


----------



## archerynooblol (Nov 6, 2010)

atjurhs said:


> At our shooting league tonight the question got asked, why don't olympic style archers use stabilizers that face to the rear like the unlimited compound shooters use?
> 
> the first answer given is the olympic style archers want the bow to rock forward upon release of the arrow and unlimited compound shooters don't, they want the bow to stand still upon release. Ok, why?
> 
> ...



As far as I can tell, for all purposes and intents it shouldn't matter. The arrow is leaving the bow much faster than the bow can pitch forward on a stable shot.

Video: Park Sung Hyun. About 20s in the arrow leaves the bow. Appreciable arm movement at about 29s in. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0PE_98UO3s


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

In my opinion, the difference in preferred center of gravity is all about the difference in holding weight. The difference in holding weight requires different COG to result in steady holding. Weighting the stabs to give an "ideal" speed of roll is a mistake; one should weight the stabs to give the steadiest hold. Then learn to love whatever speed of roll that setup gives. archerynooblol is right in saying, and showing with video evidence, that the arrow is gone before the bow starts to pitch. Trying to make the entire bow act like a drop away rest is not going to happen. The difference in holding weight requires different COG to give stable holding.


----------



## hooktonboy (Nov 21, 2007)

atjurhs said:


> ...... why don't olympic style archers use stabilizers that face to the rear like the unlimited compound shooters use?


What TER said especially re holding weight/steadiness on aim. Recurve at full draw is a lot heavier to hold and needs the weight in a different place... plus the fact that some do, although it's pretty rare - the longrod/v-bar/extender is the "conventional" arrangment and I guess the majority of olympic archers can achieve their preferred steadiness using that set up. Jacob Wukie did pretty good with his different arrangement though..

http://www.toledoblade.com/Olympics/2012/07/28/U-S-men-s-archery-team-beat-top-seeded-South-Korea.html


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

You can't compare recurves and compounds. At least, not anymore. 

Holding weight, balance, recoil effect, etc. are completely different. Physics are completely different. Hence, the stabilization is completely different.

John


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

at -

Actually some of us do. It's all about weight and balance. (ie total physical and rate of forward rotation.)

Viper1 out.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

compound shooters are not holding high poundage at full draw. So they use the back weights to balance. 

Recurve shooters are holding much higher poundage at full draw generally, so more weight is needed toward the front and sides to balance out the pull than in the back. 

You cant really compare the setups as its apples to oranges. 


Chris


----------



## jhinaz (Mar 1, 2003)

atjurhs said:


> ......why don't olympic style archers use stabilizers that face to the rear like the unlimited compound shooters use?


That's a good question. I've never tried it, I use the conventional V-bar setup but maybe I'll try it after Vegas and give you my thought on it. - John


----------



## GilG (Aug 20, 2006)

atjurhs said:


> At our shooting league tonight the question got asked, why don't olympic style archers use stabilizers that face to the rear like the unlimited compound shooters use?
> 
> 
> I am a little confused about this statement, can you please show us a picture of the said unlimited compound with stabilizers that face the rear.I have seen rear facing side rods but it still has a front stab.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

I've shot a while with my v bar mounted on the bottom en most of the weight in the back, it'd didn't fall forward like a conventional setup. Held really steady and my scores were quite good. Like this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9ydYFwj-0I


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

Think I'll reply in order of your questions and then chuck in my own bit here! 

Oly recurve archers don't necessarily *want* their bow to roll forward, thats a consequence of a relax bow hand and their preferred stabiliser set ups

The bow is practically "perfectly still" for a recurve archer during the release if they've done it properly too.

There's no rules about stabilisers other than they can't be obstructive, can't be electronic, can't touch anything but the bow when the bow is being shot and can't touch the string and thereby act as a string guide. So you're right, no rule saying back bar isn't allowed!

I've tried a few set ups, from very front heavy, to neutral COG on/in the pressure point of the grip, to slightly back heavy, and every mix of total mass I could manage in each case. I've settled on COG in front of and a bit below the grip, just like the majority of shooters. The reason being it gave the best results and the easiest repeatability.

Rods pointing too far back (meaning the angle not the length) on a recurve make a bow that cants a lot easier is my real answer to your question I guess. Compound shooters get the luxury of a level and a release aid and d-loop which makes it easy to set the bow parallel with the pull of gravity. Any torque you induce can be seen and corrected rather easily because of this. 
With a finger release and a single pin you have the problem of both no levelling indicator other than what you can feel and that you can twist the string on the the back if your hand isn't straight up and down. Having weight out sideways helps alleviate it. So does having weight a bit lower down like a pendulum.
As I said before the forward roll provides no "real" function and is more of a consequence of a relaxed bow hand. Even my back heavy set ups moved forward and rolled one way or another.

Short answer to your question is try it yourself and see how it feels and how it shoots. Never believe the statement that "x many people can't be wrong!" I've seen plenty of people just bolt on what they've seen others use on their bow with no real thought gone into it.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys -

Most of you are really over thinking this. Most riser have stab bushings on the back and face, easy enough to test them out.

Pretty much agree with anmactire, except that "usually" most of us want the bow to roll forward, since that imparts a consistent reaction on release and may help to negate variable influences by the shooter. The total weight and rate of role is the personal preference part. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## azl (Mar 4, 2012)

This discussion is making me think seriously about barebow or traditional archery.:wink:


----------



## RHanson (Jan 16, 2013)

The physics of classical mechanics are exactly the same for recurve bows, compound bows, baseball bats, tennis rackets, golf clubs, cars, human bodies and everything else.

Stabilizer bars function by adding angular inertia to the bow by placing a mass at the end of a rod. The mass of the rod is also important but the ideal stabilizer bar of a given total mass will minimize the mass of the rod and maximize the mass at the end of the rod to the extent that the materials used to construct the rod will permit. It is also important to realize that stabilizers add very little angular inertia for movements rotating around the long axis of the rod, that is canting the bow to the left or to the right with respect to a rod oriented to the front or the back of the bow.

If we consider only the mass on the end of the rod, then the angular inertia, I, of that mass is I = mr**2 where r is the length of the rod and inertia is proportional to the square of that distance. As an example, 1oz added to the end of a 36" long rod sticking out the front of the bow adds the same amount of angular inertia as a 9oz mass added to the end of a 12" rod sticking out the back of the bow.

Long rods are much more effective than are short rods.

Adding a stabilizer bar also changes the center of gravity (CG) of a bow and there are practical limits to how much mass an archer can lift and hold in a shooting position and the CG obviously has an impact on the archer because the further the CG is from the archers grip, the larger the torque acting on the archers grip for the same bow mass. It is often that an archer can lift more mass but can not deal with a greater torque on his bow hand so the solution is to counterbalance the mass on the long bar. The primary options for doing this are Y bars, rear stabilizers, and side stabilizers, but the axis of a rear stabilizer is parallel to the axis of the front stabilizer and so does little to add any angular inertia with respect to this axis. Y bars and side bars have the advantage of adding angular inertia along one or two additional axes while still counterbalancing the mass on the end of the long bar to move the CG closer to the grip.

The most obvious reason that Olympic archers don't use rods off the back of the bows is because we are standing behind our bows which precluding the use of a long rod in that direction. A more interesting question is why are compound target archers so foolish as to use short stabilizer bars in the target environment? (This is meant as a joke and not intended to give offense to compound archers.)


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

To rotationally stabilize an Olympic Recurve Bow with respect to a horizontal rotation axis at 90 deg to the bow plane the bow center of mass (COG) has to be in front of and/or below the bow pivot point. With an OR bow moving the COG forward with a "long" rod and weight is the practical approach.

You can express the angular acceleration of the riser re this axis as equal to (Tr-Tg)/(I+Md^2) where:

Tr = the torque on the riser generated by the bow stored energy release (the consequential well known post shot top limb back movement)
Tg = the gravity torque on the riser from the COG being forwards or below the pivot point
I = the moment of Inertia of the bow re rotation around the COG
d = the distance from the COG to the bow pivot point

Increasing the bow moment of inertia (I) by adding weights/rods or moving the COG away from the pivot point (increasing d) can only reduce the amount of riser rotation never completely stabilize the bow. The only way to fully stabilize a bow is to move the COG forwards so that Tg cancels out Tr.

Any backward facing rod/weight requires a compensating rod/weight forwards to retain the Tr/Tg torque balance so you end up with an overall heavier bow with little benefit as regards stabilization. This is why all the "standard" OR bow stabilizer systems have no rear facing stabs and little or no weight to the the rear of the grip. The extender/V bar system puts the twin rod weights about level with the pivot point, the "US" back weight approach adds the rear weight more or less below the pivot point.


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

Joe T said:


> To rotationally stabilize an Olympic Recurve Bow with respect to a horizontal rotation axis at 90 deg to the bow plane the bow center of mass (COG) has to be in front of and/or below the bow pivot point. With an OR bow moving the COG forward with a "long" rod and weight is the practical approach.
> 
> You can express the angular acceleration of the riser re this axis as equal to (Tr-Tg)/(I+Md^2) where:
> 
> ...


Hi Joe,
That's a very interesting theses but it only really takes in account action/reaction of a shot in progress . Once the arrow has left the bow it all becomes irrelevant.

For me, stabilization is mainly intended for the archer rather then just the bow before the arrow leaves the bow.
To steady the bow while aiming. Different archers have deferent requirements.

If you look at Archery TV you will see many archers using many configurations. Some holding allot of weight some almost none while using deferent length stabilizers some with two V rods some with one. While mostly using the same brand and model bow. After all they get them for free from their sponsors.

That was a great post! You certainly out "math" me.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

horndog said:


> Hi Joe,
> That's a very interesting theses but it only really takes in account action/reaction of a shot in progress . Once the arrow has left the bow it all becomes irrelevant.
> 
> For me, stabilization is mainly intended for the archer rather then just the bow before the arrow leaves the bow.
> ...


Agree with above. In addition to "dynamic riser stabilization" during the shot you have also the issue of using the stabilizer system for aiming stability i.e. all up bow weight and bow response to archer movement. What happens after the arrow has gone (e.g. bow roll) is completely irrelevant other than use for post shot analysis. As John pointed out above the "physics" of compound and recurve bow stabilization are very different. With compounds it's all about aiming stability whereas with a recurve the dynamic stability is probably the more important. That's why with compounds backward facing stabilizers are common (OK for aiming stability) but should really never be used for recurve stabilization (very inefficient).


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

Joe T said:


> With compounds it's all about aiming stability whereas with a recurve the dynamic stability is probably the more important.


Can you explain that a bit more?


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

Joe T said:


> Agree with above. In addition to "dynamic riser stabilization" during the shot you have also the issue of using the stabilizer system for aiming stability i.e. all up bow weight and bow response to archer movement. What happens after the arrow has gone (e.g. bow roll) is completely irrelevant other than use for post shot analysis. As John pointed out above the "physics" of compound and recurve bow stabilization are very different. With compounds it's all about aiming stability whereas with a recurve the *dynamic stability is probably the more important.* That's why with compounds backward facing stabilizers are common (OK for aiming stability) but should really never be used for recurve stabilization (very inefficient).


On a recurve, it will help to minimize Archers paradox. But using a compound it also helps with unsteady anchor point and also release torque caused with thumb release not executed perfectly.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

> With compounds it's all about aiming stability whereas with a recurve the dynamic stability is probably the more important.


Can you explain that a bit more? 

A compound bow has a low holding weight and because of the pulley/limb arrangement lower net torque generated during the shot - so stabilizer arrangement relates to aiming stability prior to release. With a recurve the limb acceleration generates large recoil force derived forces/torques - so the stabilizer arrangement primarily relates to dynamic stability during the shot process after the release, within mass constraints which provide for aiming stability prior to the release. If you like, with a recurve, the stabilizer mass you add is determined by by the aiming "bow balance" requirement, how you use this mass is determined by the requirements for lateral and rotational dynamic stability.


----------



## NoNoS (Jan 20, 2013)

I am going on a tangent here but when I saw this I thought about this post. In the following video taken at the Nimes indoor world cup 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_saX6ewjQa0&list=UUb467UvO4jRgKxWX1oqtkzA&index=1

The German archer has his side rods pointing down and they are loose. They swing during his shot cycle. I have never seen this before (probably due to my inexperience) and I was wondering if anyone else shoots that way or have seen someone shooting like this.

What would be the advantage of such a setup?

Pierre


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Those are swing bars. They are more prevalent in Europe. They are very useful for field archery, in that you can be shooting either up or downhill, and they still provide a directly vertical stabilization effect. They also make for a self-contained bow stand.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

calbowdude said:


> Those are swing bars. They are more prevalent in Europe. They are very useful for field archery, in that you can be shooting either up or downhill, and they still provide a directly vertical stabilization effect. They also make for a self-contained bow stand.


wow... I just wrote almost exactly the same thing  
I know of at least one guy on this forum with exactly the same setup, maybe he can jump in and tell you more about it ;-)


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

I actually have a NoName swing bar, but am still trying to buy two 26" stabilizers so I can try it for outdoor FITA.


----------



## ThomVis (Feb 21, 2012)

An Italian archer at our club uses a backward stabilizer. He has to slide it forward to put his bow on the stand, and sometimes forgets to slide it back when he starts shooting. I wish my Italian was better, that's the time to learn some interesting words.


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

atjurhs said:


> At our shooting league tonight the question got asked, why don't olympic style archers use stabilizers that face to the rear like the unlimited compound shooters use?
> 
> Thanks, Todd


The bow is weighted so that it drops down below the arrow after release. If it was back weighted it would kick the arrow up. The bow doesn't drop immediately on release, the bow actually moves backwards for a while. (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). Since the arrow is light it moves forward quickly, an equal amount of energy pushes the bow backwards but since its heavier it will move slower. (conservation of energy) At about the time that the arrow leaves the bow the forward momentum of the limbs take over and move the bow forward. The forward center of balance prevents the bow from kicking up the arrow at that point. 

TAO


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

it wouldn't look cool if it didn't roll. it gets a little distracting shooting on the line at full draw when the guy next to you rolls his bow with all the side stabilizers 
in your face.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

Guys -

Two pages of posts so far based on theory with little actual experience. 

If you're curious about it, buy a $5, 6 - 8 ounce counter weight or make one with a bolt and washers from Home Depot for less than $1 and try it for yourself. I've used one in the past, when I wanted extra weight and it worked well. And yes, the bow still rolled forward. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

Viper1 said:


> Guys -
> 
> Two pages of posts so far based on theory with little actual experience.
> 
> ...


There is no need to insult the knowledge and experience of all of the archers who have posted in this thread. The OP's question was well answered early in the thread in posts 8,9,10,11, 12 and 14.


----------



## atjurhs (Oct 19, 2011)

oh I think Viper 1 has a point, and it didn't sound insulting to me


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

Viper1 said:


> ... make one with a bolt and washers from Home Depot ...


SAE or USS?

TAO


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

TAO -

SAE 5/16 x 24 x 3" + 2" - 2.5" of fender washers 

Gents -

Let's go back to basics for a second.

Forward weight {long rod} adds inertia and a forward moment of rotation, pretty much the accepted standard for reasons that have been discussed ad infinitum. 

A rear mounted "counter balance" also does two things. First it counters the forward rotation, allowing you to increase the overall weight (front and rear), if that's what you want and second, it adds a "pendulum" effect helping to keep the bow vertical during the hold.

Sorry, those folks with theories on why it can't or shouldn't work, probably haven't tried it. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## hooktonboy (Nov 21, 2007)

Viper1 said:


> Sorry, those folks with theories on why it can't or shouldn't work, probably haven't tried it.
> 
> Viper1 out.


Course it works  But the truth is that the vast majority of current oly recurve shooters don't stabilise their bow that way - recent exceptions being Jacob Wukie, as mentioned; Brady has been seen using a setup without an extender and some quite long twins. The "unusual" stabilisation that they've both used clearly didn't lead to a complete collapse of their shooting form. So why do most people stabilise their bow in the "usual" way? Probably because they're copying what they've seen others do....?

I've used longrod / backweight, and also longrod/twins (no extender). I like both, but I find the twins arrangement feels less "wriggly". I find the "usual" arrangement painful on the top of the bow shoulder.

I think Thomvis was nearest the truth with the comment about his fellow archer. An (almost) straight back stabiliser level with the long rod is a pest on a recurve, how do you put the damned thing down


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

Couple of points here:

If you hold a bow out of window and just drop it the bow doesn't rotate, just drops straight down (suggest if you want to try this experiment you use somebody else's bow  ). It's exactly the same when the bow comes out of the bow hand, if the bow comes out vertical with no rotation it stays vertical. The balance point of the bow has nothing to do with how it rotates after coming out of the bow hand so any talk of moving the balance point around to make the bow rotate this way or that way is pure fantasy. Gravity acts on each part of the bow equally - no rotation. You get bow rotation in two ways a) from the bow being torqued before it leaves the bow hand and b) the bow acting like a pendulum as it's hanging by a piece of string from the archers fingers or wrist.



> Forward weight {long rod} adds inertia and a forward moment of rotation, pretty much the accepted standard for reasons that have been discussed ad infinitum.


Have to point out that the earth being flat was also "pretty much the accepted standard" for quite a while. Agreed the "moment of inertia idea" about long rod stabilization has long been in use (by me included) but the suggestions made over the last 5-10 years by Ihor Zanevsky indicate a fairly radical rethink is required. Suggests the way long rod stabilization works is more along the lines of considering the end of the rod as being bolted to a large concrete block rather than the traditional mass on a stick.


----------



## x-slayer1440 (May 21, 2012)

If the bow is rolling back upon release it is going to affect your accuracy. The arrow will hit the bottom of the shelf and cause it to fly awful and not hit where it's supposed to.


----------



## Golfbuddy45 (Jun 23, 2010)

As for the rear facing stabilizer I think the lower body could bump the stabilizer and affect the shot. Having them split on either side take the body contact out of the equation. If you have ever watched those extreme bow shoots in Europe they sometimes shoot way up high - almost vertical- so they have to lean way back at the waist in order to sight the target - at that aspect the front stabilizer is actually a hindrance - in one shoot I saw several shooters had NO stabilizers on the bows. 

In my personal opinion there are two aspects of Olympic shooting that make no sense at all - Letting the bow roll after shooting and the RELEASE FOLLOW THROUGH. What difference can it possibly make to have your hand fly back behind your head AFTER the arrow is already gone? I think it is just for STYLE POINTS. Same goes for ROLLING THE BOW FORWARD AFTER RELEASE. It does nothing to affect the flight of the arrow. I have shot many arrows doing both or doing neither and the arrows end up in the same place.

GB45


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Golfbuddy45 said:


> In my personal opinion there are two aspects of Olympic shooting that make no sense at all - Letting the bow roll after shooting and the RELEASE FOLLOW THROUGH. What difference can it possibly make to have your hand fly back behind your head AFTER the arrow is already gone? I think it is just for STYLE POINTS. Same goes for ROLLING THE BOW FORWARD AFTER RELEASE. It does nothing to affect the flight of the arrow. I have shot many arrows doing both or doing neither and the arrows end up in the same place.
> 
> GB45


While it is true the arrow is gone before either of these thing happen, both have their use. The forward roll of the bow conditions us to push the hand straight to target instead of torqueing the bow upon release. That way we are not moving the hand left or right. 

The follow thru has the same purpose, to move the hand straight back upon release so that the hand does not pull to one side or pluck out the string thus sending the arrow left or right. You can shoot straight shots without doing either, but it is a help for when you get tired or your form slips. 

Chris


----------



## x-slayer1440 (May 21, 2012)

Golfbuddy45 said:


> As for the rear facing stabilizer I think the lower body could bump the stabilizer and affect the shot. Having them split on either side take the body contact out of the equation. If you have ever watched those extreme bow shoots in Europe they sometimes shoot way up high - almost vertical- so they have to lean way back at the waist in order to sight the target - at that aspect the front stabilizer is actually a hindrance - in one shoot I saw several shooters had NO stabilizers on the bows.
> 
> In my personal opinion there are two aspects of Olympic shooting that make no sense at all - Letting the bow roll after shooting and the RELEASE FOLLOW THROUGH. What difference can it possibly make to have your hand fly back behind your head AFTER the arrow is already gone? I think it is just for STYLE POINTS. Same goes for ROLLING THE BOW FORWARD AFTER RELEASE. It does nothing to affect the flight of the arrow. I have shot many arrows doing both or doing neither and the arrows end up in the same place.
> 
> GB45


If you shoot NTS correctly your release hand will automatically fly back and your bow will jump forward. It's not about style points its to keep direction going to the target. Read coach KiSik Lees book on NTS


----------



## TheAncientOne (Feb 14, 2007)

x-slayer1440 said:


> If you shoot NTS correctly your release hand will automatically fly back and your bow will jump forward. It's not about style points its to keep direction going to the target. Read coach KiSik Lees book on NTS


I agree!

Archery thankfully doesn't award style points. If your string hand doesn't "fly" back after release you are not using your back muscles fully. Keeping your arm pointed at the target and letting the bow roll forward is part of follow through, it helps prevent interference with the arrow. 

TAO


----------



## Chinese Tea (Mar 17, 2010)

Joe T said:


> Have to point out that the earth being flat was also "pretty much the accepted standard" for quite a while. Agreed the "moment of inertia idea" about long rod stabilization has long been in use (by me included) but the suggestions made over the last 5-10 years by Ihor Zanevsky indicate a fairly radical rethink is required. Suggests the way long rod stabilization works is more along the lines of considering the end of the rod as being bolted to a large concrete block rather than the traditional mass on a stick.


If this is so, what is your opinion on the use of dampeners to decouple the weights from the longrod?


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

Chinese Tea said:


> If this is so, what is your opinion on the use of dampeners to decouple the weights from the longrod?


Can't see how movement (or not) of the rod end weight during the shot affects the energy dissipation function of the damper.


----------

