# 2007 Compound Hunting Bow Face-Off Results



## Andreas

Where is the attachement?


----------



## BDOG6351

*report*

its coming- AT is linking it up


----------



## Archery-Addiction

Thank you very much for the time you put in to all of this, it is much appreciated!


----------



## Hemingway

Great evaluation as always!! Thanks for the hard work!!!! Now, go have a :darkbeer:


----------



## JimSr

Great information, these evaluations are top notch and I've used one of the previous ones regarding sights to help choose my purchase. I'd like to be able to use this one to pick up 4 or 5 new bows:darkbeer: but I'd better not Thanks for all the work, helps make this a great site.


----------



## plottman

1. bowtech
2. diamond
3. pse
4. mathews
5. reflex

in that order. bowtech seemed to have a leg up by far...


----------



## phk691

plottman said:


> 1. bowtech
> 2. diamond
> 3. pse
> 4. mathews
> 5. reflex
> 
> in that order. bowtech seemed to have a leg up by far...


What he said:wink:


----------



## plottman

Reflex tested better than Hoyt's high dollar bow. i love these type of tests. The blindfold bowsite tests, and others like them, are very much a joke in my opinion. I shoot a mathews, i know a mathews grip, if I have a blind fold on and someone reaches me the mathews I will be impartial as to which one has the most vibration, noise etc...That is just human nature. a computer and sound recording devices do not care. These guys seem to be pretty legit and fair as well. They post this each year on Archerytalk, which is owned by Martin. As far as I remember Martin has not placed in the top 10 either year. Good for Martin and these men for not "making sure" Martin does not place near the top.

I guess the only question I have is why adjustability is in the mix. I am not going to buy a bow that doesn't fit me, so why do I care if I can adjust it to different draw lengths. But I guess that is important to some folk. 

Great job men


----------



## Coues Sniper

Great work guys! And the Guardian came out on top! Bust out the popcorn!! :moviecorn


----------



## BDOG6351

*test*

so many different bows surprised us this year... the use of new facilities and testing equipment really added to the test. I hope it continues to go this way.... please provide feedback and let us know what youd like to see next year... the support from all the AT community has helped tremendously.


----------



## gjs4

Interesting results and a quality well comprised evaluation.

Great jobs guys!!!


----------



## LeesburgGamecoc

Fantastic test. You all did a heck of a job, and better than last year. I think this year, you guys put out the best test out there. Significantly better than the Bowsite test this year, which is good as well. 

Bowtech and Matthews at the top of this type of objective test is a theme, and not surprising. It is every year. The Bowsite The PSE X-Force is the surprise here in my opinion, with the second tier Bowtech (Diamond) coming in second a little surprising as well. Anyway, good job and good test.


----------



## LeesburgGamecoc

Coues Sniper said:


> Great work guys! And the Guardian came out on top! Bust out the popcorn!! :moviecorn


It is just because they sponsor the site, or at least that is what "they" said after the Bowsite test, the Outdoor life test, etc. etc.. At some point, even the hard-core antis have to say that maybe those guys are building a darn good bow.


----------



## CoppertoneSPF15

The Bear bows held their own against the top tier big dogs. Another surprise performer is the Reflex Ridgeline. Haven't heard anything about the new Reflex bows this year but judging by the test results, the Ridgeline is not to be overlooked.


----------



## BogeyMan

Thanks for the great review.


----------



## screamingeagle

Outstanding guys! Thanks for all your hard work.


----------



## Lawrence Archer

Excellent testing, very fair.


----------



## hunter_tlh

How the heck do you open a pdf file? I can't get it to open


----------



## bbaumer

Very interesting how in the individual categories how many of the non-so-called "big 3" more than hold their own.

Also, look at just how close in each category all the bows are.

Finally, most surprising is how "poorly" the Vectrix and Vulcan did in this test. Most of the shade tree experts on here give the '07 Hoyt lineup rave reviews (myself included, a Vectrix XL owner) but yet the Hoyt's fell well short of the top. Especially considering how the Trykon finished last year, I think 2nd or 3rd overall, and the consensus being the Vectrix is superior to the Trykon.

Glad to see Whisper Creek also give a respectable showing with the Innovator Pro again. That company gets a lot of knock for the look of their bows but a 4th place overall last year and respectable finish this year make them worthy of consideration. Too bad adaptability/adjustability wasn't considered overall since Whisper Creek finished 1st in that category.

Thanks once again for putting in so much time and effort on these tests.

bbaumer


----------



## tman704

hunter_tlh said:


> How the heck do you open a pdf file? I can't get it to open


Download Adobe Acrobat Reader. it's a freebee. Google it and you will find it.

Tony


----------



## KansasNative

As stated earlier. Bowtech is a quality company producing a quality product. This is being said with no disrespect to the the other companies.

I was amazed but not surprised about the gap between the guardian the other bows in the hand shock with the light arrows.

ckc


----------



## Jerry/NJ

This has to be one of, if not the best bow review anywhere I have seen. You guys out did yourselves from last year which was excellent. 

Some things on there sort of surprised me....very interesting stuff! Luv it !

Thanx for all your hard work, we appreciate it !!!!! :darkbeer:


----------



## parkerbows

I am a mathews bowtech guy. Bowtech like them are not are doing an unbelievable job for an actually pretty new bow company. Look where the sister company diamond is sitting on this test. I have a drenalin but I really like the black ice.
I actually love the bowtechs and sold my tribute recently but I really love the draw of a single cam..too bad the guardian didn't come with a single cam with a draw stop. Maybe a diamond next year will


----------



## bartman3562

*Wow*

Great work, excellant testing. Must say I'm amazed. Thought the Guardian, and the Black Ice both shot nice, but you guys comfirm the feeling. It is just unbeleivable how far ahead they were in vibration, or lack of. Wish I could run my Allegiance through the same setups to compare. Did notice like has always been said, they are all close enough that if it feels good to you, it will be a good bow. Amazing how the gaps between all of them get closer and closer.
Thanks again, have a :darkbeer::cocktail:
And take a week off and enjoy


----------



## 3-D Junkie

BDOG6351 said:


> so many different bows surprised us this year... the use of new facilities and testing equipment really added to the test. I hope it continues to go this way.... please provide feedback and let us know what youd like to see next year... the support from all the AT community has helped tremendously.


I'd like to see the Vectrix on top!!!!!!


----------



## JD45

Great work guys.


----------



## elkkat

*Great tests*



3-D Junkie said:


> I'd like to see the Vectrix on top!!!!!!


That was the biggest surprise too me, I thought the hoyts would have fared better. The Black Ice and Reflex were a surprise too. I have to wonder how the Vulcan and Vectrix would fare with a better string on them. Maybe that would be somthing to try next year , is to put the same W/C string on all the bows.


----------



## 3-D Junkie

I am not by any means knocking the test results, but in next years I would love to see someone like Javi or Crackers get all the bows tuned up before the test. I got an extra 9 fps out of my Vectrix after tuning it myself, and it was a lot quieter too. 
I'm not just saying this to defend Hoyt's honor either. I've seen similar performance gains with other makes also. I've found that many bows need tweaking right out of the box.
This was awesome and I thank you guys for putting the work in to do a truely objective test.


----------



## escpen

3-D Junkie said:


> I am not by any means knocking the test results, but in next years I would love to see someone like Javi or Crackers get all the bows tuned up before the test. I got an extra 9 fps out of my Vectrix after tuning it myself, and it was a lot quieter too.


It would be great to have someone like Crackers or Javi tune each of the bows. Their knowledge and expertise in that area could be very beneficial to the test. That being said, not everyone can afford to send a bow out to have it "super-tuned" after spending a considerable amount of money on a new bow. We go to great lengths to tune the bows properly while maintaining test specifications. Sometimes this is easier said than done. In a perfect world, all bows would be at exact specifications and highest efficiency straight out of the box. As you have mentioned, this is not always the case.

Anthony


----------



## escpen

3-D Junkie said:


> I'd like to see the Vectrix on top!!!!!!


In my opinion, the Hoyt bows did not place in the Objective testing where I would have placed them based upon my subjective preferences. But, that's what makes the objective testing so interesting. We can present the numbers as they are measured and let the individual decide which bow fits him / her best. Anyway, the Hoyt bows should definitely NOT be overlooked. I was especially impressed with the Vulcan as I felt that the draw cycle was very smooth; overall it was a very nice shooter.



elkkat said:


> That was the biggest surprise too me, I thought the hoyts would have fared better. The Black Ice and Reflex were a surprise too.


The Reflex bow has a great new limb pocket design. I think the Reflex team put a lot of money into engineering a great, mid-priced all around hunting bow. The Black Ice was a pleasure to shoot and really shined in the areas of noise output and vibration. While for me it wasn't as smooth in the draw cycle as last year's Liberty, it was another great entry from Diamond.



elkkat said:


> I have to wonder how the Vulcan and Vectrix would fare with a better string on them. Maybe that would be somthing to try next year , is to put the same W/C string on all the bows.


That's an interesting idea. The problem is that, again, not everyone can afford to put top of the line strings on a brand new, potentially expensive bow. Definitely worth considering, though.

Anthony


----------



## escpen

Jerry/NJ said:


> This has to be one of, if not the best bow review anywhere I have seen. You guys out did yourselves from last year which was excellent.
> 
> Some things on there sort of surprised me....very interesting stuff! Luv it !
> 
> Thanx for all your hard work, we appreciate it !!!!! :darkbeer:


Thank you, Jerry. We appreciate the kind words and support :darkbeer:

Anthony


----------



## BDOG6351

*bow*

These test are done "out of the box" with a few minor changes to meet the requirements (weight and DL). I have to say it would be interesting to do another test on several bows with improvements by the people like Crackers or Javi.

Jon


----------



## Kstigall

This is a wonderful review.............where do I send my donation!!

I've read it though I haven't studied the entire paper.

I'm *not* surprised the Guardian did so well and I've never owned a BowTech.............I'd love to find a short draw Lakota to test drive........and the Diamond Black Ice........I've always wanted to setup a Vulcan now more than ever.


It won't be long and you guys will have set the industry standard for reviews of bows. One that manufacturers will applaud or bemoan!:thumbs_up It might just help the average buyer to get a bow out of the box that is "tuned"!!

THANKS!


----------



## bponb

*Bow reviews*

Thanks for all the hard work and time to do these tests for all of us here on AT. Really opened my eyes on some of these bows.

Very interesting to see the Diamond Black Ice was the overall winner in the quietest bow catagory as far as a hunting arrow would be concerned.(360gr. - 540 gr.)


----------



## robinshood

*Great Report*

:thumbs_up
Just like the 06 report......this looks like it was exhausting. Job well done.

Just wondering: How difficult would it be to compare the 06 and 07 results to get an overall top 5? I noticed that the sound testing was done in a different setting....so I did not know if the methodology was comparable across the board.

Also, I was curious as to the level at which the difference in decibel levels is significant......can an increase in 1-2 decibels be heard? I noticed that many of the bows are within a decibel or so. I guess the vibration test could raise the same question.....at what level can difference be felt.


----------



## 3-D Junkie

escpen said:


> In my opinion, the Hoyt bows did not place in the Objective testing where I would have placed them based upon my subjective preferences. But, that's what makes the objective testing so interesting. We can present the numbers as they are measured and let the individual decide which bow fits him / her best. Anyway, the Hoyt bows should definitely NOT be overlooked. I was especially impressed with the Vulcan as I felt that the draw cycle was very smooth; overall it was a very nice shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> The Reflex bow has a great new limb pocket design. I think the Reflex team put a lot of money into engineering a great, mid-priced all around hunting bow. The Black Ice was a pleasure to shoot and really shined in the areas of noise output and vibration. While for me it wasn't as smooth in the draw cycle as last year's Liberty, it was another great entry from Diamond.
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting idea. The problem is that, again, not everyone can afford to put top of the line strings on a brand new, potentially expensive bow. Definitely worth considering, though.
> 
> Anthony


 Anthony please don't take what I said in a bad way. I greatly appreciate what you guys have done. I didn't by any means intend to indicate that the test was flawed, it's by far the best I've seen. You guys rock!!!


----------



## TheHairlessone!

Great test guys. I thought the results were very interesting. Some of them suprising and some of them not so suprising.

One thing I thought was a little odd was the decision to enter 3 whisper creek bows into the mix and the two from bass pro. 

Keep up the good work.

rick


----------



## Roland

Great stuff................thank you.


----------



## escpen

3-D Junkie said:


> Anthony please don't take what I said in a bad way. I greatly appreciate what you guys have done. I didn't by any means intend to indicate that the test was flawed, it's by far the best I've seen. You guys rock!!!


I didn't take it in a bad way at all. I thought I would just provide some opinion on the bows. Thanks!

Anthony


----------



## cgchris99

I scanned the results but one thing I wasn't sure about. Did they actually set the draw length of each bow to a measured 29" amo? Most bows require some adjustment to get them to the actual draw length.

Great test though.


----------



## escpen

cgchris99 said:


> I scanned the results but one thing I wasn't sure about. Did they actually set the draw length of each bow to a measured 29" amo? Most bows require some adjustment to get them to the actual draw length.
> 
> Great test though.


Each bow was set to an AMO draw length of 29 inches. Most of the bows did require some adjustment in either draw length or draw weight to get them into specifications.


----------



## Andreas

Were the noise test made with, without or "as shipped" concerning string silencers? I assume it was as "shipped". It would be interesting to see the result for the bows that didn't have string silencers if you put on some.
I know there are many factors to think of but in most cases you put them on (if you want a silenced bow). It would also be interesting to see vibration tests with stabilizers/dampeners on. It would be a test where these extra stuff come to play but also more like most hunting bows are equipped when used. Most factors are so close so I think such test could turn things around quite a bit.

No matter what I think it was a good review, especially with so many bows to test.


----------



## 383bull

Awesome job guys, this has to be the best test I have ever seen by a long shot, it was well worth the wait.


----------



## Rattler

Great test! I would like to see all of the bows set up the same, ex. If one comes with a STS put a STS on one that didnt, same for string silencers.


----------



## ZA206

As a professional engineer, I'd like to give you guys a round of applause on a VERY VERY professional evaluation and report. It was EXCELLENT. The stated parameters, explanations, descriptions, assumptions, hard data collection process, plainly laid out calculations and the systematic scoring/evaluation scheme was perfect.

As you have stated was your process, I think setting every bow to the exact AMO drawlength and drawweight was the proper methodology to ensure an apples to apples comparison. Testing every bow with different string materials and "guru tuner touches" makes the validity of the entire test worthless IMO. DON'T EVER DO IT! If the manufacturer wants to put on crap strings and dampeners, it should be tested as such.

I think this sort of testing has been missing from the archery industry, and I'm glad that you guys are doing it so professionally and with such robust scientific methodology. This will open the eyes of consumers and even more importantly.... the manufacturers.:thumbs_up

Good job guys.... have a :beer: on me!

-ZA


----------



## razz40

*High Countery - Iron Mace*

Great review !!! I just have one question.
How can a bow score so high be #10 on the chart, was the noise and vibration that bad? I would like to see the results for all the bows 1 thru 23 not just top 9. I have a big interest in this bow and those two categories are holding me back from buying one. I can get that bow here in Michigan for around $600. Thats about $200 cheaper then a Mathews or a Hoyt.

Thanks again for the great reviews.


----------



## escpen

razz40 said:


> Great review !!! I just have one question.
> How can a bow score so high be #10 on the chart, was the noise and vibration that bad? I would like to see the results for all the bows 1 thru 23 not just top 9. I have a big interest in this bow and those two categories are holding me back from buying one. I can get that bow here in Michigan for around $600. Thats about $200 cheaper then a Mathews or a Hoyt.
> 
> Thanks again for the great reviews.


I would recommend that you go out and shoot the Iron Mace. If the bow fits you well and you are comfortable with it, I'd say go for it. Don't limit your options, though; shoot as many different bows as possible. Keep in mind that only you can decide what is going to suit your preferences. 

Anthony


----------



## BDOG6351

*test*

The damping components (bowjax, hushkits, alphashox etc) provided with the bows or deemed necessary by the manufacturer for vibration/sound etc... Are no different than you or I would receive if we purchased the bow direct or from an archery shop. Our philosophy has been that a bows MSRP or Retail bares the price of these added components; therefore, removing them wouldn’t allow us to do a "bang for the buck" section- which I think we all really need.

Jon


----------



## BDOG6351

*test*



razz40 said:


> Great review !!! I just have one question.
> How can a bow score so high be #10 on the chart, was the noise and vibration that bad? I would like to see the results for all the bows 1 thru 23 not just top 9. I have a big interest in this bow and those two categories are holding me back from buying one. I can get that bow here in Michigan for around $600. Thats about $200 cheaper then a Mathews or a Hoyt.
> 
> Thanks again for the great reviews.


We did provide ranges for each the sections (for each average) to help gauge the top 9 bows presented. Some areas of the test are saturated and the ranges show that.


----------



## buckfever9964

excellant test! But where were the browning bows? How about the Illusion?


----------



## MIKEY CUSTOM-G

*nice!!!!*

well done and well organized. this is a test that takes as much of the human element of brand loyalty out of the picture. some of my own observations ???? i was sort of miffed that an api bow was NOT just blowing the cover ofF OF THE SPEED TEST. i was also sort of taken back by how much less hand shock a guardian has then the others. however,,,i feel that right now hand shock on most bows is about as nil as nil can be. even though the guardian is 1/2 as much in the numbers,,,translating that to your hand,,,say for instance to a mathews switchback or drenaline,,,,its a neglible difference. sort of,,,,no biggie. most those bows in the top 10 are still in the hand after the shot and quiet too. so then if they are all fairly quiet,,,,,the big hunting thing we always ask is,,,,how fast are they ???? it seems this new pse x-force is pretty good. i thought it to be even better,,,but still it was strong in speed,,,,,,just as you would want a hunting bow. i say this in recognizing that ALL the top 10 bows were quiet. the guardian had great speed too,,,,plus the quietness,,,thats a winner.... i bought the x-force and even before i bought it i knew it was a good move statistically after watching the pse video. how could you go wrong ??? same as in this test,,,,how can you go wrong with any of the top 10,,,,and better yet,,,,top 5 ???i would like to see the test include 70 pounds and 29 draw in the future. you would think that the bow magazines would help or promote some of this info. i gotta feel they will be knocking on the door for future tests,,,,it WILL sell more rag mags.....hats off to you two...well done !!!!!:darkbeer:


----------



## escpen

buckfever9964 said:


> excellant test! But where were the browning bows? How about the Illusion?


We would have liked to include a Browning bow. It wasn't meant to be for this year, though. Maybe we can get them on board next year.

Anthony


----------



## buckfever9964

*face off*

great test, just wondering where the browning bows were? such as Illusion?


----------



## Prizz23

Personally i was suprised how poorly the mathews preformed as far as the vibration tests and how much less vib the black ice and guardian have. i thought they were alot closer than that. but it was nice to see the Ross cardiac do so well through out the entire competition!


----------



## bbaumer

Sugestion for next year. The Bang for the Buck category is a little too heavily weighted toward price, IMO. Price level keeps it from being compared to the other bows submitted.

The Bengal didn't finish in the top 9 in a single test category that counted, but has the lowest price and finished as the best bang for the buck. The Lakota and XP32 also did not finish in the top 9 in any category but yet are in the top 5 of the Buck rating.

Makes wonder if there were some "cheap" or cheaper PSE, Diamond, Bear and Parker bows in the under $400 range (to compare as a peer to the Bengal) if they wouldn't have finished much higher than some of the other bows, or even the Bengal, in this category.

A new PSE Nova at $259 or Alpine Frontier at $299 may knock the socks off the Bengal in the type of rating calculation you are using.

Hate to criticize without offering a solution. I guess you'd have to exclude the Bengal or add more comparably priced bows or come up with a new Buck formula.

Otherwise, as stated before, GREAT WORK. Very objective and your hard work is much appreciated.


----------



## Takeum

I agree,,, The Black Ice had a substantial vibration when I first tried the one that was on our shelves,, I didn't care for that at all,,, And when they do the Noise tests, Shouldn't each and every bow be equipped with the same equipment, reguardless if it comes with an STS or silencers on the shipped bows? Seems sorta bogus to test a bow fully rigged compared to something bone stock.... I'd like to see a test that tests these bows with equal accessories and equal brace heights /draw weights...Test each bow each way,,, Fully rigged, and then test them bone stock... That way every bow has a fair shake,,,,


----------



## escpen

Takeum said:


> And when they do the Noise tests, Shouldn't each and every bow be equipped with the same equipment, reguardless if it comes with an STS or silencers on the shipped bows? Seems sorta bogus to test a bow fully rigged compared to something bone stock.... I'd like to see a test that tests these bows with equal accessories and equal brace heights /draw weights...Test each bow each way,,, Fully rigged, and then test them bone stock... That way every bow has a fair shake,,,,



I respectfully disagree. I have made the following statement in a previous thread:



escpen said:


> I think an "apples to apples" comparison can be made in this manner from the perspective of each bow being tested in a configuration that the end-user or pro-shop owner would receive it in. It all depends on how you present things to the manufacturers at the time you submit your proposal, though. But, why should a bow be penalized for additional noise and vibration by removing standard equipment if it comes with noise / vibration reduction equipment installed? That is how the end-user will receive it, right? If 9 of the 10 bows in a test have standard vibration reducing equipment installed, should those 9 bows be stripped of their standard equipment to match the 10th bow? Or should the 10th bow have equipment added to match the other 9? I think that you have to make a decision when conducting these types of tests and the decision to test the bows with the standard vibration / noise reducing equipment installed is valid test protocal. Just my opinion.


As far as testing each bow fully rigged and then bone stock, how do you define fully rigged or bone stock? Some bows come BONE STOCK with vibration / noise reducing equipment. Others come FULLY RIGGED without any. Again, just my opinion.

Anthony


----------



## CoppertoneSPF15

Takeum said:


> I agree,,, The Black Ice had a substantial vibration when I first tried the one that was on our shelves,, I didn't care for that at all,,, And when they do the Noise tests, Shouldn't each and every bow be equipped with the same equipment, reguardless if it comes with an STS or silencers on the shipped bows? Seems sorta bogus to test a bow fully rigged compared to something bone stock.... I'd like to see a test that tests these bows with equal accessories and equal brace heights /draw weights...Test each bow each way,,, Fully rigged, and then test them bone stock... That way every bow has a fair shake,,,,


I concur with escpen.

Comparing the bows as they come from the factory is the best way.

If you're going to add an STS to every bow because Hoyts ship with them stock, why not add laminated limbs as well since the XT series limbs are all laminated. Why not make them all parallel limb too then since parallel limb configuration aids in minimizing noise and vibration. Why not increase the mass weight of all bows so it's the same, that way the innate vibration dampening of the bow mass is the same. 

Keeping that train of thought, what you'll need to end up with a bunch of bows, all with the same limbs, strings, cams, limb angles, ATA, brace, DFC... so basically, you're trying to turn them all into the same bow. At what point do you stop? What governs when to stop and when to go further? 

The point isn't to make all the bows the same. That's ridiculous.

Comparing them stock, as they come from the factory is how it should be. If Elite chooses not to include a factory installed STS, if they choose not to include WC strings like Ross, if they choose not to add as many harmonic dampeners as Mathews, that's their choice, their design, their bow.


----------



## Andreas

CoppertoneSPF15 said:


> Comparing them stock, as they come from the factory is how it should be. If Elite chooses not to include a factory installed STS, if they choose not to include WC strings like Ross, if they choose not to add as many harmonic dampeners as Mathews, that's their choice, their design, their bow.


I agree but I also think the problem kind of starts here. What if a bow is only shipped fully equipped? It would beat all the bows hands down, and yes a fully equipped bow is way better than a bare one for hunting. A rest is put on all the bows during test for obvious reasons, somwhere on the way there must be a defenition of a bare bow. Would it be ok to change the test methodology only because one manufacturer decides to only ship fully equipped bows, beating the rest for obvious reasons?

In this test there's nothing near that extreme but in the future it might and I guess that won't be a problem until then


----------



## escpen

Andreas said:


> I agree but I also think the problem kind of starts here. What if a bow is only shipped fully equipped? It would beat all the bows hands down, and yes a fully equipped bow is way better than a bare one for hunting. A rest is put on all the bows during test for obvious reasons, somwhere on the way there must be a defenition of a bare bow. Would it be ok to change the test methodology only because one manufacturer decides to only ship fully equipped bows, beating the rest for obvious reasons?


Point taken. Currently, there is no category for testing "Package" bows. Maybe something to add in the future ... :wink:

Anthony


----------



## CoppertoneSPF15

Andreas said:


> I agree but I also think the problem kind of starts here. What if a bow is only shipped fully equipped? It would beat all the bows hands down, and yes a fully equipped bow is way better than a bare one for hunting. A rest is put on all the bows during test for obvious reasons, somwhere on the way there must be a defenition of a bare bow. Would it be ok to change the test methodology only because one manufacturer decides to only ship fully equipped bows, beating the rest for obvious reasons?
> 
> In this test there's nothing near that extreme but in the future it might and I guess that won't be a problem until then



I think that's the manufacturer's prerogative. If they want to include dampeners up the wazoo, stabilizer, limb bolt donuts, custom strings, factory super tune etc... that's something the individual consumer needs to consider. If the manufacturer is willing to do this and keep the cost of the bow competitive, sure they'll look better in these tests. At the same time, they also invested the extra effort to give you more for your money. 

But like you mentioned, for the purposes of this test, it wasn't a concern. No manufacturer went to those extremes.

In my opinion, I don't think any of the manufacturers really care enough about scoring high in these independent tests that they'll be willing to eat the extra cost in order to place higher. What they will do is remain competitive with each other. This is a trend that's been around and still continues to be true. 

Notice that such factory upgrades like Harmonic Dampeners, RizorShoxs, PSE's little rubber knobs, etc... they all appear in response to one another. Same with built in suppressors. Mathews has theirs, PSE did something similiar, Elite uses the same thing Mathews does, Hoyt has a factory suppressor extended from the riser as does Ross. Same with improvements in string quality. You have Elite using Vapor Trails, Ben Pearson was using Vapor Trails and now Stone Mountain Dakotas, Ross with WC, both Hoyt and Mathews have invested into improving their respective strings (Baracuda and Fuse). 

When one company comes out with something that catches on with their consumers, other companies take notice and respond in kind. If one company starts fully equipping their bow with stabilizers, rests, and everything else direct from the factory and still maintain the same retail cost, you can bet the other companies will start responding the same way.


----------



## JustOneMoreShot

Awesome! Thanks guys! :darkbeer: :thumbs_up


----------



## 3-D Junkie

I'm sure there are things that we would all like to see (included or excluded) from this test. I think they did a phenominal job. When I talked about having someone like Javi or Crackers tune these bows I did not intend for them to put the secret MOJO on them. Just to get them perfectly in line with "factory" specs. Believe me guys, I was rooting for the Vectix all the way, and I'm a little hurt that my horse didn't win. But that doesn't mean the test wasn't fair.
The test was great.


----------



## tracerboy

*I'm with you 3-D Junkie*

I was pulling for the Vectrix and was more than shocked to see where it landed. It's kinda like seeing your dad get his tale kicked. You think your dad can whoop anyone and suddenly the reality is he's not as bad as you thought. It's a little disappointing but I appreciate the test. Way to go Bowtech! You did it again and you deserve the accolades of a victor. 

But again I will say, I shot the different bows and the Vectrix felt best for me... no matter how low it ranked in this test. And if it has that much more vibration than the other bows, then call me stupid and spank me three times because I don't feel it. 

Maybe we should start some group counseling for Vectrix owners, ha. Or maybe we should just see how many wins we can take with these ol' loud, high vibrating, no kenetic energy, no good efficiency, worthless bows. Somehow I have a feeling it will take it's share of victorys out side of the testing field.


----------



## escpen

tracerboy said:


> But again I will say, I shot the different bows and the Vectrix felt best for me... no matter how low it ranked in this test. And if it has that much more vibration than the other bows, then call me stupid and spank me three times because I don't feel it.



And when it comes down to it, that's all that matters :darkbeer:


----------



## LetThemGrow

Thanks! :thumb:


----------



## live2bowhunt

As others have said...simply awesome testing. Thanks so much for taking the time to do this.

I have a major question...I wonder why the Ross Cardiac did so poorly in the speed category. This bow is touted as a 320 fps bow, but did not come close to some of the other similarly rated bows. Any ideas as to why this might be?


----------



## ZA206

The reason is commonly known as...... "wishful thinking".:wink:

-ZA




live2bowhunt said:


> As others have said...simply awesome testing. Thanks so much for taking the time to do this.
> 
> I have a major question...I wonder why the Ross Cardiac did so poorly in the speed category. This bow is touted as a 320 fps bow, but did not come close to some of the other similarly rated bows. Any ideas as to why this might be?


----------



## Andreas

live2bowhunt said:


> As others have said...simply awesome testing. Thanks so much for taking the time to do this.
> 
> I have a major question...I wonder why the Ross Cardiac did so poorly in the speed category. This bow is touted as a 320 fps bow, but did not come close to some of the other similarly rated bows. Any ideas as to why this might be?


Almost all bows performed worse that their rating. Even the X-Force was almost 15 fps to slow. Either the manufacturers are cheating with the speed, draw and/or pull weight, or the measurement of the bows in the test were out of line, orr the bows were out of tune. I believe the first to be the most likely. A thought however is that there are a lot of other speed tests where the bows perform a lot better, just browse AT....


----------



## 206Moose

*Why 60lbs.*

I was wondering why you chose to use 60lbs. for a hunting bow comparison? Do more people use 60 instead of 70? I don't know if that would make any difference in the outcome. Maybe I am just trying to find an excuse for the Vectrix but still IMO wouldn't 70lbs been more realistic for a hunting bow comparison.


----------



## ZA206

They were all slower than IBO rating b/c all the tests were done with 29" drawlength bows. IBO is with a 30" drawlength bow. General rule of thumb is that 1" of drawlength is equal to 10-15 fps of arrow speed, depending on the bow.

So they were all pretty close.:wink:

-ZA



Andreas said:


> Almost all bows performed worse that their rating. Even the X-Force was almost 15 fps to slow. Either the manufacturers are cheating with the speed, draw and/or pull weight, or the measurement of the bows in the test were out of line, orr the bows were out of tune. I believe the first to be the most likely. A thought however is that there are a lot of other speed tests where the bows perform a lot better, just browse AT....


----------



## Andreas

ZA206 said:


> They were all slower than IBO rating b/c all the tests were done with 29" drawlength bows. IBO is with a 30" drawlength bow. General rule of thumb is that 1" of drawlength is equal to 10-15 fps of arrow speed, depending on the bow.
> 
> So they were all pretty close.:wink:
> 
> -ZA


It was a 300gr arrow which would make up some for the lesser draw weight and length. The X-Force was 15 fps slower than it's supposed to be with 29" draw @ 60#. Very few deny the IBO rating of the X-Force. Looking at the speed per inch rating of all bows virtually shows no difference between them at all, amongs the top 9 the difference is only about 0,5-0,7 fps/inch of powerstroke in difference.

Other interesting findings. The Vectrix seems to be virtually the same bow as the Trykon (or specs are basically the same). At point blank the Trykon would have placed second in the 2007 noise test, and that with 30" draw @70lbs. The only dampening difference is that the Vectrix has an STS(!) which ou might assume make the bow a lot more noisy(?)


----------



## ZA206

The IBO rating is the SAME for a 60# bow at 30" of drawlength and a 300 grain arrow as it is for 70# bow at 30" of draw with a 350 grain arrow.

The arrow weight and the poundage was right for the IBO, but the drawlength was 1" short. That is where the loss of 10-15 fps came from.

-ZA



Andreas said:


> It was a 300gr arrow which would make up some for the lesser draw weight and length. The X-Force was 15 fps slower than it's supposed to be with 29" draw @ 60#. Very few deny the IBO rating of the X-Force. Looking at the speed per inch rating of all bows virtually shows no difference between them at all, amongs the top 9 the difference is only about 0,5-0,7 fps/inch of powerstroke in difference.
> 
> Other interesting findings. The Vectrix seems to be virtually the same bow as the Trykon (or specs are basically the same). At point blank the Trykon would have placed second in the 2007 noise test, and that with 30" draw @70lbs. The only dampening difference is that the Vectrix has an STS(!) which ou might assume make the bow a lot more noisy(?)


----------



## Andreas

ZA206 said:


> The IBO rating is the SAME for a 60# bow at 30" of drawlength and a 300 grain arrow as it is for 70# bow at 30" of draw with a 350 grain arrow.
> 
> The arrow weight and the poundage was right for the IBO, but the drawlength was 1" short. That is where the loss of 10-15 fps came from.
> 
> -ZA


Ok, lets put it this way, the X-Force is rather 25 fps too slow in the test if you compare with the IBO-rating. Therese always a difference thought. At 29" 60# the X-Force is rated to do about 335 fps with a 300gr arrow. At 30" 70# its 348 fps. I was comparing to the 335fps.


----------



## gzg38b

Great test. 

I just can't believe the Pearson Z-34 was that slow. That's supposed to be a 325 fps bow yet the Drenalin was 25 fps FASTER than the Z-34??? 

I think the Z-34 used in this test must not have been tuned properly. That bow is way faster than it performed in the test.


----------



## Pride Hunter

*Z Bow*

I didnt want to be the one to post that but Thank YOU! Z Bow speeds are way off. But the earlier ones from the factory had the timing ******ed. Wish they would have used one from Select. Great evaluation none the less.


----------



## David Wallen

excellent reviews!


----------



## IChim2

Great Test and Thanks to all who put it together..Was Glad to see the "Truth" done OK..For a single cam Bow it held it's own.


----------



## escpen

gzg38b said:


> Great test.
> 
> I just can't believe the Pearson Z-34 was that slow. That's supposed to be a 325 fps bow yet the Drenalin was 25 fps FASTER than the Z-34???
> 
> I think the Z-34 used in this test must not have been tuned properly. That bow is way faster than it performed in the test.





Pride Hunter said:


> I didnt want to be the one to post that but Thank YOU! Z Bow speeds are way off. But the earlier ones from the factory had the timing ******ed. Wish they would have used one from Select. Great evaluation none the less.


I thought the Z-34 seemed a bit slow, as well. I did speak with Dale Faust at Pearson about this issue and he said that there was nothing out of the ordinary. All I can say is that the bow was set to 29", 60 pounds and the timing mark on the cam was dead on. If I were to advance the timing (like Jim at Select Archery recommends), it would have caused the bow to go out of specifications. To counter that by loosening the limb bolts, unnecessary inefficiencies would have been added that wouldn't be there with limbs bottomed out.

Anthony


----------



## 206Moose

*why*



NTYMADATER said:


> I was wondering why you chose to use 60lbs. for a hunting bow comparison? Do more people use 60 instead of 70? I don't know if that would make any difference in the outcome. Maybe I am just trying to find an excuse for the Vectrix but still IMO wouldn't 70lbs been more realistic for a hunting bow comparison.


Why?


----------



## escpen

NTYMADATER said:


> Why?



A poll was conducted here on ArcheryTalk and the results indicated that 60 pound draw weight / 29" draw length should be tested.

Anthony


----------



## cgchris99

Congrats, you guys did a great job on your testing. That's one of the best real-world tests I have ever seen.


----------



## OPC

I'm new to archery, so please excuse me if this is not pertinent.

First off, great test report. I really appreciate the effort and diligence in the data collection and documentation of procedures. Last year's report was especially helpful to me as I was getting started in archery.

For next year's Face-Off, I would like to see each bow characterized for center of gravity relative to the grip. That is, locate the horizontal and vertical components of the balance point relative to the grip to help evaluate how much stabilization will be required for a given bow. 

--José


----------



## b-out

*hi*

I noticed some bows you did not have all the ranking down ,Noise stuff and such just wondering if that would have help in the over all.


----------



## mwflydog

*Great Evaluation!*

I love checking this stuff out. Thanks alot for the hard work that went into this, actually, that would have been less like work and more like fun for me, but excellent job nonetheless. 

I agree with a previous post that it would be nice to see some of the more abstract bows like Monster in there. It also would have been nice to see how the "Best of the Best" from last year (the Tribute) would have done this year. I know there is probably a limit to how many bows you can do, and it seems as though this year's evaluation had more bows than I had ever seen done by anyone, but more would be even better!!

Another thing I'd like to see is a database that would compilate all years of evaluations into one ranking system. You might see that some of last years models are performing better than some of this years. It might make getting a second hand bow a more attractive option sometimes when you can't afford to get a new one. Who knows. 

Well, I think I've asked for enough stuff now, after all you aren't Santa, and if you aren't able to accomplish either of those tasks, I'm still going to look forward to seeing the next evaluations with much anticipation. Well done!

Matt


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL

Well done test, always good to get real numbers.

I took a lot of heat earlier, which was uncalled for, wanting some numbers on the Guardian instead of "feelings".

I had no doubt from all the reports that it was extremely quiet and vibration free. But the ad claims didn't seem to be adding up in other areas.

The claims that the limb tips moved less than other bows didn't seem right when you could see them move a lot. And sure enough when measured they move about 2" while a Tribute moves about 1.4".

The mass weight did FEEL a lot more than it was, and this test has it at 5 lbs.

The efficiency was advertised as ground breaking at 86%, more than the Tribute. The draw was really stiff compared to say a Tribute or Drenalin, and when you compared chrono numbers it didn't add up it had great efficiency. 86% to whatever it was in this test, 74% or something, is quite a way away from ground breaking.

I was just really baffled as to why the advertised specs weren't adding up. And disappointed, as Bowtech birth certificate numbers had always been on the money. I know its hard to be right on the money on some specs, but they shouldn't be way out in right field.

So I wasn't a hater, or whatever else I was called, even though I repeatedly pointed out I owned more Bowtechs than anything else. Just mystified. And still am. If you go to the site they still have the advertising of the limb tips moving less distance and the 86% efficiency figure. Why would somebody post figures like that when bows are going to be tested and figures published that are so far away from the advertising???? Seems to me it is harmful to a company to do that. Would still like to know from somebody why Bowtech put out and is still putting that out?????????????????

And I'm not picking on Bowtech alone, others are out there to. The one thing that really gets me, is the mass weight of bows. You would think that somebody would put a bow on a scale and then advertise that and it would come within an ounce or two at least of being correct. I haven't taken the time but doubt many of the bows in the test would pass that test.

I knew from drawing the Drenalin and looking at chrono numbers it had great efficiency, and also from guys reports it had vibration and noise.

The bow that made me take notice was the Black Ice. It was about as quiet and vibration free as the Guardian, while being quite a bit lighter and more efficient. Will be easier to carry around and draws easier getting the same speed. Guys choosing the Black Ice would have as good a reason to choose it as they would the Guardian. And no, not bashing the Guardian, no reason to, its obviously a great bow, just giving a fair analysis of the numbers. But the Black Ice is a sleeper, nobody seems to notice it, and it obviously performs very well.


----------



## 206Moose

escpen said:


> A poll was conducted here on ArcheryTalk and the results indicated that 60 pound draw weight / 29" draw length should be tested.
> 
> Anthony



Good reason. Do you have any evaluations of hunting sights, treestands, etc. ? You did a great job with the bows.


----------



## abowhunr

If one does a strict measure of AMO draw length then one would find that the PSE XForce has about 3/4" more than that listed length when using the AMO strict measurement. This would account for some speed differences. This being said, the 30 inch modules on the bow with the string loop fits my 30.5 inch natural draw length perfect. I don't know what all they had to do to get the draw length to match the 29" AMO spec for all the bows, but I would think it would have to be a change to the way the bow was shipped and expected to be shot from out of the box if the draw length is off AMO either long or short. What overall effect this would have on a particular bow is unknown to me, but my simple mind would think it would have to have some effect good or bad.


----------



## Hawkeye Archer

*Dynamic efficiency*

Can someone help clarify the dynamic efficiency portion of the 2007 bow test?

I realize there are different measurements of efficiency.... I have read from a few different sources that the Bowtech Guardian was the most efficient compound bow being produced at near 86% with the Tribute near 82% or so.... yet the Guardian did not even measure in the Dynamic efficiency testing.... the lowest one listed was in the lower 70%..... 

I am confused as to how the Guardian could have placed first and done so poorly in this category..... and what type of efficiency is being referred to by other sources when they list the Guardian in the upper 80 percent in efficiency?

Any insight would be greatly appreciated..... Thanks.....


----------



## Misslououtdoors

*Thanks for the work you did on this*

Outstanding Review. Great criteria to go by... The "Bang for the buck" works mathmatically I guess, but not that compelling to me because for a few $100 more you are in a different class bow, but I understand the concept.

Out of all the bows I shot the last few months, I narrowed it down to the two best feeling bows... the Bowtech Guardian and the Bowtech Allegiance. I actually went in to buy the Drenalin, but after reading this forum, I tried to keep an open mind and try them all. Something just did not feel right about this year Mathews. There was no doubt that the Guardian was the smoothest shooting bow that I tried, but it felt like it weghed 10 lbs for some reason (if you compaed bows under 5 lbs it would not be in there). So I settled on the Allegiance and am very happy. Your test not only compare fairly, but help me learn what qualities to look for. I just wish Bowtech had also entered the '07 Allegiance. Would have loved to see how it stacked up in the group.

No surprise to me on the Hoyt, however, my local dealer pushed the Vetrix SO hard on me that it actually turned me off and I probably didn't give it a fair shake when I shot it first. I plan to make sur ehe reads this review : - )) 

Thanks again.
JD


----------



## CoppertoneSPF15

Hawkeye Archer said:


> Can someone help clarify the dynamic efficiency portion of the 2007 bow test?
> 
> I realize there are different measurements of efficiency.... I have read from a few different sources that the Bowtech Guardian was the most efficient compound bow being produced at near 86% with the Tribute near 82% or so.... yet the Guardian did not even measure in the Dynamic efficiency testing.... the lowest one listed was in the lower 70%.....
> 
> I am confused as to how the Guardian could have placed first and done so poorly in this category..... and what type of efficiency is being referred to by other sources when they list the Guardian in the upper 80 percent in efficiency?
> 
> Any insight would be greatly appreciated..... Thanks.....


Dynamic efficiency is calculated by energy in vs. energy out. The integral of the draw force curve is the amount of work energy needed to take the bow from rest to full draw. 

The amount of energy output is based on the arrow kinetic energy. The percent of work energy used to draw the bow back delivered in the form of kinetic energy in the arrow is the bows dynamic efficiency. 

Bowsite.com did a similar face off test and reported an efficiency of 73% for the Guardian. The numbers in the AT evaluation show 74% efficiency when shot with an 5 grn/lb arrow at 60lbs, 29in. 

Whatever it was about Bowtech's prototype Guardian that produced 86% efficiency did not seem to carry through into production.


----------



## EASTON94

Very nice guys, thanks for all the hard work!!! '94


----------



## Topgunnr

I'm not real surprised with the results, but why didn't Martin put in thier upper end bows? They didn't last year either. Like the Bullet X with Nitrous X?


----------



## EASTON94

Topgunnr said:


> I'm not real surprised with the results, but why didn't Martin put in thier upper end bows? They didn't last year either. Like the Bullet X with Nitrous X?



I kind of wondered that myself, like the Slayerx or the Scepter?? Interesting...'94


----------



## BDOG6351

*bow*

martin provided us the bengal for this year. The BulletX was in last years evaluation. We do not dictate what bows are sent to us for testing. A unique situation with Bass Pro Shops occurred this year, as we were able to go to their facility and we made the decision to have the archery manager provide a directive on what bows to use. Overall, this keeps any potential biases out of picking products for the test- the manafacturers can do that

Jon


----------



## reddog44

Great test and great timing. I've shot an old Oneida Strike Eagle for years and finally have decided to upgrade to a new bow. So this test was helpful. I'm heavily leaning towards the BOWTECH line (like the concept of the binary cams and parallel limbs) and am debating over the 07 Guardian and the 07 Allegiance. My basic problem is finding a bowshop (southern maryland) where I can shoot both of these bows to see which one i like best. I've heard good things about both bows and need to try them out myself.

This report gives me some other options to consider (though I will be shooting at a 70# 30"draw length).

Once again good work.

And I agree with your reasoning. Shoot the bows in the configuration that the manufacturer provides.


----------



## escpen

Give Len at Macrotech a call. He should be able to help you out :wink:

Anthony

Macrotech Archery
Phone: (410) 789-7777


----------



## reddog44

Thanks - i'll give him a call this weekend.


----------



## bartman

*Victory Arrows*

Gotta love those V-Force 400's


----------



## GregE

Call early- his shop is usually pretty busy. 410 709 7777

Tell Len Hi and trust his information- he spends a lot of time checking things out.


----------



## escpen

bartman said:


> Gotta love those V-Force 400's


We couldn't have asked for more consistency in an arrow. Thanks bartman! :darkbeer:

Anthony


----------



## Harperman

I have a question on the efficiancy part....I'm not hacking, I seriously dont know..here goes....if the bows were all drawn to the same length, and all weights of the bows, and the arrows were the same, and the X-Force was clearly the fastest, why wasnt it the most efficiant?...In the tests, wouldnt the bow that produced the fastest arrow speeds in an apples-to apples scientific test be the most efficiant??....Also, if the faster bows were shot with a heavy enough arrow to bring the F.P.S. down to equal the slower bows, they would become quieter, and have less vibration...Get the X-Force or the other faster bows down to the same speed as the Bear Truth, or the Ross's or Parkers, by using arrow weight, and the quietness and vibration would be almost non-existant...All-in-all, a great project for sure, and I thank and appreciate that You good folks took the time and effort to do it...Take Care...Harperman


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL

Harp, Efficiency is how much you get out versus how much you put in. 

In other words, the total amount of the strength it takes to draw the bow. 2 bows could have the same draw force curve, which means you used the same amount of strength to draw both. One shoots faster than the other, it is more efficient.

While the Dren was slower, you didn't put nearly as much effort into it to draw it. 

While they have different force draw curves, what the test is saying is if you put the same amount of strength in a Dren and the same amount of strength in an X Force, the Dren would be faster.

Or consider it like this, you put 2 gallons of gas in the XForce and it goes farther than the Dren if you put 1 gallon of gas in it. Put the same amount of gas in each and you would go farther down the road in the Dren.

You do have a great point as far as the heavier arrow. More speed means more noise and vibration. If the XForce was shooting at a lower poundage at the same speed as the higher ranked bows in noise and vibration, it undoubtedly would have scored higher. Thats why in tests like this you have to take a lot in consideration besides one aspect.


----------



## BDOG6351

*test*

Dynamic efficiency is definitely an important topic and with the information we provided in the "bows tested" section you have an opportunity to do quite a bit of evaluating. I felt the test represented a good range of arrow weights, in turn, this allows you to better profile the bows. The result would have varied if the bows were setup at different weights and draw lengths.

Jon


----------



## Andreas

Dynamic efficiency is an interesting factor for each bow in their current set-up. One must remeber that putting more energy into a high efficient bow doesen't to mean you will get more energy out from it. The efficiency factor will likely change when you change something else (for instance increasing the load energy by changing limbs, cams etc.). Most bows have a "sweet spot" where efficiency is at best. I think most manufacturers try to get the sweet spot around the IBO setting but one must remeber that each bow must be able to perform with different settings as well.


----------



## Lumis17

I think it would be interesting to compare multiple bows of the same kind. You always read about people getting completely different speeds and such when shooting the same model bow so why not test within each company. For example, do the test with 10 different Drenalins or X Forces or whatever. Seeing the variations in speed, sound, etc might be a good way to check out a company's tolerances. Maybe some companies put out way more duds/lemons than others? Maybe some of the companies at the top of the rankings don't produce bows that are consistent in performance and would easily drop if another bow was used instead?

Just a thought, not sure if this has been covered before. I know time and money would be a huge issue. When I read comparison tests I always wonder if the bow being tested is a true "representation" of the company's offering.


----------



## ogles615

And............ Look who took the "Best Bang for the Buck" #1 spot!
#1 Martin Bengal @ $399
#2 Bear Instinct @ 399.99
#3 Whisper Creek Stealth LX @ $449
#4 Redhead XP32 @ $499.99
#5 Lakota Thunder @ $495
#6 Bear Truth @ $549
#7 Doc's Sweet Demise @ $549
#8 Readhead XCS-33 @ $549
#9 Reflex Ridgeline 33 @ $599


----------



## I3ullsEyE

Excellent review great job for all those involved. Does anyone know if there is a similar assessment for 3d bows?


----------



## n2archery

*KE winner ??*

KE is important as a hunter.


----------



## buckrazy

*Nice*

These results were great. Just increased my confidence in my bow and feeling even happier about going with the setup that I did.

Yeah for the Cardiac! Glad to see they made it on the list and had good results.


----------



## whitetail99

I did find it interesting that the Darton Pro3000 they tested at 29"60# with 300 grain arrow shot 309 according to the report. The only way this even could be possible {I think} is if they used a 60-70# bow which might have heavy limbs on it{74# max is not unusually} back it off to 60#. Still its pretty wild to get such a low FPS. By the way I am not saying they intendedly twisted the report at all or in any way. They have to work with what they have in hand. My Pro3000 is set at 60# 30" and shoots a 303 grain Gold tip Pro22 at 333 FPS with a D-loop and a specialty peep installed. Just for jiggles I will install a 29" module and retest the speed and post it here.:tongue:


----------



## escpen

whitetail99 said:


> I did find it interesting that the Darton Pro3000 they tested at 29"60# with 300 grain arrow shot 309 according to the report. The only way this even could be possible {I think} is if they used a 60-70# bow which might have heavy limbs on it{74# max is not unusually} back it off to 60#. Still its pretty wild to get such a low FPS. By the way I am not saying they intendedly twisted the report at all or in any way. They have to work with what they have in hand. My Pro3000 is set at 60# 30" and shoots a 303 grain Gold tip Pro22 at 333 FPS with a D-loop and a specialty peep installed. Just for jiggles I will install a 29" module and retest the speed and post it here.:tongue:



When you install the 29" module, check to make sure that the draw length is actually 29" by AMO standards. I think this may be the difference. Oh, the Pro3000 that was tested for this evaluation had 60 pound limbs on it (not 70 pounds).

Anthony


----------



## Sizzler

I am confused, one document says the Guardian wins, and the PDF says its the X-force?


----------



## escpen

Sizzler said:


> I am confused, one document says the Guardian wins, and the PDF says its the X-force?


Unsure what you are saying here. The Guardian scored first overall in the performance testing, as shown in the Overall Performance Best Picks section of the pdf file. Where does it say that the X-Force "wins"?

Anthony


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL

Need to go back and count hanging chads.


----------



## Sizzler

Actually it's not the pdf, it's the XLS spreadsheet. It says the Black Ice is ranked number 1 in performance and x force is number 2. It doesn't say anything about the guardian.


----------



## escpen

Sizzler said:


> Actually it's not the pdf, it's the XLS spreadsheet. It says the Black Ice is ranked number 1 in performance and x force is number 2. It doesn't say anything about the guardian.



That spreadsheet is interactive. You can change values in there to your liking to help determine what bows might fit your needs. The spreadsheet, in its current form, is not fully populated. If each of the sections is weighted equally, the Guardian comes out on top. Hope this helps.

Anthony


----------



## BDOG6351

*xls*

as Anthony stated its not fully populated - the axle to axle needs to have numbers placed in each range - in its current form (when the .xls file is opened) it only states one ATA range.

Jon


----------



## Sizzler

Thanks!


----------



## BusterBoy

*Thanks*

Anthony and Jon, thank you, you guys did an excellent job. I am considering getting a new bow and had a couple of questions. First, is there any way we could see the the results for all the bows in the noise and vibration tests? And secondly, one of the bows I'm looking at is the Reflex, do you guys think there would be much difference between the 32 and 34 inch ata lengths? Again, great job, thanks. Kirk


----------



## ftshooter

*Test Guys ?*

What so, the PSE Ad showing their test..Is bunk ...Is that it... ??


----------



## escpen

ftshooter said:


> What so, the PSE Ad showing their test..Is bunk ...Is that it... ??



I wouldn't call any test "bunk" unless it is absolutely obvious that the results are biased. Their testing was done under different conditions with different equipment in a different volume of space with different reflection qualities. Jon and I strive to make these types of tests as consistent as possible by using the highest quality equipment that we are able to get our hands on; we are quite happy with the way this year's test was conducted and feel that the results are a reflection of this. I feel very lucky to be able to perform this type of testing and hope to be able to continue improving our approaches and equipment in the future. :darkbeer:

Anthony


----------



## escpen

BusterBoy said:


> Anthony and Jon, thank you, you guys did an excellent job. I am considering getting a new bow and had a couple of questions. First, is there any way we could see the the results for all the bows in the noise and vibration tests? And secondly, one of the bows I'm looking at is the Reflex, do you guys think there would be much difference between the 32 and 34 inch ata lengths? Again, great job, thanks. Kirk



The 32 -vs- 34 inch ata length would be a personal choice. Most would say that the longer ata length would provide better stability. As far as the noise and vibration test results are concerned, all that is available is what you see in the pdf file. If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to send me a PM. Thanks!

Anthony


----------



## ftshooter

escpen said:


> I wouldn't call any test "bunk" unless it is absolutely obvious that the results are biased. Their testing was done under different conditions with different equipment in a different volume of space with different reflection qualities. Jon and I strive to make these types of tests as consistent as possible by using the highest quality equipment that we are able to get our hands on; we are quite happy with the way this year's test was conducted and feel that the results are a reflection of this. I feel very lucky to be able to perform this type of testing and hope to be able to continue improving our approaches and equipment in the future. :darkbeer:
> 
> Anthony


Do you guys get paid for this test in any way? If so, by whom ? Was the equipment you used yours .Why would you even do test ? Do you now or have you ever worked for one of these bow makers..What brand of bows did you guys shoot be for this test ?Do you think some one could slant the results in one way or the other ? Just asking ...Thanks


----------



## artomcaller

*Great job!*

I like what you guys are doing. I would of liked to see how the Illusion placed in the testing. Also, because some of the test parameters changed from last year I would of liked to see last year's top ten thrown into the mix. These bows are still available in bow shops and when compared to the new line, may have shown to be a better purchase than the new line. I would also like to see the results of all the bows in each category tested. In the noise test, I liked the way you did it last year by measuring the sound up close and from twenty yards away (I think that is what it was). 

After seeing your results, I went to the shop and shot the Black Ice and the Ridgeline. Both were sweet shooting bows! I may have never considered them had it not been for your tests. 

Also, how about a test on some shorter draw length bows for youth and women? My wifes DL is 23" so I am not sure how many, if any, of these bows would fit her. Here are a few off the top of my head that I would like to see tested...

Matthews Mustang and Ignition
Diamond Edge
Browning Micro Adrenaline 4
Hoyt Selena
Martin Leapord

just to name a few.


----------



## whitetail99

escpen said:


> When you install the 29" module, check to make sure that the draw length is actually 29" by AMO standards. I think this may be the difference. Oh, the Pro3000 that was tested for this evaluation had 60 pound limbs on it (not 70 pounds).
> 
> Anthony


Okay I tested my Pro3000 {tricked out for speed} and a factory Pro3000 bow. the #5 module was a 3/16" over the AMO spec of 29" so I installed the 4.5 module and twisted up the cables to get a perfect 29 AMO {AMO is 1 3/4" forward from the deepest part of the grip} I used 62# and a 312 grain arrow. shot it threw the crono at 30" away and it was 315 FPS. I used the #5 modules on my Pro3000 {AMO 29 1/16} and it measured 322 FPS. By the way I can defiantly see how setting each and every bow to 29" AMO would be a pain. I have seen some manufactures of by a full 1/2"+ from what they claim is the draw length. Sorry it took a little extra time I have been buzzy.


----------



## BDOG6351

*test*



ftshooter said:


> Do you guys get paid for this test in any way? If so, by whom ? Was the equipment you used yours .Why would you even do test ? Do you now or have you ever worked for one of these bow makers..What brand of bows did you guys shoot be for this test ?Do you think some one could slant the results in one way or the other ? Just asking ...Thanks



we were not paid for this test. The equipment used in our tests are either owned by our company or we rent equipment- and as you may have noticed some of the equipment is not cheap. We test products because it’s our opinion that there is a lack of information available to consumers and it also a fine tool for manufacturers to make changes and/or review our thoughts on their products. I’m not sure what bow I will use this year hunting... any suggestions... thank you for asking. Each bow tested is taken through the same procedures. Just a side note, the bow test takes approximately 200 hours to complete and that’s a ton of our free time lost. Anthony and I both work far outside the archery industry (never have either), which truly allows us to stay balanced and unbiased. thanks for your questions, PM me any time 

Jon Teater


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL

I rather enjoyed the test, and appreciate all the work put into it. Every test won't yield identical results, but if you take all of them and lots of individual reports you can get an idea what a bow is about. I did take a bit of time to compare the speed results to the Bowsite test, and found they were quite close.

Of course, with bows which one you prefer depends on how the geometry and draw and feel fits you personally.


----------



## ftshooter

BDOG6351 said:


> we were not paid for this test. The equipment used in our tests are either owned by our company or we rent equipment- and as you may have noticed some of the equipment is not cheap. We test products because it’s our opinion that there is a lack of information available to consumers and it also a fine tool for manufacturers to make changes and/or review our thoughts on their products. I’m not sure what bow I will use this year hunting... any suggestions... thank you for asking. Each bow tested is taken through the same procedures. Just a side note, the bow test takes approximately 200 hours to complete and that’s a ton of our free time lost. Anthony and I both work far outside the archery industry (never have either), which truly allows us to stay balanced and unbiased. thanks for your questions, PM me any time
> 
> Jon Teater



Well, that is good to hear and I am surprised that you do not work in the archery industry .. So, this is a hobby and you don't shoot any certain make bow? that's cool ..as far as suggestions on a hunting bow .This was ment to be a smart remark right? . Well, anyway,I can only say shoot what ever fits you well ..IMHO ..most of the bows in this test is over priced ..I myself see no reason to spend 700-800 dollars for a hunting bow .Maybe , a really nice target bow .But, that is just me.. Thanks for taking time to answer my questions ..Just trying to understand where all this is coming from .And no matter what bow you use .Best of luck to you this season ..Cody


----------



## BDOG6351

ftshooter said:


> Well, that is good to hear and I am surprised that you do not work in the archery industry .. So, this is a hobby and you don't shoot any certain make bow? that's cool ..as far as suggestions on a hunting bow .This was ment to be a smart remark right? . Well, anyway,I can only say shoot what ever fits you well ..IMHO ..most of the bows in this test is over priced ..I myself see no reason to spend 700-800 dollars for a hunting bow .Maybe , a really nice target bow .But, that is just me.. Thanks for taking time to answer my questions ..Just trying to understand where all this is coming from .And no matter what bow you use .Best of luck to you this season ..Cody



I work in the defense industry, its hard to say what benefits we are gaining doing this, but its a great time and there is plenty to learn. At this point it has become a small business and we are now writing for fine publisher, but will continue to work with AT on getting reports out- fyi we have started our next batch of reports. Regarding my preference of bow, would that change your opinion of the test... the tests procedure won't allow it to affect the testing. I think your opinion on the bow pricing is one that many people have. I have a hard time spending $700 on a bow- so I buy used bows, Anthony and I continue to purchase our own bows for personal use.


----------



## ftshooter

BDOG6351 said:


> I work in the defense industry, its hard to say what benefits we are gaining doing this, but its a great time and there is plenty to learn. At this point it has become a small business and we are now writing for fine publisher, but will continue to work with AT on getting reports out- fyi we have started our next batch of reports. Regarding my preference of bow, would that change your opinion of the test... the tests procedure won't allow it to affect the testing. I think your opinion on the bow pricing is one that many people have. I have a hard time spending $700 on a bow- so I buy used bows, Anthony and I continue to purchase our own bows for personal use.


 Ok, so it is for something like consumer reports a Book or Magazine type thing. I can see how that is needed . and maybe it would help keep some honesty . You don't need to name names unless you want too. But, did you find some bow makers running longer then standard draw lengths in order to make their bows faster?


----------



## escpen

ftshooter said:


> Ok, so it is for something like consumer reports a Book or Magazine type thing. I can see how that is needed . and maybe it would help keep some honesty . You don't need to name names unless you want too. But, did you find some bow makers running longer then standard draw lengths in order to make their bows faster?



There were very few bows that were received in the requested / required specifications. It is definitely the exception, not the rule, to have a bow meet ATA/AMO specifications out of the box. I think the manufacturers build the bows for peak efficiency and let draw weight / draw length "float" in their efforts to do so.


----------



## tracerboy

*just curious*

I have a Vectrix and was pretty shocked at it's low rating. But I noticed on the score sheet the Vulcan placed less yet ranked higher in the overall... how it that? 

Also, the Hoyts have an sts that stems from the same place (opposite side) in which the vibration tester is placed, wouldn't that cause more vibration to be recorded? Which would be underneath the hand, not where the hand is located.


----------



## artomcaller

How about a test on some shorter draw length bows for youth and women? My wifes DL is 23" so I am not sure how many (I think only the Bear bows) of these bows would fit her. Here are a few off the top of my head that I would like to see tested...

Matthews Mustang and Ignition
Diamond Edge
Browning Micro Adrenaline 4
Hoyt Selena
Martin Leapord
Bowtech Equilizer

just to name a few.


----------



## BDOG6351

*short bow test*

a short draw test is something we are working toward. We have one evaluation to finish up in the next coming weeks and we have 2 more coming. we'll let you know.

Jon Teater


----------



## tpatrickm

talked about this test else where and got a lot of the same thing . people dumping there sour grapes. as a long time bow hunter i would not think twice about buying any of the bows. it's a great time to be in the market for a bow. so many great models to choose. but some people don't want to hear that their bow didn't finish at the top. WHO CARES IF YOU LOVE YOUR BOW WHY WORRY ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSES OPINION.ukey:


----------



## EddieCyrax

Awesome study....

It reaffirms my purchase.

Once I placed my shooting style/measurements in your spreadsheet, not only did my Instinct continue to get the best "bang for the buck" (which I already knew), but it also ranked well in performance for my needs.

Thanks again for all the hard work...


----------



## bowman africa

*High Country Iron Mace*



razz40 said:


> Great review !!! I just have one question.
> How can a bow score so high be #10 on the chart, was the noise and vibration that bad? I would like to see the results for all the bows 1 thru 23 not just top 9. I have a big interest in this bow and those two categories are holding me back from buying one. I can get that bow here in Michigan for around $600. Thats about $200 cheaper then a Mathews or a Hoyt.
> 
> Thanks again for the great reviews.


Good question. If I may ask where did the Iron Mace end up in the noise and vibration chart.?


----------



## bkp_80

I too was wondering what happened to the mace in the last 2 test, having bought the bow about a month ago and finally getting it rigged for hunting I had my buddies one who shoot a Bowtech and the other a Hoyt check it out and they all agreed it wasnt any louder or quieter than theres, they were all about the same. I cant remember but i think the test were as is from manufacturer. Good review though.


----------



## public land

*thankyou guys*

thankyou anthony and john wow nice work :thumbs_up I would love to see any kind of review on the 2007 mach x seems like a nice bow im left handed and the pro shops only have rh bows :angry:i like the black ice and if i can find a mach x to fire i would like to compare. My current bow ive had for 13 years so any bow i purchase will be a super upgrade...pse1000c edge has treated me well thanks for all your hard work and time...


----------



## NorCalSkinner

Please add my request to that of artomcaller, as I also would of liked to see how the Browning Illusion placed in the testing. While only shooting a Mathews, Hoyt, etc against it (in the shop prior to purchase without any factual test data to review), I purchased the Illusion because it ""just felt and sounded better."" Just how more subjective could I possibly get??!! Therefore, in short regarding your work:

EXCELLENT work gentlemen..... EXCELLENT Report!! Thank you! 
Well done!:darkbeer:


----------



## NHhunter

Outstanding work gentlemen! If you have the means, please consider adding the K/O Bowlogic to a future test. 

-NH


----------



## Down4dacount

*Just bought an X-force Tree Stand*

Shot every bow I could get my hands on over the past few days. PSE has a real winner with their new line-up. I firmly believe that the X-force line is now the bow to beat. It has everything, speed, quiet, and impressively smooth. 

For 28 ATA I was shocked at how that thing performs. The only negative is that it has a fairly aggressive draw. 

I had the salesman setup a Darton Pro 3000, DXT, Katera, 82nd Airborne with the same specs. 29" draw @ 65lbs with a 375grain arrow. The X-force completly blew them off the charts. 

It was hard to switch from Mathews, but I didn't sacrifice anything...the X-force is just as smooth and just as quiet, and the TS model was $130 cheaper!!!!!


----------



## TOthree

WOW!
Incredible eval. Fabulous job. Thanks for the info.


BDOG6351 said:


> All
> 
> Attached are the results of the 2007 Compound Hunting Bow Face-Off. We have included an interactive spreadsheet for purposes of convenience. Please contact us or list any questions that you may have. We appreciate your support and good reading.
> 
> 2007Face-Off_Results_ArcheryTalk.pdf
> HuntingBowResults_AT_2007.xls
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Anthony Barnum [email protected]
> Jon Teater [email protected]


----------



## yalerider

*Thanks!*

Nice report. Got my 07 Black Ice for $475.00 so that helps.


----------



## gashogford

That had to be a lot of work,great job guy's!


----------

