# Arrow choice for field archery.



## tmorelli (Jul 31, 2005)

Good choice.

I really like my 22's for field. With 160 nockbusters and pin nocks they stack tight without damage or kickouts. I won state field and our league with them. 

I also just ordered some UL pro 300's. I'll immediately go to 150 grains up front but have every intention of testing up to near 200 grains. 

Im also going to test more weight in my 22's. Ive shot two Fita (american 900 halfs) with them in the last two weeks. The first was a personal best 447/450 in calm wind. I struggled at 50y or would've been clean. This week i shot a 443 in high winds gusting over 20. I dropped 2 with no help from the wind and lost the others to gusts. 

My best last year was a 444 with acc's in calm wind. They opened up bad in the wind. These high FOC 22's don't. 

typed slowly and with many errors on this touchscreen.......


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

tmorelli said:


> Good choice.
> 
> I really like my 22's for field. With 160 nockbusters and pin nocks they stack tight without damage or kickouts. I won state field and our league with them.
> 
> ...


I considered building some 22's with 160 in front. My question is speed any kind of factor in field. I remember Dean saying bows that shoot 275fps dont need much cuts on uphill and downhill. Should one consider fps in field?
DB


----------



## tmorelli (Jul 31, 2005)

Daniel Boone said:


> I considered building some 22's with 160 in front. My question is speed any kind of factor in field. I remember Dean saying bows that shoot 275fps dont need much cuts on uphill and downhill. Should one consider fps in field?
> DB


Im going to say yes but im often accused of being a speed freak even though i dont own a rig over 280 fps now. I think there is wisdom in setting your bows to shoot as much weight as you can push at a minimum of say 260 ish.

It cuts down on wind drift where it applies (not much on most courses) and keeps the sight tape short for less anchor change between the 80 and the bunny. 

Heavy arrows kick out less too.....

Not sure it really helps the cut chart much. You've got to travel pretty fair from home to get many really good hills on a field course!

typed slowly and with many errors on this touchscreen.......


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

I know of a few people that have been shooting 3555 shafts. GT was supposedly developing a target shaft similar to the Nano and X10 but I haven't heard anything about it in a while so I don't know if it's still a project or if they scrapped it. 

Of the "Official" Target shafts they offer, the UL is about as good as it's gonna get. 

There are a lot of other shafts on the market that may be better suited for Field Archery, but since you are locked in to Gold Tip, the UL is the best they have to offer. 

You shouldn't need to put 160 grains up front. 100-120 should be more than enough to get them to fly well at all distances and keep their heads in breezy conditions but I haven't messed with GT arrows in quite some time so maybe they need all that head weight to work.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

Spoon13 said:


> I know of a few people that have been shooting 3555 shafts. GT was supposedly developing a target shaft similar to the Nano and X10 but I haven't heard anything about it in a while so I don't know if it's still a project or if they scrapped it.
> 
> Of the "Official" Target shafts they offer, the UL is about as good as it's gonna get.
> 
> ...


Just sold a few arrows for Dean Pridgen and must say I cant afford those arrows even at a used price. LOL I had forgot about 3555, thanks for the input. Hoping GT new arrow gets out soon. I figured they would have it ready for outdoor nationals. Nano seem to be a good choice for many.
DB


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

Daniel Boone said:


> Just sold a few arrows for Dean Pridgen and must say I cant afford those arrows even at a used price. LOL I had forgot about 3555, thanks for the input. Hoping GT new arrow gets out soon. I figured they would have it ready for outdoor nationals. Nano seem to be a good choice for many.
> DB


I'm REALLY surprised they haven't got it done yet. I saw some of the prototypes back early in the year. All they had to do then was work out the component issues which I guess still haven't been worked out. At least that is what I was told.


----------



## bowpro34 (Jun 17, 2007)

I'm in the same boat now. Testing out GT ultra lite 400's, 300's, and pro hunter 7595's. If you ask Tim G he wants the heaviest arrow that you can shoot about 275fps (without regard for size). I love my 22's now for 3D but I'm afraid I would wreck a dozen of them in a single round of field. Plus they are going 320+ fps (@ 61lbs). 

The 400's will most likely be too weak once you load up the front (just guessing). I'm banking on 300's or the 7595's working out once I back it down to 55lbs with a long arrow and heavy point.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Don't forget about the KINETICS!!! I heard that Tim G and I could be wrong, but also Jesse B shot over 1400+ FITA scores with Kinetics.

Tim G won the Classic this past week with KINETICS...and he beat some pretty stiff competition in the wind while doing it.

I have the Kinetic XT 500's and the shoot right with my ULPro Hunter 35/55's...only a few grains different, but the smaller diameter of the KINETICS is nice to have. I have not shot the "gold label" Kinetics...Tim told me the difference wasn't worth the bother to "upgrade"?????

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## IGluIt4U (Sep 22, 2004)

Daniel Boone said:


> I considered building some 22's with 160 in front. My question is speed any kind of factor in field. I remember Dean saying bows that shoot 275fps dont need much cuts on uphill and downhill. Should one consider fps in field?
> DB


Don't worry about speed.. consistent flight will gain you more. I shot UL400's a few years back and they worked fine for me, give em a try. I shoot upper 50's and shot 100gr screw-in points with inserts. 

If you are concerned about cuts, and you actually shoot in some hilly country with some long (over 50yd) shots, then use an angle compensating rangefinder or cut sheet and inclinometer. I can say out here, on some of our hillier courses, the cuts are not that critical, it's rarely more than a few clicks for me on a long target.. :wink:


----------



## x-hunta (Mar 10, 2010)

Spoon13 said:


> I'm REALLY surprised they haven't got it done yet. I saw some of the prototypes back early in the year. All they had to do then was work out the component issues which I guess still haven't been worked out. At least that is what I was told.


Unless Nationals is meant to be the debut for the new arrow in Jesse's quiver? I wonder what he will be able to do as I see the possibility of glanceouts is much more likely with the Ultralights he is using now. I am sure he will still shoot the best scores as usual but it does raise eyebrows.
As to the thread, I shot the Ultralight Pro last year for a bit and they were a good solid arrow. I ran them very stiff for my setup, 400 cut at 27" carbon with 125gr up front and this was out of a Bowtech Constitution at 29.5" and 52lbs. I shot some pretty decent scores FITA wise but I never had the chance to get them out to the field course for a full official round. I did find the durability of the shafts a major issue though, hence why I switched over to Nano XRs. I was at 20 arrows at the beginning of June and was down to 11 shootable arrows by mid July. I am however thinking of revisiting them and try some new ideas out on setup.


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

field14 said:


> Don't forget about the KINETICS!!! I heard that Tim G and I could be wrong, but also Jesse B shot over 1400+ FITA scores with Kinetics.
> 
> Tim G won the Classic this past week with KINETICS...and he beat some pretty stiff competition in the wind while doing it.
> 
> ...


I was gonna mention the Kinetic but at a .400 spine, they aren't any smaller than the UL. According to their website, they are the same size at .400 and get bigger as you go stiffer.


----------



## tmorelli (Jul 31, 2005)

Spoon13 said:


> I was gonna mention the Kinetic but at a .400 spine, they aren't any smaller than the UL. According to their website, they are the same size at .400 and get bigger as you go stiffer.


The Kinetic 400 is .020 smaller than the 400 UL.

The Kinetic line is very similar in diameter to the Easton Axis line. The UL's are basically "standard" diameter.


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

tmorelli said:


> The Kinetic 400 is .020 smaller than the 400 UL.
> 
> The Kinetic line is very similar in diameter to the Easton Axis line. The UL's are basically "standard" diameter.


You are correct. I was thinking the Velocity, not the Kinetic.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

My Kinetic 500's are significantly smaller in diameter than my UL Pro 500's: I just used a set of certified calipers for the measurement:

Kinetic XT 500's = 0.259" OUTSIDE diameter
UL Pro 500's: = 0.386" OUTSIDE diameter

I took 5 measurements on the same shaft of each type.

Both group pretty much the same, but due to that smaller diameter, I had to adjust the site to cover this, since the Kinetics will shoot lower and a tad to the right if I use the same exact site setting for both shafts.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

So for field the smaller diamentor is obviously better for glance out of the close target from your own arrow.
DB


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

Daniel Boone said:


> So for field the smaller diamentor is obviously better for glance out of the close target from your own arrow.
> DB


Some of the mid range targets get a little tight trying to stick 16 arrows in the same dot. The less real estate you take up, the more you have to aim at. 

Even with small shafts, you are gonna get a kick out every once in a while. Not many of us mere mortals are able to put them on each leg of the spider. Just try and make sure that if you are gonna wreck an arrow that it is one in the dot. It sucks to trash one in the four ring.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Daniel Boone said:


> So for field the smaller diamentor is obviously better for glance out of the close target from your own arrow.
> DB


DB,
Talk with Dean about this...he used to shoot one arrow in each of the legs of the X with his 2016's and did NOT have issues with kiss-outs! He didn't try to pound the crap out of the cross of the X...he simply USED the legs of the X as aiming points and had more than ample room in the 5-ring for his big, fat (at the time) 2016's!
The 5-ring is plenty big if you don't try to shoot the 24, 25, 26, or heaven forbid 27 diameter logs for field shooting. If you do, then take your own risks...and those others will accommodate you by tearing up your logs, too, hahahaha.

Don't NEED mini arrows for field shooting...most field courses are NOT out in the wind much, so wind drift isn't the issue...FOUR accurately and consistently shot arrows in a row on every target ARE the key to the game. Cuts, tiny arrows, and all that are "noise"...it comes down to shot execution and form. If you don't have those, then you cannot get good sight marks and the best computer and cut chart on the planet is NOT going to help one iota, and neither will $300 per dozen arrows either.
My opinion is to USE the 5-ring and not try to smash every single shot up close into the cross of the X.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

field14 said:


> DB,
> Talk with Dean about this...he used to shoot one arrow in each of the legs of the X with his 2016's and did NOT have issues with kiss-outs! He didn't try to pound the crap out of the cross of the X...he simply USED the legs of the X as aiming points and had more than ample room in the 5-ring for his big, fat (at the time) 2016's!
> The 5-ring is plenty big if you don't try to shoot the 24, 25, 26, or heaven forbid 27 diameter logs for field shooting. If you do, then take your own risks...and those others will accommodate you by tearing up your logs, too, hahahaha.
> 
> ...


I cant afford Deans Arrows. Always noticed he put those steel bushings on the backside to avoid damage. Dean says keep them out of the middle if you don't want them damaged. LOL I puts wraps on his to see better in the target.
DB


----------



## tmorelli (Jul 31, 2005)

field14 said:


> UL Pro 500's: = 0.386" OUTSIDE diameter


Field14, that can't be right. That's larger than a 2412.

Surely you mean *.286* for a difference of about .028" compared to the 500 Kinetics


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Yes...it is 0.*2*86...I tried to correct the typo...but the system wouldn't let me do it; apparently the time limit to change had elapsed. GRRRRRR.


----------



## trumankayak (Dec 28, 2011)

Ya know..... Ive been playing with some gt 400 ultralights for the last 2 weeks.
I wanted a do it all shaft for field and 3d and a buddy sent me these to try out.
Im running them at 27.5 in with 94 gr point vaentec 1.5's gt pin bushings and bohning pin nocks.
Out of a Mathews conquest 4 at 57 lbs. Total arrow weight 322.5 grains. Foc. a little over 12%.
I will also add that all 6 of these shafts were within 1/10 of a grain and these are not the 'proseries'. Side by side against 2 'other brands' same shaft same spine same point.
These shot considerably tighter groups after 40 yards. From a long time easton guy , I am a changed man. At 19/64 standard carbon size they do have their advantage.
No the line-cutting ability isnt there, but tighter tolerances in fletching is compared to a micro or nano. I shot Easton ACE's for years and fletching them was always a pain.
Also at .246 id you have the ability to run any component you want. There not so big that you cant pack them in and if your running a quality uni or pin setup, they seem to take a beating.
I dont know if I'll keep the pins in or swap them over to CB uni's with G nocks. I tested one last night with the CB's and its a perfect fit. The 'blue' CB bushings are measured .246.
The pin bushings seem to dent easier than a uni.

Not to mention these things are stupid cheap. Im not a 'staffer' for anyone and shoot what shoots the best for me. Not 'brand loyal' to anyone and I like to test things side by side.
These gt 400 ul's are what I will be shooting the year out with. Group's dont lie....


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

How are you guys doing it...? The season before last I tried a set of Ultralight Pro 600s and for the life of me could not get the expected performance out of them. I tried running both 80 and 90 gr in the nose, cut to 27.5" shooting at 40-45# with pin nocks and were consistently too stiff with little to no forgiveness. Granted, I was a total noobie and was making a lot more form errors then which did contribute to the difficulties I was having, but I could never get that warm and fuzzy feeling with them. I then went to ACEs which were great, but were too fragile for my liking and finally settled on the Medallion Pros I'm currently shooting. Is there a good GT target arrow for low poundage distance shooters?


----------



## trumankayak (Dec 28, 2011)

montigre said:


> How are you guys doing it...? The season before last I tried a set of Ultralight Pro 600s and for the life of me could not get the expected performance out of them. I tried running both 80 and 90 gr in the nose, cut to 27.5" shooting at 40-45# with pin nocks and were consistently too stiff with little to no forgiveness. Granted, I was a total noobie and was making a lot more form errors then which did contribute to the difficulties I was having, but I could never get that warm and fuzzy feeling with them. I then went to ACEs which were great, but were too fragile for my liking and finally settled on the Medallion Pros I'm currently shooting. Is there a good GT target arrow for low poundage distance shooters?


That is the million dollar question. Been rumor of a GT fita arrow for a long time. Even though I really like the gt ul 400's,
I dont believe they are on the same level as an ACE or nano. But at 25% of the cost they are pretty darn good.
I really dont feel guilty shooting groups at distance with them. And so far there pretty tough. When I shot ACE's a good smack to the back and they were toast. But were talking about $400 vs $100 arrows. I still have some ACE 400's with 90 grain point. 3 to be exact and they group better than anything. Theres just no way I can shoot them at the current price.
These gt 400's have been the closest that I have found without breaking the bank.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

If they ever do come out with that mysterious GT fita/field arrow, I'm certainly going to do a good comparison between the Medallion Pros and it. I'm really not at the level of competing with ACEs or nanos yet (picked up the ACEs for a song sung off key--could not pass on the deal--and decided to store them for future use after cracking the back ends of a few), so a very good intermediate arrow that will spine well for my set up is definitely on my radar. If only I could start drawing closer to 50# with my long arms, it might be a lot easier to find that kinder/gentler arrow for me..... Alas....


----------

