# acc or acg?



## DCON (Oct 5, 2007)

What is the difference in these shafts? Looking for an outdoor target (mainly FITA shaft) without spending 400/dz. Are the od's the same on these shafts?


----------



## greennock (Dec 13, 2007)

Easton Carbon Shaft diameters must be secret as they don't seem to publish them like most other companies do. They want you to buy them without being able to compare them to their competition.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

First, neither of these are completely carbon. They have an aluminum core surrounded by layers of carbon. The ACG's are made by the same process as the ACE's but they don't have the barrel shape. They have two basic diameters. the stiffest ones from 430 to 540, I think it is have one fairly consistent diameter..about .22 and have their own special points and pins because of their diameter. Then all of the others from 610 up have a diameter of .20 give or take a few thousandths and all use the same points and pins as the ACE's. These are damn good shafts at a reasonable price, if you can call 190.00 doz for shafts reasonable. These replaced the Navigator shafts and are marked in groupings like the ACE's for weight matching such as C-1 thru C-4 on the ACE's and have a tighter tolerance standard than the Navigator.
The ACC's all have different diameters, use different points and have unibushings to use the same nocks. The ACC in 2-00 is the smallest and have a diameter similar to the Small Navigator. the largest, the 3-71 has a diameter of .317, I think.. These are aluminum core with carbon layers over it also. These to me are the best shafts for the money out there. Are they as good as ACG's??? For FITA, probably not, but they are around 130.00 a dozen for shafts and though as nails. I've not shot any of the ACG's yuet, but the Navigators are really tough too... I know someone will add some info for these, but this is all I can think of off the top of my head....


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

Unclegus said:


> These replaced the Navigator shafts and are marked in groupings like the ACE's for weight matching such as C-1 thru C-4 on the ACE's and have a tighter tolerance standard than the Navigator.


I'm a little confused by this. The Nav's are still listed for 2010 on Easton's web site and the tolerance listed for the Nav's is actually tighter than the ACG's... and, from the pictures posted, the ACG's "look" like they are a bigger diameter than the Nav's??? Still, you may be correct, but your post seems to be a contradiction to the info posted on the Easton web site about both of these shafts.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

I'm just going by what the tech guy told me at Easton. Don't believe anything I said, Check for yourself.


----------



## Sturdyman (Oct 30, 2009)

Does anyone out there know what the real world difference between these arrows are other than price. With everything being the same which can provide longer distance and durability?


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Basically the ACG is a better quality, small diameter arrow than the ACC....the 279.00 a dozen ACE shaft without the barrel shape. That's as simple as a simple mind like mine can make it.


----------



## Sturdyman (Oct 30, 2009)

I am going to LAS tomorrow and as usual I dont't have as much money as I thought. I am tempted to purchase 1/2 dozen along with a Bodoodle Pro Lite rest. I might have to hold off on the scope and lens.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Let me add... my brother has 540 navigators, which are pretty much the ACG's and he also has the Big dollar Nano Pros. He's a pretty good shooter, and he tells me that the Navs group just as well as the Nanos at 80y. If I were going to shoot 70M and 90M, I'd have to take the ACG's just basically because they would cut the wind better than an ACC, and they would shoot a little flatter....For field, I see nothing wrong with the ACC's//


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Navigators/ACG are really just small diameter ACC shafts.

ACG shafts are the same sizes as Navigators but heavier and they use the same points and pin nock bushings. All of the Navigator/ACG shafts are different size OD but the same size aluminum core tube inside the carbon exterior.

All of the OD information is in AA.

Easton bumped the listed retail price of the ACG over the Navigator a lot but Lancaster is selling the ACG for only a little more, so do the ACG really cost the dealer or distributor a lot more?

I have no idea why Easton increased the weight of the ACG but an example is the 480 which increased from 8.0 to 8.5. That is 14 grains on a 28 inch arrow. Navigators were a reasonable weight already.

I had some 480 and 430 Navigators that were over the nominal listed weight and then never cut them because of that. Maybe Easton found that the size and spine caused the Navigators to come out heavy, so they remaned them and listed the weight they are really coming out. Just my speculation though.

I can tell you that ACC shafts are coming with a total spread of weight over the whole dozen of a grain or less total spread from light to heavy in the same dozen.

Maybe they have tightened the ACG up to that weight tolerance. Maybe someone here could weigh out a new dozen shafts before assembly.


----------



## AKRuss (Jan 10, 2003)

I've weighed and tested spine and straightness on several dozen ACCs. I believe their specs on weight is within 2 grains and the ones I played with all came within or better than that. They are, however, sorted by weight into groups. I'm not sure how you can get any better than that other than sorting into smaller groups.


----------



## keyman (Mar 22, 2003)

Unclegus said:


> First, neither of these are completely carbon. They have an aluminum core surrounded by layers of carbon. The ACG's are made by the same process as the ACE's but they don't have the barrel shape. They have two basic diameters. the stiffest ones from 430 to 540, I think it is have one fairly consistent diameter..about .22 and have their own special points and pins because of their diameter. Then all of the others from 610 up have a diameter of .20 give or take a few thousandths and all use the same points and pins as the ACE's. These are damn good shafts at a reasonable price, if you can call 190.00 doz for shafts reasonable. These replaced the Navigator shafts and are marked in groupings like the ACE's for weight matching such as C-1 thru C-4 on the ACE's and have a tighter tolerance standard than the Navigator.
> The ACC's all have different diameters, use different points and have unibushings to use the same nocks. The ACC in 2-00 is the smallest and have a diameter similar to the Small Navigator. the largest, the 3-71 has a diameter of .317, I think.. These are aluminum core with carbon layers over it also. These to me are the best shafts for the money out there. Are they as good as ACG's??? For FITA, probably not, but they are around 130.00 a dozen for shafts and though as nails. I've not shot any of the ACG's yuet, but the Navigators are really tough too... I know someone will add some info for these, but this is all I can think of off the top of my head....


This is basically the same thing I was told and understand. I have both Navigators and ACG's.


----------



## keyman (Mar 22, 2003)

EPLC said:


> I'm a little confused by this. The Nav's are still listed for 2010 on Easton's web site and the tolerance listed for the Nav's is actually tighter than the ACG's... and, from the pictures posted, the ACG's "look" like they are a bigger diameter than the Nav's??? Still, you may be correct, but your post seems to be a contradiction to the info posted on the Easton web site about both of these shafts.


Don't always believe what you see in pictures on the computer. You should know that. 

I stated earlier that Easton has quit making the Navigators whether they are on the website or not. They have tightened up the tolerances on the ACG's but are basically the same type at Navigators but the website shows them weighing .5 grains heavier per inch. Are they heavier than the navigators or maybe they just have the weights of the shafts more accurate now.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Keyman,
Since you have ACG shafts, can you verify the weight spread within a dozen and/or that the weights are closer to advertized or still running heavy?

Does anyone know how to order two dozen from, say Lancaster, and get both dozen with the same weight spread instead of perhaps each dozen having a 1 grain spread but say 4 grains apart from each other.

If I were comfortable with a way to order two dozen ACG 480 shafts with the same weight spread and really close to the 8.5 gpi nominal weight, I would do it right now.


AKRuss,
The series code on ACC shafts, such as DQ, DN, etc, is not a weight code. I have had ACC shafts all with the same series code and there being 3 grains difference between the dozens which allowed a total spread of 4 grains since each dozen had about an individual 1 grain spread (one half grain on each side of the 3 grain difference).

Then, again, I have had multiple dozens of the same size, same series with all being within the same narrow range. It seems to be a crap shoot.


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

The guy in the Easton Tech line told me the ACG's had a weight code like the ACE's and X-10's for better weight matching.....


----------



## keyman (Mar 22, 2003)

FS560 said:


> Keyman,
> Since you have ACG shafts, can you verify the weight spread within a dozen and/or that the weights are closer to advertized or still running heavy?


Jim,
I will as soon as I can get my scales back from a buddy that borrowed them to load some bullets.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Unclegus said:


> The guy in the Easton Tech line told me the ACG's had a weight code like the ACE's and X-10's for better weight matching.....


Did he happen to say how many codes, if they are C-1 through C-5 like ACE, and if the spreads are 1.5 grains like ACE.

They advertise +/- 0.5 grain. So, that within a 1.5 spread should mean multiple dozens would all be within a total spread of 2 grains, if they are all the same weight code.


Keyman,

I would be interested to know what weight code you have and how close to the advertised gpi yours actually are.


----------



## keyman (Mar 22, 2003)

OK, I got the RCBS digital scales and the caliper out to check the tolerances on the navigators and the ACG's. This is total uncut length just as they come out of the package. Both shafts are identical to the same length and I did not take the time to blow or wipe any dust out of the inside of the shaft(if there is any). Both shafts have been in the Easton packaging since I received them this year. 

I found the Navigators weighed a low of 268.2 grains and a one arrow high of 270.7 grains but the next highest was 269.5. One arrow was considerably higher but I did not take time to inspect or to reweigh it. 11 of the arrows were within 1.3 grains over the full uncut length. 

I found the ACG's which were marked C-1 weighed a low of 261.8 grains and a high of 262.6 grains with all 12 shafts weighing within .8 grains over the full length and with a lower overall weight of approx 7 grains. 

The Navigators were about .003" smaller diameter than the ACG shafts on the couple I checked. I was told my Navigator 480 points and pins will still fit the ACG 480 shafts so I believe the aluminum tube must be the same.

These were on 32" shafts so the Navigators weighing 269 were about 8.40 grains per inch and the ACG shafts weighing 262 weighed about 8.18 grains per inch.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Thanks, that tells me exactly the information that I wanted to know.
JQ


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

One more question.

I noticed that Lancaster has a different stock numbers for both the large ACG 100/120 SS points and the large ACG pin nock adapters as compared to the large points and adapters for navigators. Is there really any difference or is it just their system?


----------



## keyman (Mar 22, 2003)

FS560 said:


> One more question.
> 
> I noticed that Lancaster has a different stock numbers for both the large ACG 100/120 SS points and the large ACG pin nock adapters as compared to the large points and adapters for navigators. Is there really any difference or is it just their system?


I just made some up and I used my Navigator points in the ACG shafts and they fit very well. I did notice the ACG pins were 9.0 grains instead of the 7.7 grains of the navigator pins. Without looking closer, I am assuming they made the shaft portion a little longer to help with alignment. When I ordered my shafts and parts, they said they were interchangable between the two but I only know I used the Nav. points and they worked great.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

My navigator pins also are 7.7 grains.

Would you slap the dial caliper on on the ACG pins and determine the OD at the flange where it contacts the end of the shaft? I will check the OD of a navigator pin and also will measure the length of the shank that fits in the shaft. If you still have an ACG pin loose, could you do the same for one of those?

You said the navigators were 0.003 inch smaller in OD. What is the OD of the AVG by your measurement?

If the shank of the ACG pin is indeed longer, that will make the system less vulnerable to ripping out the end of the shaft on a nock hit. The 1.3 grain weight penalty on the back end may be worth that. Does not do anything for bent pins, but we cannot have everything. Weight codes for ACG are a major step forward.

Can I conclude that your comment about the navigator points fitting very well means that the point at lease covers the full OD of the shaft?

JQ


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Large navigator points 430,480,540
OD at flange = 0.2285"
Flange to end of bulge = 7/16"
Flange to end of tip = 13/16"
Shank length 120 gr. = 1 1/2"
Shank length 110 gr. = 1 1/4"
Shank length 100 gr. = 63/64"

Large navigator pin 430,480,540
OD at flange = 0.222"
ID at end of shank = 0.122"
Shank length to chamfer = 7/16"
Shank length to end = 1/2"
Weight = 7.7 gr.

Because the flange of the pin is tapered, the measurement of the OD is sensitive but the 0.222" is the closest I could obtain. This would appear to indicate that the pin would not cover the shaft OD. I cannot feel or see the slight difference on some uncut navigator 480 shafts I have.


----------



## keyman (Mar 22, 2003)

I have not checked with a caliper but my navigator points cover the OD of the ACG's just fine. I have no lip on either the shaft nor point sticking up. I also checked the pins by sight and they are the same length, same everything that I can tell. Don't know if it is just more accurate specs of the pins or if the ACG's are heavier?


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

FS560 said:


> Did he happen to say how many codes, if they are C-1 through C-5 like ACE, and if the spreads are 1.5 grains like ACE.
> 
> They advertise +/- 0.5 grain. So, that within a 1.5 spread should mean multiple dozens would all be within a total spread of 2 grains, if they are all the same weight code.
> 
> ...


Actually, they advertise 0.05 grain... I assume this is a typo... and +/- 0.5 would be a 1.0 spread.


----------



## EPLC (May 21, 2002)

FS560 said:


> Did he happen to say how many codes, if they are C-1 through C-5 like ACE, and if the spreads are 1.5 grains like ACE.
> 
> They advertise +/- 0.5 grain. So, that within a 1.5 spread should mean multiple dozens would all be within a total spread of 2 grains, if they are all the same weight code.
> 
> ...


Actually, they advertise 0.05 grain... I assume this is a typo... and +/- 0.5 would be a 1.0 spread. Based on the info provided here on this thread, I'm starting to think the ACG's "are" Navigators with tighter weight control and coding.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I was not talking about the +/- 0.5 or 1 grain spread in a single dozen, but referring to multiple dozens of the same code, and then I turned around and calculated it wrong.

The worst case should actually be 2.5 grain spread over multiple dozens of the same weight code. This would be a 1.5 grain range for the median weight of the various dozens in a weight code plus 0.5 grain on either side of that for the low side of the lightest dozen and the high side of the heaviest dozen.

But, the 1.5 grain spread could be for the mean weight of each dozen instead of median.

Then, maybe the weight codes really mean 1.5 grain bands. This would be much better and indicate a total spread of 1.5 grains over all shafts in multiple dozens in a weight code. This would be a much easier and more straightforward sorting methodology for Easton, although it would require a double sort, first to sort into 1.5 grain groups and then into 1.0 grain sets.

That way, the worst you would get with two dozen might be something like this. Twelve arrows between 261.8 and 262.8 and twelve arrows between 262.3 and 263.3.

Two carry that further, you might get twelve arrows between 262.3 and 262.8 out of the whole 2 dozen.

So, you buy 4 dozen and get 1 dozen between 261.8 and 262.3, 1 dozen between 262.8 and 263.3, and 2 dozen between 262.3 and 262.8. That is a half grain spread over two dozen. Then carefully grade out your pins and points and you could have an exact two dozen without any grinding.

Think you would have difficulty selling the other two dozen shafts to two different people, where each dozen is within a half grain although a half grain from being matched to each other. I do not think it would be any difficulty.

Upon thinking about it some more, that would indicate that the total variation from the lightest C-1 to the heaviest C-6 would only be 9 grains. Is that probable? Maybe not.

All of this would be if there are 6 weight codes representing 1.5 grains each as with ACE shafts.

THEN, we need to determine the quality of spine control from dozen to dozen within the same weight code. With a 1.5 grain weight code spread, I would think the spine control would be good.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

EPLC said:


> I'm starting to think the ACG's "are" Navigators with tighter weight control and coding.


That is the same thing that I think. Based upon Vaughn's weight measurements on C-1 480 shafts, it appears that C-6 may top out at perhaps 8.48 gpi, right at the 8.5 gpi advertised for ACG 480.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Keyman,

Would you tell me exactly how the weight code is written on your ACG shafts. Also any other markings that may be significant.

I asked some questions of George Tekmitchov on another forum and he stated that they have five weight codes planned but are using only B, C, and D so far with a 1.9 grain band for each.

I then asked him if there are numbered sub codes for each letter code and have not gotten an answer yet.

One of my original questions to him was in what weight code does the advertized shaft weight reside and he said C. Your C-1 shafts are well below the advertized weight. I may not have asked the question just right.


----------



## keyman (Mar 22, 2003)

Mine say Easton A/C/G
1206-SERIES A-480-C1


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

*As I suspected*

Just as I thought. Since I had not yet seen an ACG, I did not ask the correct questions.

I ASKED.

George,

Perhaps you could help with some technical questions about ACG shafts.

1. How many weight codes exist for ACG shafts?

2. What is the width, in grains, of each weight code band?

3. Could I reasonably expect all shafts, from multiple dozens with the same weight code, to be within that band spread in grains?

4. In which weight code band does the nominal advertised shaft weight reside?

Thanks for your help,

Jim Quarles 

HE REPLIED

1. 5 codes are on the drawing but only 3 are in use. B, C, and D.
2. 1.90 grains, or +/- 0.95 grain.
3. Yes, before cutting and installing components.
4. Code C 

I ASKED.

George,

Another user, elsewhere, spoke in terms of having ACG 480 shafts with a C-1 code.

1. Does that mean that there are numbered sub codes within the letter codes?

2. What is actually printed on the shaft to indicate the weight code and/or specific weight range?

3. My objective is to determine how to acquire multiple dozens of the same size (480) shaft with the separate dozens being as close to each other as possible, without excessive grinding.

Thanks,

Jim Quarles 

He has not answered and may not. I might as well refine my latest questions to bore in on the information I want.


----------



## AKRuss (Jan 10, 2003)

Jim, thanks for posting this info. I've been shooting ACCs for a few years and have not done very well finding additional dozens in the same weight range but then I live in the sticks.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Russ, I feel the same way about ACC. Excellent arrow but you have to be extremely lucky to get 2 dozen the same range.

Now, here is what I think about the ACG after what George said and the weights that Vaughn got on his navigators (very heavy) and ACG ( light for ACG advertised but heavy for navigators).

I think the weights for navigators have been running all over the place and Easton has a large stock of them that were just too heavy to sell and now they have rebranded, tightened the weight sorting, and relabeled them as ACG with a half grain increase in advertised weight. Same arrows? I do think so.

It appears that there may be weight codes B1 to B5, C1 to C5, and D1 to D5 running from under the original navigator 480 advertised weight of 7.98 gpi to significantly over the ACG advertised weight of 8.5 gpi, perhaps 7.9 gpi to 8.7 gpi. That is a really wide range. what might the spine variation be, if there is a spine variation?

There may be no B group ACG until they sell all of the heavy ones and make another production run, which should produce some of everything.

I have an uncut new dozen, several years old, nav 480 that are 252.6 to 253.8. Not bad at a 1.2 spread. I had figured that I could never match them because my uncut dozen 430 is a little heavy at 276.4 to 278.4 @ 32.5".

Now, all I have to do is find some ACG 480 B1. Maybe!

How neat would it be to find out the actual weight ranges of each code like B1, B2, etc.

Has Easton actually discontinued the regular navigators?

I will try to order some 480 B1 shafts


----------

