# Does tuning really matter or is it just arrow?



## EPLC

Recently I've started an experiment to understand if tuning is really the most important factor in establishing the best accuracy from my setups. At this point I'm not so sure if it really even matters. The pictures below typically represent many groups I've shot from my shooter at 80 yards out of two different bows, bows that are not in the best of tune. Both bows are getting a 1/2" tear unless I move center shot to 5/8", which I refuse to do. Each have a center shot of 3/4"-13/16". Today I received a cam spacer kit from Mathews in order to fine tune my center shot. The question that I'm looking to answer is will the bow group better when tuned properly? Since the groups I'm getting are very good now, I have some doubt whether it will make a difference. I have decided that my X-Impacts are very evenly matched and have very consistent spine. I've shot them from two different bows that have slightly different DL and poundage yet they both group equally. I've also shot these arrows with lengths of 25.5" to 29" out of these bows without impacting group size.


----------



## dmacey

I personally have found that it does make a difference for me. Reason being, I'm a poor enough shot to need all the help I can get out of my rig, the most forgiving possible setup I can come up with. So I always tune until I can get the bareshaft down into the noise of a bad shot at at least 20 yards; that gives me the best chance of being hurt the least when I make a mistake.

I've heard it reported by much better shooters than myself that tuning is less important the better you become as an archer. So, I guess it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

I'm full time olympic style nowadays where it's back to it doesn't make a difference because I'm still so terrible of a shot trying to tune can't help me yet. So I just glue on the biggest feathers I can find, forget about it and go practice with that bow .

DM


----------



## EPLC

This group was shot from 60 yards. The bows used were my TRG7 and TRG8.


----------



## EPLC

dmacey said:


> I personally have found that it does make a difference for me. Reason being, I'm a poor enough shot to need all the help I can get out of my rig, the most forgiving possible setup I can come up with. So I always tune until I can get the bareshaft down into the noise of a bad shot at at least 20 yards; that gives me the best chance of being hurt the least when I make a mistake.
> 
> I've heard it reported by much better shooters than myself that tuning is less important the better you become as an archer. So, I guess it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other.
> 
> I'm full time olympic style nowadays where it's back to it doesn't make a difference because I'm still so terrible of a shot trying to tune can't help me yet. So I just glue on the biggest feathers I can find, forget about it and go practice with that bow .
> 
> DM


My tests are only half way complete so I really do not know at this point. I'm leaning toward tuning being more of a confidence builder than a real improvement in accuracy. But, like I said my testing is only half complete. The groups will either get smaller or they won't. Of course this does not apply to finger shooters as that is an entirely different animal.


----------



## duc

Tuning doesn't matter. Practice and training matter. Consistency in grip and release matter.


----------



## grantmac

So long as there isn't any contact between the arrow and bow then tuning isn't that important, until you take it out of the machine. At that point it definitely matters since very few of us are machines.


----------



## oldpro888

You are comparing what tuning does with a shooter vs. an archer?
All you are showing is that a shooter can be consistent enough to take out lateral movement on an arrow, which has nothing to do with an archer.
A poorly tuned bow will shoot decent with a perfect release, the difference is on marginal shots. If the arrow is already moving lateral, a bad shot will compound the miss. A shooter can adjust out a bad tear, difficult for a human to be as consistent.
An arrow can only recover from lateral so much.
I can shoot triple Xs indoors with horrible tears and X out. But a less consistent shooter would struggle more without tuned arrows.
Attach a broadhead, or wing to the front end then the lateral movement is magnified.


----------



## EPLC

duc said:


> Tuning doesn't matter. Practice and training matter. Consistency in grip and release matter.





grantmac said:


> So long as there isn't any contact between the arrow and bow then tuning isn't that important, until you take it out of the machine. At that point it definitely matters since very few of us are machines.





oldpro888 said:


> You are comparing what tuning does with a shooter vs. an archer?
> All you are showing is that a shooter can be consistent enough to take out lateral movement on an arrow, which has nothing to do with an archer.
> A poorly tuned bow will shoot decent with a perfect release, the difference is on marginal shots. If the arrow is already moving lateral, a bad shot will compound the miss. A shooter can adjust out a bad tear, difficult for a human to be as consistent.
> An arrow can only recover from lateral so much.
> I can shoot triple Xs indoors with horrible tears and X out. But a less consistent shooter would struggle more without tuned arrows.
> Attach a broadhead, or wing to the front end then the lateral movement is magnified.


While you folks are correct in your comments about the human factors playing a huge roll in accuracy, etc., what I am trying to determine is whether or not "tuning" can tighten up a group from an un-tuned condition while removing as much of the human factor as possible. With an un-tuned bow (actually 2 un-tuned bows) I can put virtually every arrow in the spot at 80 yards. Based on everything I have read "tuning" these bows should tighten the group. While oldpro888's comment about lateral movement of an arrow sounds interesting, I doubt very much an arrow that is moving lateral out of the bow is going to correct itself and change direction. That just isn't going to happen.


----------



## dmacey

EPLC said:


> My tests are only half way complete so I really do not know at this point. I'm leaning toward tuning being more of a confidence builder than a real improvement in accuracy. But, like I said my testing is only half complete. The groups will either get smaller or they won't. Of course this does not apply to finger shooters as that is an entirely different animal.


Well I ended up finding more or less what oldpro says above, that a good tune buys me some extra forgiveness of mistakes and that's where it can improve the overall situation. I can pile them in the 10 ring more or less with a bad up/down or left/right too when I'm on and making good shots, but it really hurts me when I'm not on and make a bad shot. And I'm not on as consistently as a truly good compound shooter, so that's why the good tune helps me. 

So I wouldn't be surprised if in your case it wasn't that big of a deal, given the shooting level you're already at.

And I definitely agree with you on finger release. I've started shooting a bareshaft out of my OR rig about 2 weeks ago, mainly for entertainment value and partially to see how far off I really was - do I have to go hunt for it in the shrubs behind the bale or does it actually hit the bale, etc. When I put my #16 training limbs on (2lbs increase over my other training limbs), I get a pretty good bareshaft at 20 yards (sometimes grouped with the fleched and otherwise only a couple inches away with a good release). With the lighter limbs, it shoots a lot more too stiff, knock right and a good ways to the left of fletched. And maybe not coincidentally, my groups are distinctly better with the "better tuned" setup (using that term loosely  ) in those rare little pockets when I'm making good executions. 

Some of that forgiveness may be coming from the higher holding weight too, but I definitely think a lot of it comes from the better arrow flight....

DM


----------



## grantmac

I would see if you can get 9/10 in the X with the shooter, or if there is any wind get the vertical down to x-ring size at least. Then work on creep tuning with the machine until they stay in the spot.
Otherwise you are still battling with inconsistency in the system rather than just the archer.


----------



## EPLC

grantmac said:


> I would see if you can get 9/10 in the X with the shooter, or if there is any wind get the vertical down to x-ring size at least. Then work on creep tuning with the machine until they stay in the spot.
> Otherwise you are still battling with inconsistency in the system rather than just the archer.


At 80 yards they all go in the spot. At 30 yards I break arrows. And this is with a 1/2" tear through paper. Not sure how much more needs to be proved at this point. My further testing will concern the fine tuning of the 2 bows I am working with, a TRG7 and a TRG8 to see if group size can be further reduced by additional tuning. The only human error in the process is that I have to aim the bow manually. While I have a very good eye and sense of center, there is a certain degree of uncertainty. My groups at 60-80 yards certainly prove this system is accurate and repeatable.


----------



## RCR_III

Sounds like you're already set in your ways on this and have made the conclusions. Not sure why you started the thread. 

Simply put. Tuning is for the archer. When we aren't perfect, the tuning you've done helps save your butt. 

The bow is a machine. If you take a machine and operate another machine, there's no human error/input involved. So.... Yea, you'll hit the same spot over and over. The bow is repeating its task. The shooting machine is repeating its task. Why wouldn't it hit correctly each time.


----------



## grantmac

I'm saying into the X at 80, or at least within the vertical size of it.

Then see how many ways you can make it NOT hit the dot with the pin on it (creep/torque), then figure out how to tune those out.


----------



## AKDoug

It has been said that when Terry Ragsdale shot the first 900 in Vegas, his arrows were flying horribly. He also shot scores that would win today with a springy rest.


----------



## whiz-Oz

The problem that you're going to come up against when you ask archers about this is that they're overwhelmingly influenced by what they think is correct, rather than what actually IS correct. 

People will quote "forgiveness" and hope that everyone just agrees with them. There are two things that you can do which actually lessen the amount of point of impact variation due to archer variation. 

Flat nock travel to reduce or eliminate changes horizontally and torque compensation with arrow rest or sight extension. That's it. 

People will then tell you that some particular thing makes their bow somehow able to compensate for their variability. They won't have any actual data and can't prove this beyond other people's opinions. 

These will be people who have no idea of the scientific method and will not have a clue about what a shooting machine actually does. 

If a shooting machine and operator is capable of shooting the same arrow into the same hole consistently, you can test arrows for consistency. The closer they are to being fletched consistently and of consistent spine, they closer they'll shoot to the single arrow performance. 

And the state of tune of the bow will matter little, until you get to the point of massive contact. 

This is because of physics and reality, rather than cognitive biases that plague humanity with it comes to assessing data. 

Pretty much no archer can believe that this is possible, because they're conditioned to believe what they see and remember, rather than what they choose to ignore and is a convenient excuse. 

This is actually nothing to do with archery and all to do with human behaviour. Once you have an understanding about the limits of the human mind to accurately assess statistical data, you can see exactly how it works. 

Any consistent bow will group consistent arrows, regardless of what people like to think.


----------



## EPLC

RCR_III said:


> Sounds like you're already set in your ways on this and have made the conclusions. Not sure why you started the thread.
> 
> Simply put. Tuning is for the archer. When we aren't perfect, the tuning you've done helps save your butt.
> 
> The bow is a machine. If you take a machine and operate another machine, there's no human error/input involved. So.... Yea, you'll hit the same spot over and over. The bow is repeating its task. The shooting machine is repeating its task. Why wouldn't it hit correctly each time.


The conclusions will be the results, doesn't matter what I think at this point. A good set of matched arrows will go where they are pointed. To assume that there is some voodoo magic that changes this is in question. So what is "forgiveness" anyway? Is it real or is it just building confidence as a result of a good tune?
I will say that the TRG bows have excellent forgiveness in the vertical plane. I can over or under draw slightly without impacting POI. The horizontal plane is a different matter. I will be posting up additional data soon.


----------



## RCR_III

EPLC said:


> The conclusions will be the results, doesn't matter what I think at this point. A good set of matched arrows will go where they are pointed. To assume that there is some voodoo magic that changes this is in question. So what is "forgiveness" anyway? Is it real or is it just building confidence as a result of a good tune?
> I will say that the TRG bows have excellent forgiveness in the vertical plane. I can over or under draw slightly without impacting POI. The horizontal plane is a different matter. I will be posting up additional data soon.


Forgiveness for me means getting my bow tuned to have the least horizontal and vertical variances. So for my grip and shot, meaning this has to be done in my hands, creep tuning the bow to help with vertical travel, French tuning and Bareshaft tuning, to help with horizontal impacts and vertical based on nock travel, torque tuning with both the sight and rest to help with horizontal impacts, and group tuning. 

I think using a shooting machine could be great for dialing in arrows. And to a point could be used to set a bow up. But there's still aspects that need to be done in hand.


----------



## EPLC

Can we agree that range of motion is what humans have to contend with when shooting freehand? Can we also agree that the lateral movement that oldpro88 described is really this range of motion? Range of motion during the aiming process varies from archer to archer and can vary within one's self on any given day? Can we also agree that within this range of motion only arrows moving towards the spot have a chance of hitting that spot? Is there anyone that believes that an arrow that has left the bow will change direction?


----------



## RCR_III

Tuning, like torque tuning for example, can help you keep from having the arrow leave the bow at a direction way off the middle. 

Tuning minimizes the distance missed when you release an arrow while your pin is on the middle but your grip or execution said otherwise. 

To get to your point. I read oldpro's post as meaning when we flub a shot for whatever reason. 

But when I read your post I understand it as you saying our float on target, with how you mention the aiming process. 

To me your post and his post is talking about two different things. 

You're talking about not being able to hold on target. 

He's talking about being able to hold on target and other variables happening.


----------



## EPLC

And I'm talking about whether or not a bow tune can actually change POI grouping. What you and others seem to be missing is that I am trying to remove the human factor as much as possible to properly assess the impact of equipment adjustments on group size. Now I need to go work on the bows or my results will be delayed significantly. No voodoo, just facts.


----------



## RCR_III

What you're missing is that we've all answered your question in your post. 

Tuning is for human impact.


----------



## Mahly

To me, tuning is important NOT for the arrows, but for the brain. For some, it adds confidence knowing their arrows fly perfectly true. For some, it doesn't add to their confidence, but draws attention to arrow flight instead of shooting when they see an arrow flying sideways.

For me, I am pretty sure that tuning doesn't matter very much...but, I do like KNOWING that every single missed X is 100% my fault, and it bothers me to see an arrow flying poorly, even if it is a perfect X.

It is a flaw in my mental game. I know it exists, I know not to concern myself with it, but I do. (Kind of how my wife knows the spider in the other room isn't hunting her, but won't go in there until I clear the room LOL!)

Here's the ultimate example of how arrow flight affects me (not my accuracy). I picked up 2 bows. BOTH were designed to eliminate imbalances in the bow with their cam designs. I can not get "proper" arrow flight out of either one. I have NEVER had a bow I could't get to tune, and these were supposed to be the easiest things to tune save for a 5 string shoot through system. So this aggravated me to no end...virtually DESTROYING my indoor season and this years outdoor season. NOT because they can't hit an X (they can) but because they pissed me off so much I didn't care to shoot!

Again, 100% between my ears, but THAT is why I need to tune a bow for perfect arrow flight.

EPLC, to maybe get a more readable answer (or to confirm your results) Maybe try with a bow that is more susceptible to poor tuning than the TRGs, or try this with bare shaft arrows (GOD the amount of time I could blow if I had a shooting machine LOL!).
Also have a question: If you know that moving to 5/8" center you would get better arrow flight.....why would you not do that?


----------



## aread

The more perfectly matched the arrows are, the less bow tuning matters. 

If you have poorly matched arrows and a poorly tuned bow, this arrow may react differently to the bow than another arrow. If you have perfectly matched arrows, you get consistent reaction to the bow and can get good accuracy with less than optimum tuning. 

Of course the shooter probably plays a more significant part than tuning or arrow consistency. 

There is an old saying that still applies, "Accuracy is in the arrows.". Like all of these old saying, it is more or less true depending on the situation, but it's still a good suggestion.

I appreciate archers who actually go out and test things and then tell us what they found. Thanks EPLC!!!

Allen


----------



## thawk

My opinion is that people spend way to much time tuning, paper tune, walk back, french, modified french, bare shaft, BS paper, blah blah blah.
But the same people spend little time getting a bow to aim. They may play with some weight, but don't invest in multiple length stabilizers, don't try different mounting locations, don't tiller tune, don't mess with holding weight, don't play with nock height or rest height, don't try advancing or ******ing cams because they don't want to mess up their perfect 9 step tune. As a result they have a bow that sends a perfect arrow down range every time, but they can't hold on the dot to save their life.

These days I have a harder time telling when I have a forgiving setup then I did 15 years ago, I simply don't hold as good as I used to. But I will say some of the least forgiving bows I ever shot had the best flying arrows. If I got a perfect hole it seemed like I had to make a perfect shot, but if I left my tune at 1/2" high left my marginal shots still found the dot.

Had a friend over the other night that has won many pro events this year and a gold medal with a bow that has a 2"+ tear. They know it's flying bad, but the arrows go where they are pointed and it is forgiving. So Mahly there you go, if it works you have to let it go between the ears.


----------



## Huntinsker

Tuning a bow is not for the bow and arrows sake. It's strictly for the archer. A bow will shoot an arrow the same every time as long as the input is the same. What doesn't shoot an arrow the same every time is the person shooting the bow. Tuning a bow makes the bow more forgiving to the shooter by matching the bow to the shooters shooting idiosyncrasies. This helps keep the poor shots you make within a closer proximity to the good shots you make.


----------



## dmacey

EPLC said:


> Is there anyone that believes that an arrow that has left the bow will change direction?


I think you have a great point here. That said, this last proposal is a plausible scenario - even at the speeds our arrows go, the conditions of the air mass can affect the flight of the arrow after it leaves the bow. Which means yes, an arrow can change directions when it leaves the bow (but not without a physical cause).

However, the outstanding questions there, to me, are:
- by how much is arrow flight perturbed by, say, turbulence in the airmass between the shooter and the target?
- is that perturbation measurably (say, by grouping at the target) more with a non-tuned setup vs a tuned setup? Can this be tested for?
-- that is, the additional work done by the fletchings and tail end of the shaft in the non-tuned setup going to increase the effects of wind and turbulence detectably on the trajectory of the arrow vs a tuned setup?
- is there any measurable difference in an "ideal" airmass? eg. the additional induced drag from the fletchings correcting arrow flight minus any variations in the airmass. Will that have a varying effect even if the arrow is launched exactly the same way every time?

Those would be the hypothetical questions I would ask concerning that variable, it would remain to be seen if the effects are large enough to really measure at the target.

DM


----------



## Mahly

thawk said:


> My opinion is that people spend way to much time tuning, paper tune, walk back, french, modified french, bare shaft, BS paper, blah blah blah.
> But the same people spend little time getting a bow to aim. They may play with some weight, but don't invest in multiple length stabilizers, don't try different mounting locations, don't tiller tune, don't mess with holding weight, don't play with nock height or rest height, don't try advancing or ******ing cams because they don't want to mess up their perfect 9 step tune. As a result they have a bow that sends a perfect arrow down range every time, but they can't hold on the dot to save their life.
> 
> These days I have a harder time telling when I have a forgiving setup then I did 15 years ago, I simply don't hold as good as I used to. But I will say some of the least forgiving bows I ever shot had the best flying arrows. If I got a perfect hole it seemed like I had to make a perfect shot, but if I left my tune at 1/2" high left my marginal shots still found the dot.
> 
> Had a friend over the other night that has won many pro events this year and a gold medal with a bow that has a 2"+ tear. They know it's flying bad, but the arrows go where they are pointed and it is forgiving. So Mahly there you go, if it works you have to let it go between the ears.


I agree 100% But I must acknowledge that while it is between the ears, it exists. Just as the wife acknowledges that spider isn't trying to hunt her down, it's a mental flaw. Trying to pretend it isn't there doesn't make it go away, so I still tune for perfect arrow flight. Not because it's more accurate, but because I am a flawed human being.


----------



## RCR_III

dmacey said:


> I think you have a great point here. That said, this last proposal is a plausible scenario - even at the speeds our arrows go, the conditions of the air mass can affect the flight of the arrow after it leaves the bow. Which means yes, an arrow can change directions when it leaves the bow (but not without a physical cause).
> 
> However, the outstanding questions there, to me, are:
> - by how much is arrow flight perturbed by, say, turbulence in the airmass between the shooter and the target?
> - is that perturbation measurably (say, by grouping at the target) more with a non-tuned setup vs a tuned setup? Can this be tested for?
> -- that is, the additional work done by the fletchings and tail end of the shaft in the non-tuned setup going to increase the effects of wind and turbulence detectably on the trajectory of the arrow vs a tuned setup?
> - is there any measurable difference in an "ideal" airmass? eg. the additional induced drag from the fletchings correcting arrow flight minus any variations in the airmass. Will that have a varying effect even if the arrow is launched exactly the same way every time?
> 
> Those would be the hypothetical questions I would ask concerning that variable, it would remain to be seen if the effects are large enough to really measure at the target.
> 
> DM


Check out John Dudley's Nock On Podcast 11 

Dudley has James Park on and they talk about exactly what you mentioned.

James Park performs tests in wind tunnels and talks about everything from shapes of points to the nock and fletchings. It's an interesting podcast. Two parter as well if you want to hear more of who he is and other items he's worked with, listen to PC10.


----------



## oldpro888

EPLC said:


> Can we agree that range of motion is what humans have to contend with when shooting freehand? Can we also agree that the lateral movement that oldpro88 described is really this range of motion? Range of motion during the aiming process varies from archer to archer and can vary within one's self on any given day? Can we also agree that within this range of motion only arrows moving towards the spot have a chance of hitting that spot? Is there anyone that believes that an arrow that has left the bow will change direction?


What you describe is float, and why it works


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## oldpro888

EPLC said:


> While you folks are correct in your comments about the human factors playing a huge roll in accuracy, etc., what I am trying to determine is whether or not "tuning" can tighten up a group from an un-tuned condition while removing as much of the human factor as possible. With an un-tuned bow (actually 2 un-tuned bows) I can put virtually every arrow in the spot at 80 yards. Based on everything I have read "tuning" these bows should tighten the group. While oldpro888's comment about lateral movement of an arrow sounds interesting, I doubt very much an arrow that is moving lateral out of the bow is going to correct itself and change direction. That just isn't going to happen.


I'm sure you've watched an arrow in slow motion. Arrows do correct lateral movement, you can get a tear at 5 yards and not at 10 yards. An arrow actually bends just from string propulsion, how much is why we need to spine an arrow. The more foc, the sooner the arrow will correct down range.
Someone mentioned Rags shooting a 300 with an untuned bow. The story was someone was throwing a fit about their bow shooting like crap. He picked it up and shot clean. It was on a NFAA target however. Rags has the purest BT release I have ever seen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dmacey

RCR_III said:


> Check out John Dudley's Nock On Podcast 11
> 
> Dudley has James Park on and they talk about exactly what you mentioned.
> 
> James Park performs tests in wind tunnels and talks about everything from shapes of points to the nock and fletchings. It's an interesting podcast. Two parter as well if you want to hear more of who he is and other items he's worked with, listen to PC10.


Ok, thanks Robert, I'm behind in my JD podcasts anyway!

DM


----------



## RCR_III

dmacey said:


> Ok, thanks Robert, I'm behind in my JD podcasts anyway!
> 
> DM


It's a good one for us archery nerds haha


----------



## jim p

EPLC, thanks for doing some test. From what I understand you are group tuning the bow setup. I don't know what the tear should look like when shooting from a machine but I have heard many times that the bow setup works best for the archer when it is giving about a 1/4" high and 1/4" left tear. 

I hope that you nock tune the arrows and then complete the test. Like you said the results will tell the story for the shooting machine. Since no archer is a shooting machine the tune may need to be modified to get the best group tune when the bow is being shot by hand.

I think that proving the results by machine and then verifying by hand will be time well spent and I look forward to your results.


----------



## skiisme753

Getting a good paper tear or perfect bareshaft is not that important for target shooting. The arrows will hit the same. Personally I think that good tuning is much more important on a hunting bow. Getting good flight with fixed blade broadheads is much easier with a properly tuned bow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

Here are pictures of my paper results from 4-7 yards. Pictured is my starting point and re-tune after repositioning my cams. The bow tuned at 3/4" center shot. To answer Mahly's question; 5/8" doesn't provide the shelf clearance that I'm comfortable with. The arrows are 25.5" X-Impacts with 120 up front. They are stiff for my setup.


----------



## EPLC

I didn't have a lot of time to test today but here was the result. Target 1 represents my first group and a sight adjustment. Target 2 is the result of firing the 4 low arrows after the sight adjustment. I shot 2 or 3 more ends with similar results. Sighting was difficult today due to changing lighting so my groups started to widen after that. I did not see any improvement in POI as a result of improving center shot and arrow flight. The good news is that POI didn't worsen either.


----------



## EPLC

oldpro888 said:


> I'm sure you've watched an arrow in slow motion. Arrows do correct lateral movement, you can get a tear at 5 yards and not at 10 yards. An arrow actually bends just from string propulsion, how much is why we need to spine an arrow. The more foc, the sooner the arrow will correct down range.
> Someone mentioned Rags shooting a 300 with an untuned bow. The story was someone was throwing a fit about their bow shooting like crap. He picked it up and shot clean. It was on a NFAA target however. Rags has the purest BT release I have ever seen.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I do not believe an arrow moving in a direction away from the desired POI will correct itself. Not sure what your definition of lateral movement is though?


----------



## bigHUN

EPLC said:


> ...Is there anyone that believes that an arrow that has left the bow will change direction?


Yes, me believe that 
Lets exclude the posibility of the side wind, no side wind. No uneven fletching. No bent point. No gravity and further theories....
But the oscillation, the amount of the point tip runout from the theoretical centerline of the "aimed" arrow just a fractions in time before you release it. 
I am not talking now spine, is that a 500 or 450 or 400 or 350 spine,
but I am talking about the recovery time, how fast the shaft is capable of recovering from oscillation !!!! Is that 0.1 second or 0.45 second or 0.9 second or 1.4 seconds? 
Because in a single second the arrow gets from the string to the target @ 100 yards, right?
What is one second? Nothing, or at least not much....
This why the long range shooters using the X10's and nano pro's, those arrows cost arms and legs a single fully set dozen, but this why, those recover very fast compared to cheaper material.
back to the Q,
The arrow start the oscillation "amount valued X" when it is still on the rest.....whe know the story so I will skip the pictures all the way to the first 5+ yards away from the bow. So the arrow is oscillating/wobling/moving, but then the internal resonating kicks in and the value X is growing and flattening and growing again....we counting the microseconds now....
so could happen that a given (let say) 400 spine arrow start benting 1/2" but along the flight somewhere down the range can reach a 1-1/4" tip offset....got it?
What I wanted to say I have a proof (for myself only and you don't have to believe me) that some arrows will hit the Xcenter @ 35 but will hit to R on 45 and can hit to L on 55 and hit a center again @ 65
at shorter distance the "miss" is more visible, now how much is a miss? could be half of arrow OD could be double OD all depends of the recovery time of your arrows.
oh yes, forgot, this I proved shooting with a machine multiple distances with numbered arrows, also the minimum-maximum amount of oscillation and the frequency can be calculated if anybody realy want to put some time on it


----------



## EPLC

Sorry bigHUN but arrows do not change direction once they have left the bow, they go where they are pointed.


----------



## Rick!

How much of the group size is due to the shooting machine draw length delta or draw weight delta? 
How much is due to the environment and how much is due to the arrow spine, fletching variation, fletching mass, etc? 
Has each group size been measured and are any arrows consistently closer to the center than the others?

Without quantitative measurements for each controllable variable, the "experiment" turns into a qualitative exercise of the validation of anecdotal and experiential shooting results. If you counted the inputs and then constructed a proper DOE with replicates you'd never have started this quest.

If you're looking for "bow tune" results, maybe un-tune it to extremes and see what happens. How far nock high can you go before groups blow up? Nock low? Now install big cam lean one way and then the other. Cam timing would be another three sets of results. Anecdotal evidence says a 2 inch tear will win tournaments. What about 3"? It is obvious that 1/2" or less is not an influence so far, when the group sizes are only measured in a binary manner (in the black or in the white.)

In summary, you're testing inside the window of bow consistency and not exploring if you can create an inconsistent bow by finding the edge of the window, then going outside it. You don't know if you can shrink group size measurably as you're not measuring groups as far as we can tell. What if rest position contributed to this? You're possibly constraining a variable that could have significant influence on the experiment.
When you get down to testing VAPs with hot pink 1.75" Blazer X vanes with 3 degree helical on a Freakshow blade to see if groups open up due to fletching contact, let me know.


----------



## EPLC

So what got you all fired up? All I've discovered so far is center shot doesn't impact grouping. My bows are timed properly and have a pretty forgiving horizontal plane. I do think cam timing would be a factor when combined with an inconsistent draw length. My experiment has been limited to center shot impact. At some point I may mess around with other aspects of bow tune.


----------



## EPLC

Yesterdays tuning/testing was performed on my TRG7. Today I start the tuning process with my TRG8 and will post the results as soon as I can test it. I also have a Podium 40 that's just sitting right now that I may bring in to the testing cycle.


----------



## jim p

The more testing the better.

I can't see the pod cast.


----------



## jim p

The more testing the better.

I can't see the pod cast.


----------



## grantmac

Try taping a wood shim on one side of your grip to set torque.


----------



## bigHUN

EPLC said:


> Sorry bigHUN but arrows do not change direction once they have left the bow, they go where they are pointed.


YES, you are right the arrow will not change the direction, but
let me re-phrase, the point of impact is changing do to the arrow still in bent shape (does it bent in vertical or horizontal axis or maybe a combination of both, also rotates, so the tip of the point can travel in helix or elliptical) and not straight-as-line ---the same arrow can have different offset POI on multiple distances. 
Now how much of that offset is still good enough? Depends of where did you aim.....
You can test this with the machine, to have a better - more precise aim you can swap out the scope lens and mount something like x8 or x10 so on longer distance you can aim on a smaller detail as a dot or a pencil mark.


----------



## bigHUN

Back to OP Q
yes, bow tuning matters to me, 
also the arrow tuning matters to me, and finally
to tune both to work together to my liking is my final goal


----------



## whiz-Oz

The fun part is trying to understand, after perfect nock travel and torque compensation is achieved, and all the arrows are established as consistent, how people can actually establish how more "forgiving" a bow can be. 

After the geometric consistencies are established, after that point, the bow needs to have some sort of smart technology to know which variation is being addressed in order to give better placing of the arrow to the center. This is the wishful thinking part which nobody here seems willing to step up and address with an actual, scientific answer. 

All you guys seem to like to talk about is how an arrow will tear paper and ignore the fact that this has no direct correlation to lack of consistency. 

An arrow that flies consistently, will be an accurate arrow. A bunch of arrows that fly consistently will group. But they'll all tear the same in the same conditions. 

When you start trying to tag a bow that will group regardless of conditions because it is "tuned" then you're trying to invoke some sort of magical artefact. People with this belief can be instantly ignored in future conversations because they don't actually have a grip on reality. 

A perfect arrow tear through paper isn't required for a bow to group arrows. Perfect arrow flight isn't required for accuracy. Consistent alignment and energy determines the flight path of an arrow. Consistent physical properties of a missile and environmental properties of what it flies through determines the impact point. 

It's that simple. 
If things don't change, arrows hit the same spot.


----------



## oldpro888

The center mass of the arrow doesn't change direction per se., but the point and nock move left to right, more if spine is not correct.


----------



## Mahly

whiz-Oz said:


> The fun part is trying to understand, after perfect nock travel and torque compensation is achieved, and all the arrows are established as consistent, how people can actually establish how more "forgiving" a bow can be.
> 
> After the geometric consistencies are established, after that point, the bow needs to have some sort of smart technology to know which variation is being addressed in order to give better placing of the arrow to the center. This is the wishful thinking part which nobody here seems willing to step up and address with an actual, scientific answer.
> 
> All you guys seem to like to talk about is how an arrow will tear paper and ignore the fact that this has no direct correlation to lack of consistency.
> 
> An arrow that flies consistently, will be an accurate arrow. A bunch of arrows that fly consistently will group. But they'll all tear the same in the same conditions.
> 
> When you start trying to tag a bow that will group regardless of conditions because it is "tuned" then you're trying to invoke some sort of magical artefact. People with this belief can be instantly ignored in future conversations because they don't actually have a grip on reality.
> 
> A perfect arrow tear through paper isn't required for a bow to group arrows. Perfect arrow flight isn't required for accuracy. Consistent alignment and energy determines the flight path of an arrow. Consistent physical properties of a missile and environmental properties of what it flies through determines the impact point.
> 
> It's that simple.
> If things don't change, arrows hit the same spot.


Being that arrows, while some are very consistent, are not identical, would tuning the bow to drive the arrow as straight forward as possible not minimize the effects of these differences?


----------



## whiz-Oz

Mahly said:


> Being that arrows, while some are very consistent, are not identical, would tuning the bow to drive the arrow as straight forward as possible not minimize the effects of these differences?


No. 
Things aren't so simple as "straight forward" 

People carry on as if they aren't shooting as well as the best in the world every time they step up to the line because "their bow isn't tuned properly" 

The majority of equipment will continuously rain good quality arrows into groups that touch fletches at 100 yards, but from what I have seen, the majority of archers on this forum insist on buying arrows that are cheap and require extended effort to make consistent. 

When you personally can't extract anywhere near the performance of the best equipment, or are buying arrows that are hopelessly inconsistent, it's handy to have an excuse that the rest of the uneducated herd will accept as "my bow is out of tune" which neatly explains ones inability to group. 

Nobody here can put a precise value on how much the point of impact will change due to the variation in drag due to not having precisely optimum arrow flight, but they'll bring it up like it's a big deal. 

Yet, a shooting machine operated correctly can put the same arrow with visibly crap flight into the same hole at 70m. 

This shoots a lot of handy excuses down, so nobody wants to ever believe it. 

The vast majority of the world's archers depend on myths so that they will never have to take responsibility for their own performance. 

A shooting machine operated correctly ends up showing you that most bows store and release energy incredibly consistently and the biggest variation is in arrow consistency. The state of tune makes so little difference from a non variable setup as to convince a realist that they shoujld be buying the best arrows possible and setting them up optimally. 

Then a shooting machine can be precisely varied in drawlength and hold weight to ensure that it's set up to have the minimum response to this variation possible and the same with torque.


----------



## Mahly

Again, it would seem as though minimizing forces not directing the arrow to go it a straight line out of the bow, would minimize the variation in impact by not making arrows with inconsistent properties deal with those "other" forces.

If all your arrows are absolutely identical, it wouldn't matter. But they are not so why not minimize these "other" forces?

In the end, if it doesn't matter, what is the harm in tuning?


----------



## bigHUN

So, what is a tuned bow?
A planning for cleanest arrow flight !!!
Well, I would start with a dozen (or two or more) arrows within a matching spine range, a little bit of weak or stiff is fine depend what and how you do it further.
All we know that the arrow will bent from the force applied at the nock (lets take that the point is static = not moving yet). Which way we want that shaft to bent - at the middle between node points? Up or down or left or right? Not going further with speculations what would be your best guess or best choice....and how would you do it. I have my own method of planning and your may be different.
We jump now to the bow rest position planning. We want to limit the arrow to bent in a single direction only, I would call that a controlled direction.
So let see how can we plan and control...the string nocking point straightest travel first. Cam timing, cam planar alignment with the nocking point.
Then we would want to have a prefered DW and holding weight, this second is one of the most important detail what will hold your pin on target.
Then we would want to have the torque factor minimized as much possible, again that is a shaft length and rest position relation.
Back to the arrows, aha, we know now the DW, we know now the shaft length, what else we need to plan? 
What point weight? Well, we can have a war about this but me personally prefer to have a heavier point as a safe guess for shooting longer ranges, and this can work very well as a all around value.
For a nice steering I prefer low profile vanes in about 1.5 degree helical. 
This gives as a pretty much all done, we can go for first test.
Shooting from a blade I don't want the tip to bounce back so I mount a pressure plate from top,
my nocked arrow will bent upward in the middle, so I can raise up the resting point to have a looong kiss along the shaft because I know that the nock will jump over the blade when separating from the straight traveling nocking point, the arrow will have the oscillation only in a single plain and the oscilation amount is set to minimum, I spent a little bit more money on the carbon so expecting will start stabilizing about the first 17-20 yards.
Pretty simple, right? Or did I miss something? This game is not a single day job we just sitt and doit, the mind is swinging like monkeys on the threes.
But we have not a single arrow but a dozen or several dozen arrows to match.
Based on my experience no matter how much money I spent for a box of arrows, to collect a best grouping dozen I would need at least two dozen to fletch but most likely tree. And just to let you know you won't have more luck neither.
Getting a shooting machine is a huge help in this game, some folks have a deeper pocket, I was planning and designing my and collecting parts for many months and assemble it over last winter so it wasn't a single bill.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Mahly said:


> Again, it would seem as though minimizing forces not directing the arrow to go it a straight line out of the bow, would minimize the variation in impact by not making arrows with inconsistent properties deal with those "other" forces.
> 
> If all your arrows are absolutely identical, it wouldn't matter. But they are not so why not minimize these "other" forces?
> 
> In the end, if it doesn't matter, what is the harm in tuning?


There is no harm at all in tuning. The benefit is ensuring that your gear is the best that you think you can make it. However, the expectation that it is everything is what makes the problem. 
You will all know archers that chase tune rather than bother to work on their technique and execution. 

You have to have a realistic expectation of what tuning will actually accomplish in terms of actual measurable results. You can spend all the time you like trying to get a bunch of arrows to all hit the same spot at any distance, but when the difference this makes to your score is actually nothing, why would someone believe that they can do better if they continue to tune their bow?

You'll see all the pseudo scientific crap spewed here with absolutely no chance at all at proving or quantifying anything, so this stuff continues to get passed around as gospel. Most archers are happy to have excuses exist for them rather than bother to find out actually what research has been done, or work towards understanding even some basic physics that when combined, explain what actually makes things accurate. 

Then people pretend that they're meaning those immeasureable differences that occur in the perfect conditions that actually never happen and then get mixed with the psychological factors that blind people to real results because of the amount of bias that's inherent in all humans. 

Most tuning past the basics with a compound bow is a complete waste of time in terms of actual measurable results, but people feel better and more confident people shoot better. 

But then they'll make up excuses to deal with anything that doesn't align with their preconcieved and unprovable ideas.


----------



## EPLC

bigHUN said:


> So, what is a tuned bow?
> A planning for cleanest arrow flight !!!
> ...


Based on this definition I spent a lot of time with my TRG8 yesterday. I feel that the tune on this bow is just about as good as I can make it. I'm getting a perfect tear through paper at various distances and my bare shaft is flying true. The TRG7 was actually having some difficulty with the bare shaft. In any case, here's what I started with and final results. I'll be going down to the club shortly to do some long range testing from the machine.


----------



## oldpro888

EPLC said:


> Sorry bigHUN but arrows do not change direction once they have left the bow, they go where they are pointed.


Just not true. Shoot a fixed blade not tuned. It will look like aMLB slider. Just the same possible movement due to air deflection of the arrow coming out of the bow sideways


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

These were my first 2 groups after messing around for a while settling things in and sighting in the bow/machine. While in the machine I noticed a slight out of sync between my top and bottom cams. Just a slight variance, but it was there. I also wasn't happy with how the bow was settling down, or not settling down as the case may be. I took the bow out of the machine and lubricated the grip where it contacts the machine.


----------



## EPLC

Here's my 3rd group after the lube was applied. I then turned the nock on the flyer and shot it again. While this was my best group of any of the tests performed so far I was not able to duplicate it again. While I did manage to get the tight 5 arrow group, overall the grouping was not as tight or consistent as the first day I shot the TRG8. I'm not sure if the cam timing issue had a hand in this but that will be taken care of tonight.


----------



## whiz-Oz

What distance were these shot at?

Are you numbering your arrows so that you can ascertain if one specific one is causing issues?


----------



## EPLC

One more group to see if the tight group would repeat. I also shot another group to see how forgiving my TRG8 actually is on the vertical plane. This group was shot one full click on the wench past the draw stop. Not bad considering the amount of overdraw applied. Interesting that these two groups look almost identical. 

All groups were shot at 80 yards.


----------



## EPLC

oldpro888 said:


> Just not true. Shoot a fixed blade not tuned. It will look like aMLB slider. Just the same possible movement due to air deflection of the arrow coming out of the bow sideways
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Side to side movement (read fishtailing) isn't a directional change, it's just poor arrow flight. I've been shooting a fixed blade, not tuned, since the beginning of this thread and comparing it to a tuned blade. There has been a lot of poor arrow flight but zero directional changes throughout the testing process. ALL center shot positions of the fixed blade have grouped well out to 80 yards regardless of arrow flight inconsistencies.


----------



## EPLC

Forgot to mention: The 4 arrows with the low impact were 29" shot at the same setting as the main group that are 25.5". Group size for both of these different length arrows has been consistent with one another. I'm thinking my next step will be to spine index these arrows and see what impact, if any, that will provide. I also have a dozen Nano Pros that I could try as well but I have these up for sale and would prefer not using them as they are un-shot.


----------



## bigHUN

I spine index (and once there then with a gold/silver marker I mark the spine deflection values on each) my tubes before fletching and weight measure when all completely assembled.
With my spine tester I am using a pretty aggressive 1Kg weight, that shows a lot, most of the time I can measure clearly 4 values, how much is the stiffer side, how much is the weaker side deflection also shows differences on the neutral sides as well. I mark the weaker side and these will be North on my rest. 
I mark my numbers on the shafts so when I go group tuning I can see right there at the target but what and why is happening.
Your group shall be tighter @ 80 with the machine as only one of the pictures show somewhere earlier. These offsets could be an aiming issue as well not necessarily the arrows fault. As I sad once earlier, plz try not to aim at the ring but make/print some "+" with thicker lines and you shall be able to align the pin to each line individually, because with a circle you not 100% sure did you got the pin to the center of it.
I separate the flyer's immediately...it is a flyer for some yet unknown reason...still can be good for hard practice but "naturally" doesn't belong to the group


----------



## duc

EPLC said:


> Side to side movement (read fishtailing) isn't a directional change, it's just poor arrow flight. I've been shooting a fixed blade, not tuned, since the beginning of this thread and comparing it to a tuned blade. There has been a lot of poor arrow flight but zero directional changes throughout the testing process. ALL center shot positions of the fixed blade have grouped well out to 80 yards regardless of arrow flight inconsistencies.


This is just gold. It proves what Andy and a lot of others are saying. Tuning beyond the basics is a waste of time. Rest centre, knock height, fiddle your grip AND LEARN TO BE CONSISTENT. That's all there is. To quote an Australian archer, "everything else is just fluff".


----------



## whiz-Oz

EPLC said:


> Side to side movement (read fishtailing) isn't a directional change, it's just poor arrow flight. I've been shooting a fixed blade, not tuned, since the beginning of this thread and comparing it to a tuned blade. There has been a lot of poor arrow flight but zero directional changes throughout the testing process. ALL center shot positions of the fixed blade have grouped well out to 80 yards regardless of arrow flight inconsistencies.


So, to act as devil's advocate now, this evidence that agrees with what physics says happens, might just be totally random and happens to agree with what we expect should be found. 
In terms of actual evidence, it is a small data set. 

It needs to have either one of two things happen. 

Either there needs to be a larger source of data, ie a lot more shots that produce similar results

or

The results need to be replicated. 

However, this actually replicates experiments that have already been done. 

So if people still feel the need to achieve perfect arrow flight, knock yourselves out. It's kinda fun but a waste of time.


----------



## EPLC

I think I may have discovered something. I have tested over several days with decent 80 yard grouping but have not had the consistency I experienced on day one. In looking at a picture of my setup on day one I discovered something that I had not considered. On day one I had V-Bars mounted on my TRG8. Right after that I went to a single side bar. Due to the way my shooter holds the bow, I believe this may be the source of the inconsistencies. I'm going to put them back on and test again.


----------



## bigHUN

I work with my shooter with a full bow setup, all mounted, and I can just grab the bow from the machine and keep shooting.
Also, forgot to mention, happened to me. Damaged nocks, but just slightly damage not clearly visible by eye but still makes problems. I was in doubt about this earlier and for my piece in mind I built a jig for checking nocks, I am using the Beiter 19/2 nocks, these are very solid built but still the plastic is a plastic can deform slightly, I am measuring on some a 0.005"-0.008" run-out, not much but still is a run-out and effecting the POI in a hard way.
I see you almost like me playing with ideas, I will make some pictures today after work when back to home.


----------



## EPLC

Another question: is it possible that my improved arrow flight has produced a situation where I now see the individual inconsistency of each arrow? And with less than perfect flight is it possible that these inconsistencies may be absorbed so POI is less impacted? In other words, does perfect arrow flight actually bring out the worst in arrow inconsistency?


----------



## whiz-Oz

Well, the only way to test that is to tweak your bow so that you have crap arrow flight and look at what happens to the group. 

What you'd probably be better off doing is just use one arrow for ultimate consistency and see how it groups against itself as you progressively worsen the arrow flight. That will show you how much the flight characteristics affect grouping potential, without having arrow variation mixed into the results.


----------



## Huntinsker

You're finding essentially the same thing I said earlier in the thread. Tuning the bow and arrow has less to do with getting the arrows to group well but more to do with getting the bow to shoot well for the shooter. You've shown and I've seen in the past, that a poorly tuned bow will still group arrows at long range when shot off of a machine. The machine does the same thing each time so it's easy to get a good group. Where tuning helps is when the bow is in the hands of a person shooting. Tuning allows for each shooters idiosyncrasies and makes the bow more forgiving to their inconsistencies. The arrow doesn't care much. It's all about making the bow more forgiving and easier to shoot for the shooter. 

The case where getting the best arrow flight that you can is when you're shooting broadheads. Field points are very forgiving of poor arrow flight but broadheads are not. When they come off of the bow wonky, they can be very inconsistent from arrow to arrow and of course they won't group with your field points which can make practice a pain.


----------



## EPLC

Huntinsker said:


> You're finding essentially the same thing I said earlier in the thread. Tuning the bow and arrow has less to do with getting the arrows to group well but more to do with getting the bow to shoot well for the shooter. You've shown and I've seen in the past, that a poorly tuned bow will still group arrows at long range when shot off of a machine. The machine does the same thing each time so it's easy to get a good group. Where tuning helps is when the bow is in the hands of a person shooting. Tuning allows for each shooters idiosyncrasies and makes the bow more forgiving to their inconsistencies. The arrow doesn't care much. It's all about making the bow more forgiving and easier to shoot for the shooter.
> 
> The case where getting the best arrow flight that you can is when you're shooting broadheads. Field points are very forgiving of poor arrow flight but broadheads are not. When they come off of the bow wonky, they can be very inconsistent from arrow to arrow and of course they won't group with your field points which can make practice a pain.


Please quantify? While I do agree that there are some aspects in tuning that may make a bow more forgiving for the archer, I believe these things may be limited to cam timing, and that would depend on the cam system. Another factor that I just touched on is arrow flight. While it would seem there is a possibility that perfect arrow flight may not produce the best grouping, a slight tear one way or the other may be the optimum. An old friend and excellent archer told me many years ago that he quit fussing over his bow because his scores never changed as a result. He said he just lined things up by eye and was good to go.


----------



## EPLC

whiz-Oz said:


> Well, the only way to test that is to tweak your bow so that you have crap arrow flight and look at what happens to the group.
> 
> What you'd probably be better off doing is just use one arrow for ultimate consistency and see how it groups against itself as you progressively worsen the arrow flight. That will show you how much the flight characteristics affect grouping potential, without having arrow variation mixed into the results.


That was my starting point. I'm going to do some individual arrow tests to validate what I think I'm seeing (consistent grouping of individual arrows). Unfortunately, the deeper I get into this the more work I generate for myself.


----------



## Huntinsker

Setting a bows cam lean and centershot will compensate for a shooters natural grip tendencies. Adjusting the DL changes how a bow holds. The nock height can change how the bow holds. Increasing or decreasing holding weight can change how well the bow holds for a person. Adjusting cam timing changes how it holds. Changing the weight distribution on your stabilizers changes how it holds. All of those things change a bows tune as well as shrinking your pin float and making the bow easier to shoot well.


----------



## EPLC

Huntinsker said:


> Setting a bows cam lean and centershot will compensate for a shooters natural grip tendencies. Adjusting the DL changes how a bow holds. The nock height can change how the bow holds. Increasing or decreasing holding weight can change how well the bow holds for a person. Adjusting cam timing changes how it holds. Changing the weight distribution on your stabilizers changes how it holds. All of those things change a bows tune as well as shrinking your pin float and making the bow easier to shoot well.


So basically you are talking about improved holding, not improved accuracy. While an interesting topic I don't think it has any influence on what we are testing here.


----------



## nestly

You'll never convince me that tune doesn't matter. 

In preparation for State Field Championship this weekend, I've been group testing Easton ACC 3-28 (.255 O.D.) vs Easton Lightspeed 500's (.286 O.D.) from 20 ft to 80yds. Both were showing about 1/4" nock high through paper, which is pretty typical for my target setup. The ACC's were generally better inside 40 yds, but I was surprised that the Lightspeeds did better at longer distances, especially after 60 yds. 

Reluctantly, I decided on the Lightspeeds even though I wanted to shoot ACC's, but I really wasn't very happy with how I was shooting either shaft at long range, so took it inside an bumped the rest up until it shot bullets. First arrow after moving the rest was considerably high at 80 yds using my old sight marks but it was within the spot for left/right. After moving my indicator, the next 4 went into the X at 80, which admittedly was a bit lucky as I don't shoot *that* good, but I was only hitting the spot about 50% right before that. Next I moved up to 50 yds and shot a 2X 19 on the left side, but again it was a significantly better group than I had been shooting with the arrow leaving the bow nock high.

It's too late to change now, but I really wish I had tuned the bow individually for each arrow while group testing instead of shooting them head-to-head out of the same setup.


----------



## bigHUN

*arrows planning/testing/checking - my jig 4 in one*









spine indexing + filtering/logging (under a 1 Kg load) the offset value's









nock run-out testing 









point run-out testing









I believe no questions "why" 

.....


I like Heineken I just want to take couple days brake from a taste


----------



## Huntinsker

EPLC said:


> So basically you are talking about improved holding, not improved accuracy. While an interesting topic I don't think it has any influence on what we are testing here.


You mean that you won't shoot more accurately when you can improve how the bow holds for you? I'm a firm believer of tuning, all my bows get bareshaft tuned, but in the process of doing that, I get them to feel exactly how I want as well. When they feel good to me, I shoot them better.


----------



## EPLC

Huntinsker said:


> You mean that you won't shoot more accurately when you can improve how the bow holds for you? I'm a firm believer of tuning, all my bows get bareshaft tuned, but in the process of doing that, I get them to feel exactly how I want as well. When they feel good to me, I shoot them better.


Like I said, we are talking accuracy, not holding. These are two totally different topics.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> You'll never convince me that tune doesn't matter.
> 
> In preparation for State Field Championship this weekend, I've been group testing Easton ACC 3-28 (.255 O.D.) vs Easton Lightspeed 500's (.286 O.D.) from 20 ft to 80yds. Both were showing about 1/4" nock high through paper, which is pretty typical for my target setup. The ACC's were generally better inside 40 yds, but I was surprised that the Lightspeeds did better at longer distances, especially after 60 yds.
> 
> Reluctantly, I decided on the Lightspeeds even though I wanted to shoot ACC's, but I really wasn't very happy with how I was shooting either shaft at long range, so took it inside an bumped the rest up until it shot bullets. First arrow after moving the rest was considerably high at 80 yds using my old sight marks but it was within the spot for left/right. After moving my indicator, the next 4 went into the X at 80, which admittedly was a bit lucky as I don't shoot *that* good, but I was only hitting the spot about 50% right before that. Next I moved up to 50 yds and shot a 2X 19 on the left side, but again it was a significantly better group than I had been shooting with the arrow leaving the bow nock high.
> 
> It's too late to change now, but I really wish I had tuned the bow individually for each arrow while group testing instead of shooting them head-to-head out of the same setup.


Actually, I believe tuning does matter with regard to certain aspects of tuning. That said, if the Lightspeed's were grouping better I suspect they may be a better matched set than your ACC's. That said: I suggest you forget about the ACC's and prepare yourself mentally for your upcoming shoot. If you bring that train of thought with you it could impact your performance. Good luck this weekend.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Like I said, we are talking accuracy, not holding. These are two totally different topics.


Yes, tuning the bow to hold well is different than tuning the bow to shoot a pretty arrow, but both can improve accuracy

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

EPLC said:


> I think I may have discovered something. I have tested over several days with decent 80 yard grouping but have not had the consistency I experienced on day one. In looking at a picture of my setup on day one I discovered something that I had not considered. On day one I had V-Bars mounted on my TRG8. Right after that I went to a single side bar. Due to the way my shooter holds the bow, I believe this may be the source of the inconsistencies. I'm going to put them back on and test again.


If you want to let the OCD run amok. Mount a laser on to the front stabilizer attachment point and a tone generator to the laser impact point on the target. This will assure that the aim point is exact from arrow to arrow.
I found that my shooter had a slight hop or shift each time it was fired, by mounting the laser I was able to confirm and re-align if necessary and the tone generator saved me a lot of walking (depending on how powerful the laser, Bino's or a spotting scope could be exchanged for the tone generator).
Now this is major league OCD and I don't recommend this for everyone but if you are chasing accuracy, this may help(or not). 

GRIM


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> ... That said, if the Lightspeed's were grouping better I suspect they may be a better matched set than your ACC's. .


 Pretty sure the opposite is true. All of my ACC's are +/- .001, have the same letter series, are within 1 grain, and I've verified they all spine the same. The Lightspeeds are a collection of several different batches, and are even a mixture of Lightspeeds and Lightspeed 3D's ... the former having +/- .003 straightness tolerance, and they use every bit of it, plus a little. 

Yeah, the arrow test is "over" for now. I've been shooting the Lightspeeds all season and have set or tied a personal best Field round each of the last 4 weeks, but I still felt there were some arrows that "should" have landed better than they did. What ever I think I'm missing, I know it's not to be found in the ACC's, at least not the way I had them configured.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Well, you can't have accuracy without a decent tuned bow or decent built arrow. Yep, I've thrown bows together and shot great for 20 yards, but then 40 to 50 yards down range arrows are going to go right or left. IE, center shot has to be pretty good, both vertical and horizontal. 

Point weight can make a difference. I've run 6.04% FOC for more than a couple of years and had good luck out to around 50 to 60 yards. After that groups sort of open up.


----------



## bigHUN

My nano XR and nano pro's running with ~12% FOC and these abs19's on the pictures above ~14%
but again as I sad, not really the OD of the tube and not the wall thickness of the tube but the material composition they use to build the tubes. 
The nano's they say is a 15 ton press for the composite material they wrap, that "science" inside the wall recovers the (frequencies and amplitude) oscillation faster. the nano pro in example fly's completely static (in relative to the travel centerline) after about 16 yards.
I tried to run a ansys analysis to check the claims but all the mfg's keeping the material (properties) formula in a safe, only James Bond may get it for us.
Not many places on Earth making good carbon fiber tubes (and carbon limbs as well), all comes from from maybe 3-4 companies and mfg's just placing their sticker, the technology and the process is very divided.....


----------



## EPLC

Unfortunately my crude spine tester isn't precise enough to pick up the high and low points of these shafts as they are very close. I'm going to try some flat line oscillation testing that I had some pretty good success with a while back with crossbow arrows. Note that for a compound bow the cock vane would be mounted with FLO although I think either would work.


----------



## Huntinsker

EPLC said:


> Like I said, we are talking accuracy, not holding. These are two totally different topics.


They're very related. I've said that an untuned bow in a machine will shoot an untuned arrow to a good group and that it probably won't matter if you tune it or not. BUT, as soon as the bow is put into the hands of the human shooter, tuning the bow will increase accuracy by making the bow more forgiving for the shooter. Part of that is optimal arrow flight and part of it is how the bow feels to the person shooting it.


----------



## EPLC

Huntinsker said:


> They're very related. I've said that an untuned bow in a machine will shoot an untuned arrow to a good group and that it probably won't matter if you tune it or not. BUT, as soon as the bow is put into the hands of the human shooter, tuning the bow will increase accuracy by making the bow more forgiving for the shooter. Part of that is optimal arrow flight and part of it is how the bow feels to the person shooting it.


Yes related, but totally different topics. Arrows go where they are pointed; introduce movement and they will follow. They will not reverse direction. If a tuned bow makes you more confident then a tuned bow will shoot better for you, otherwise it would seem to have very little bearing. Of course the exception would be creep tuning which I believe may have benefit, more so in some systems than others. Center shot doesn't seem to have much, if any, impact on POI. The most critical factor in grouping, especially long range shooting, seems to be the consistency of the arrows, not the tune. I have not concluded my testing so my opinion could change but for now I have found nothing to change this opinion.


----------



## SonnyThomas

E, either you're not explaining yourself well or I'm missing the point or you're wrong about center shot and point of impact. Set zero at 15 yards with the rest a bit off left or right. Then shoot out to 60 yards or more without moving the windage. The arrow is going to be off left or right. No doubt grouping can be good to outstanding, just the point of impact is effect.

Bow windage zeroed at 9 feet each time the rest was corrected. 50 yard bag, 1st attempt. 50 yard bag, final attempt. Vertical/Horizontal target, level set, used at the shop for setting center shot (short range French tuning). Bow zeroed at 10 feet each time the rest was moved. Those holes left and right of the vertical line is that caused by the rest not set properly (center shot).


----------



## grantmac

I think he's talking group size, not location Sonny.


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> E, either you're not explaining yourself well or I'm missing the point or you're wrong about center shot and point of impact. Set zero at 15 yards with the rest a bit off left or right. Then shoot out to 60 yards or more without moving the windage. The arrow is going to be off left or right. No doubt grouping can be good to outstanding, just the point of impact is effect.
> 
> Bow windage zeroed at 9 feet each time the rest was corrected. 50 yard bag, 1st attempt. 50 yard bag, final attempt. Vertical/Horizontal target, level set, used at the shop for setting center shot (short range French tuning). Bow zeroed at 10 feet each time the rest was moved. Those holes left and right of the vertical line is that caused by the rest not set properly (center shot).


Not sure how to get through to you Sonny? My testing out to 80 yards points to center shot not being a critical factor in grouping well. If I did my testing at 30 yards my arrows would all be broken, regardless of the tune on the bow.


----------



## nestly

Hooter shooters are one of the biggest "gimmicks" of all time, and they may be responsible for as much or more tail chasing as any other gimmick to snake oil in the history of archery. We already know that almost any bow will stack arrows out of a machine. As far as I know, there's isn't any competion where hooter shooters are legal, so who really cares what happens when a bow is loaded into one?


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> Hooter shooters are one of the biggest "gimmicks" of all time, and they may be responsible for as much or more tail chasing as any other gimmick to snake oil in the history of archery. We already know that almost any bow will stack arrows out of a machine. As far as I know, there's isn't any competion where hooter shooters are legal, so who really cares what happens when a bow is loaded into one?


Archery, as well as other publically participated sports (golf for example), are full of lot's of voodoo things (read buy me). I'm trying to identify which is real and which is voodoo. I do disagree with you about shooting machines though. You can not argue results that remove most of the human factor. I will say that there are some DIY machines that suffer from a major design flaw which makes most of there usefulness questionable. So how'd you do at the shoot?


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> I do disagree with you about shooting machines though. You can not argue results that remove most of the human factor.


It's not archery unless there is a person holding the bow, so when you remove the human factor, it all loses relevance. Shooting machines are good for stuff like determining if spin rate, or FOC, or mass/weight ratio, etc makes a difference (particularly at long range) They are not useful in predicting how an arrow comes out of a bow when the person holding the bow is less than perfectly consistent. (ie everyone)



EPLC said:


> ..... So how'd you do at the shoot?


 Not as well as I had hoped.  ... but I'm looking forward to some personal redemption on the Hunter side tomorrow.


----------



## EPLC

With regard to shooting machines, lets do a little comparison. X-Bows vs. Shooting Machine. A couple of years ago I delved into the world of crossbows. As a tinkerer I wanted to "tune" my crossbow to get the best out of it, but found out very quickly that there wasn't a lot of bow tuning required... instead there was much discussion surrounding "arrow" tuning. I also found out in short order that if your arrows didn't match well the crossbow didn't group well... but if you did a real good job on arrow build consistency with a real good set of arrows good things would happen. The 35cm field target was shot from a bench at 50 yards. Four X's and the fifth arrow (lower right target) broke the arrow that preceded it. Now, these arrows and many more like them were shot from a bench. X after X after X became quite boring I assure you. 

But then what happened when I started to shoot freehand? As you may have guessed, the groups widened. Ok, now what do I have? I have a bow that is shooting a very closely matched set of arrows in the X on every shot. While shooting freehand I can't repeat this accuracy. If you translate this experience to a compound bow being shot from a shooter and then freehand there are those that will claim that you need to perform some additional voodoo to the bow tune to get it to shoot better freehand. I question this logic? Of course there are those that will say the crossbow and compound are different therefore different rules apply. Please help me with this logic, cuz I ain't seeing it.


----------



## nestly

Shooting a crossbow freehand is not the same as shooting a bow freehand. The only variable with the former is the proximity of the crosshairs to the target when the trigger breaks.... not so with a bow, there are many factors beside the relationship between the pin and the target that affect where the arrow lands.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Not sure how to get through to you Sonny? My testing out to 80 yards points to center shot not being a critical factor in grouping well. If I did my testing at 30 yards my arrows would all be broken, regardless of the tune on the bow.


See, you're not explaining yourself or your findings or keeping things in prospective. Yes, I can take a "unturned" center shot bow and get great groupings and (separate here) and great accuracy at a set distance. This same bow though will have great groups, but a different left or right impact at a shorter or longer distance.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> Shooting a crossbow freehand is not the same as shooting a bow freehand. The only variable with the former is the proximity of the crosshairs to the target when the trigger breaks.... not so with a bow, there are many factors beside the relationship between the pin and the target that affect where the arrow lands.


Agreed, but you are still claiming that there is some magical "tune" that will make the bow shoot better than perfect when in human hands? The difference between a crossbow and a vertical bow isn't really that much. While the human factor can certainly influence a bad shot more than with a crossbow, the mechanical properties are very similar. Even though less to a certain extent, freehand shooting a crossbow still introduces motion to the aiming process. Yes, with a vertical bow there are a lot more variables, but an arrow still goes were it is pointed. Those "magical" X's that we think should have missed only hit their mark because they were moving in that direction. You can't build that into a "tune" it is a subconscious mental thing, no more no less. Of course if tuning helps your mental thing then it works, if it doesn't then reality enters the equation. 

Good luck tomorrow. Last year in the NESFAA Sectionals I was in last place after day one and won it on day two with the hunter round (in the pouring rain). So, you never know.


----------



## nestly

You can prove.disprove this yourself. Use the shooter to shoot a group at 80 with a reasonably tuned bow, then without doing anything else, raise the nocking point 1/2" and shoot another group at 80 with the same arrows.... post the pics of both groups. There is no way the groups by arrows porpoising that much are not going to reflect inconsistencies from shot to shot (even due to inconsistencies in arrows themselves)

The truer the arrow is flying, the less affect shooter and/or arrow inconsistency will have on the impact. Want to carry it a little farther, repeat the tuned vs untuned 80yd test above with one fletching stripped off each arrow.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> You can prove.disprove this yourself. Use the shooter to shoot a group at 80 with a reasonably tuned bow, then without doing anything else, raise the nocking point 1/2" and shoot another group at 80 with the same arrows.... post the pics of both groups. There is no way the groups by arrows porpoising that much are not going to reflect inconsistencies from shot to shot (even due to inconsistencies in arrows themselves)
> 
> The truer the arrow is flying, the less affect shooter and/or arrow inconsistency will have on the impact. Want to carry it a little farther, repeat the tuned vs untuned 80yd test above with one fletching stripped off each arrow.


The discussion has been whether or not perfect arrow flight will improve grouping. To this point it doesn't seem to be much, if any, of a factor. But... if you believe it is, then it is, whether or not you can quantify it or not (which nobody has) doesn't matter. Mental games are like that. Confidence is probably more of a factor in this game than anything else. If a tuned bow provides it, then go for it. For me, seeing those arrows go in the 5 ring at 80 yards over and over from my machine gives me confidence in my equipment, which makes me place more focus on myself rather than making excuses that are equipment based.

Let's look at this from a different angle. Say we have a reasonably tuned bow shooting good groups with a good set of arrows but there are a couple of flyers. There is no possible way that tuning the bow will fix this condition without modifying the arrow in some way shape or fashion. The only way to possibly fix this condition would be to turn the nock or modify the arrow or toss it. So, isn't this really about arrow tuning over everything else?


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> See, you're not explaining yourself or your findings or keeping things in prospective. Yes, I can take a "unturned" center shot bow and get great groupings and (separate here) and great accuracy at a set distance. This same bow though will have great groups, but a different left or right impact at a shorter or longer distance.


Sonny, I haven't tested the validity of walk back tuning so I can't speak to it at this point. This upcoming week I'll test that out as it is one of those voodoo things that I myself have believed until recently. I will say that on day one of my testing after shooting many solid groups at 80 yards I reset my machine to 30 yards and shot 2 arrows. They were dead center X's and you couldn't place a human hair between them. I stopped there because I didn't want to break arrows.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Sonny, I haven't tested the validity of walk back tuning so I can't speak to it at this point. This upcoming week I'll test that out as it is one of those voodoo things that I myself have believed until recently. I will say that on day one of my testing after shooting many solid groups at 80 yards I reset my machine to 30 yards and shot 2 arrows. They were dead center X's and you couldn't place a human hair between them. I stopped there because I didn't want to break arrows.


Walk Back tuning, French tuning, bare shaft tuning and other tuning procedures for setting center shot don't need validated. They work and have been proven to work for years.

Plain fact is, arrow rests are adjustable not only for elevation, but also for windage for a reason.


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> Walk Back tuning, French tuning, bare shaft tuning and other tuning procedures for setting center shot don't need validated. They work and have been proven to work for years.
> 
> Plain fact is, arrow rests are adjustable not only for elevation, but also for windage for a reason.


Proven? Stated, claimed, posted, written and published more times than one could count but I've yet to see any controlled testing to validate that these methods actually produce the desired effect (read better grouping). I'm convinced more than ever that arrow quality and consistently is more of a factor than any bow tuning method.

But in all fairness I will be doing a walk back test to validate it's worth. Even though I've actually been a past supporter of this method I'm having difficulty seeing the purpose of zeroing in your center shot at one sight elevation when you don't shoot that way? Currently I have a good POI at all elevations.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> *Proven?* Stated, claimed, posted, written and published more times than one could count but I've yet to see any controlled testing to validate that these methods actually produce the desired effect (read better grouping). I'm convinced more than ever that arrow quality and consistently is more of a factor than any bow tuning method.
> 
> Well, thousands of articles, the internet full of these center shot procedures is Proof. I posted two pictures of French tuning results(the bag targets). One the first attempt and the other the last attempt.
> 
> But in all fairness I will be doing a walk back test to validate it's worth. Even though I've actually been a past supporter of this method I'm having difficulty seeing the purpose of zeroing in your center shot at one sight elevation when you don't shoot that way? Currently I have a good POI at all elevations.


Elevation? What are you talking about? 

Walk Back tuning is a drawn out French tune method. I don't need to shoot at several different distances to know my arrow is impacting left or right of the "center line" at greater distances from the center line from longer distances. It wasn't that long ago in General Discussion it was finally made clear that at the end of shooting this procedure one corrected the rest for center and began a new, just like in regular French tuning. So why shoot 10 or 12 shots from greater distances when one greater distance tells the same thing? Walk Back it seems always speaks of closer distances. I posted a picture of target used at the archery shop for setting center shot. I don't call it anything but Short Distance French tuning.

You can post your results forever and you'll not convince me that you can "throw" a new arrow rest on a bow and not adjust it for windage and shoot dead on at 10 yards and your 80 yards.


----------



## bplayer405

I guess if you can tune your bow setup to have your pin float within the x ring at 20yds any bow tune will work as long as your arrows are consistent enough to hit where you're aiming. At only one distance the quality and consistent tune of the arrows your using would be key. It's when you start stepping back and shooting more distances that bow tuning becomes as important. I personally wouldn't shoot competitively unless my bows and arrows were tuned to the way I shoot. Making the only factor my ability to achieve the poi I'm after. To each, their own. I've been thinking of shooting competitively for a while now and threads like this are insightful. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## bigHUN

EPLC said:


> ... Say we have a reasonably tuned bow shooting good groups with a good set of arrows but there are a couple of flyers. There is no possible way that tuning the bow will fix this condition without modifying the arrow in some way shape or fashion...


This...



EPLC said:


> ... The only way to possibly fix this condition would be to turn the nock or modify the arrow or toss it....


The flyer is a flyer, you can try turning nocks, but....what if you need to change that nock down on the line? You got the flyer back...just put that arrow aside you may find a good use for it later somewhere maybe for a year from now...



EPLC said:


> ... So, isn't this really about arrow tuning over everything else?...


My standpoint is: no shortcuts. Either you do it right, or....not. I will tune my bow, then I will tune the arrows, then I will check how these can work together, then fix what is remaining....anything wrong throw away and start from beginning.
Now.....somebody would say archery is about shooting arrows and not tuning like a mechanic. What a heck you then doing? when you tune the bow and the arrows? Shooting !!! and even paying more attention then you would otherwise be doing !!!
OK, we talking not about some nubs looking to do some magic shooting suddenly, but we talking now on our higher level as competitive tournament shooters, right? So not really expecting debate about "how much of a tuning we have in our everyday practice/training sessions.....


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> Elevation? What are you talking about?
> 
> Walk Back tuning is a drawn out French tune method. I don't need to shoot at several different distances to know my arrow is impacting left or right of the "center line" at greater distances from the center line from longer distances. It wasn't that long ago in General Discussion it was finally made clear that at the end of shooting this procedure one corrected the rest for center and began a new, just like in regular French tuning. So why shoot 10 or 12 shots from greater distances when one greater distance tells the same thing? Walk Back it seems always speaks of closer distances. I posted a picture of target used at the archery shop for setting center shot. I don't call it anything but Short Distance French tuning.
> 
> You can post your results forever and you'll not convince me that you can "throw" a new arrow rest on a bow and not adjust it for windage and shoot dead on at 10 yards and your 80 yards.


Never made that claim. What I do support is that a bow set up by eye will perform as good as it would spending hours, days, months tuning the crap out of it. And I know nothing will convince you and many others that have been indoctrinated with oceans of voodoo tricks. Like that old friend of mine said, "I stopped doing all that because my scores didn't change..." and his scores were quite impressive. 

Remember, throughout history much of the common wisdom of the time has since proven to be wrong... And as it turns out, the world is actually flat! Fact is, people make up stuff, other people believe it and support it, publish it and make money off it. Then it becomes fact and more people continue to publish it. Take a cheap set of carbon arrows and tune your bow (not the arrow) to make them group at distance. There's a test for you.


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> Elevation? What are you talking about?
> 
> Walk Back tuning is a drawn out French tune method. I don't need to shoot at several different distances to know my arrow is impacting left or right of the "center line" at greater distances from the center line from longer distances. It wasn't that long ago in General Discussion it was finally made clear that at the end of shooting this procedure one corrected the rest for center and began a new, just like in regular French tuning. So why shoot 10 or 12 shots from greater distances when one greater distance tells the same thing? Walk Back it seems always speaks of closer distances. I posted a picture of target used at the archery shop for setting center shot. I don't call it anything but Short Distance French tuning.
> 
> You can post your results forever and you'll not convince me that you can "throw" a new arrow rest on a bow and not adjust it for windage and shoot dead on at 10 yards and your 80 yards.


I have a fundamental problem with "French Tuning", or any other method of tuning that uses extreme close range to set your baseline. It simply doesn't make sense. Why? Simply because you do not see the existing variances at extreme close range. In order to prove this, do some opposite French Tuning by setting your baseline at 60 yards, not 9 feet.


----------



## grantmac

Walkback/French tuning places the rest directly above the center of grip pressure. If there is an offset you will need to adjust windage at different distances. I don't think it has any effect on group size, just position.

It may be something that you can set using measurements (nuts&bolts) or perhaps it's something you need to shoot in. I guess that depends on the bow and the archer.

The same can be said of the 3rd axis.


----------



## EPLC

grantmac said:


> Walkback/French tuning places the rest directly above the center of grip pressure. If there is an offset you will need to adjust windage at different distances. I don't think it has any effect on group size, just position.
> 
> It may be something that you can set using measurements (nuts&bolts) or perhaps it's something you need to shoot in. I guess that depends on the bow and the archer.
> 
> The same can be said of the 3rd axis.


You can believe what you want, but for me this is just another fine example of voodoo at the extreme. Like I said, setting any baseline at very close range is a waist of time. 3rd axis comes into play with up & down shots... and it is important. But that isn't bow tuning, it's simply setting up your sight properly.


----------



## EPLC

It's all about angles. The slightest unseen angle at 9 feet will be magnified at long distances, making it "seem" to be a problem. In reality all you are doing is making yourself feel good with just another voodoo magic trick. If you set your baseline at 60 yards to begin with you can eliminate a lot of BS.


----------



## SonnyThomas

SonnyThomas said:


> Elevation? What are you talking about?
> 
> Walk Back tuning is a drawn out French tune method. I don't need to shoot at several different distances to know my arrow is impacting left or right of the "center line" at greater distances from the center line from longer distances. It wasn't that long ago in General Discussion it was finally made clear that at the end of shooting this procedure one corrected the rest for center and began a new, just like in regular French tuning. So why shoot 10 or 12 shots from greater distances when one greater distance tells the same thing? Walk Back it seems always speaks of closer distances. I posted a picture of target used at the archery shop for setting center shot. I don't call it anything but Short Distance French tuning.
> 
> You can post your results forever and you'll not convince me that you can "throw" a new arrow rest on a bow and not adjust it for windage and shoot dead on at 10 yards and your 80 yards.





EPLC said:


> *Never made that claim.* What I do support is that a bow set up by eye will perform as good as it would spending hours, days, months tuning the crap out of it. And I know nothing will convince you and many others that have been indoctrinated with oceans of voodoo tricks. Like that old friend of mine said, "I stopped doing all that because my scores didn't change..." and his scores were quite impressive.
> 
> Remember, throughout history much of the common wisdom of the time has since proven to be wrong... And as it turns out, the world is actually flat! Fact is, people make up stuff, other people believe it and support it, publish it and make money off it. Then it becomes fact and more people continue to publish it. Take a cheap set of carbon arrows and tune your bow (not the arrow) to make them group at distance. There's a test for you.


You've been saying such since the very beginning. You want to back water, do it.



EPLC said:


> I have a fundamental problem with "French Tuning", or any other method of tuning that uses extreme close range to set your baseline. It simply doesn't make sense. Why? Simply because you do not see the existing variances at extreme close range. In order to prove this, do some opposite French Tuning by setting your baseline at 60 yards, not 9 feet.


French tuning has existed as far back as I can find and used by some the best archers in the world. Most all say 9 feet or so for the initial zeroing. The Zero point, a dot the diameter of your arrow or very thin line is pretty hard to hit consistently even at 9 feet. The longer distance can be as long as you can keep your arrow on the arrow stop, bag, bunker, whatever. Noted most is 50 to 55 yards.

John Dudley's French tuning article has been noted the most, published November/December of 2005 in The US and International Archer; John gave of a dot the size of a pencil eraser. That's damned small.

Whoever wrote the French tune article I read I can't remember, but I started French tuning in late 2003 or early 2004. At the time everyone I spoke with said noted French tuning the best for the longer games. By November/December 2005 I had placed and won in Field and Outdoor in club and state sanctioned events. It was late 2006 and surely by 2008 I went with 9 to 10 feet and 30 yards (Indoor Practice range allowed 30 yards). This gave excellent accuracy out to about 60 yards. From 2008 through the shop closing in 2013 I French tuned a bunch of bows.... 

Levi Morgan was the last I read of for French tuning and he didn't call it French tuning, this in some hunting magazine. His version was to set your arrow rest so the arrow hit dead on at 20 yards and dead on at 50 yards. If this works then it works.
I suppose if you can beat John Dudley you're more than welcome to write your own article.....


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> It's all about angles. The slightest unseen angle at 9 feet will be magnified at long distances, making it "seem" to be a problem. In reality all you are doing is making yourself feel good with just another voodoo magic trick. If you set your baseline at 60 yards to begin with you can eliminate a lot of BS.


Wow! French tuning backwards. Throw on the arrow rest and shoot 60 yards. Hope you find your first arrows.....


----------



## EPLC

As far as French Tuning goes I've actually performed half of the test with both my TRG7 and TRG8 since they have both been sighted in at 80 yards and both have proven to be grouping well. All I need to do is shoot them at 6 feet with the 80 yard sight setting and see what happens. Here are the results: Both the TRG7 and TRG8 had no difficulty hitting a vertically hung piece of Para cord from six feet with my original 80 yard sight setting. Please note that the TRG7 arrow isn't coming off the bow as clean as the TRG8 yet both hit the intended target at both 6 feet and 80 yards with the same sight setting.

French Tuning = BUSTED


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> It's all about angles. The slightest unseen angle at 9 feet will be magnified at long distances, making it "seem" to be a problem. In reality all you are doing is making yourself feel good with just another voodoo magic trick. If you set your baseline at 60 yards to begin with you can eliminate a lot of BS.


We know there is error. How do you find it? You magnify it. How do you magnify it? You shoot at a longer distance. 

Basically, you're just saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about or throwing BS out there to get attention.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> As far as French Tuning goes I've actually performed half of the test with both my TRG7 and TRG8 since they have both been sighted in at 80 yards and both have proven to be grouping well. All I need to do is shoot them at 6 feet with the 80 yard sight setting and see what happens. Here are the results: Both the TRG7 and TRG8 had no difficulty hitting a vertically hung piece of Para cord from six feet with my original 80 yard sight setting. Please note that the TRG7 arrow isn't coming off the bow as clean as the TRG8 yet both hit there intended target at both 6 feet and 80 yards with the same sight setting.
> 
> French Tuning = BUSTED


You already had center shot set; French tuning = NOT BUSTED. 

What are you, chicken? Get a new rest and throw it on one of your bows and then let's see the real results......


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> We know there is error. How do you find it? You magnify it. How do you magnify it? You shoot at a longer distance.
> 
> Basically, you're just saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about or throwing BS out there to get attention.


Thanks, you made my point.

A good long distance sight setting has a better chance of hitting at extreme short distance than a sight setting that was performed at extreme short distance has of hitting at long distance. Shoot at something the size of a pencil eraser, which is smaller than the diameter of most arrows is stupid. You'll be all over the place at longer distances simply because you simply can't see the variance at short distance. You could be off to the left or right and still erase the eraser that you are shooting. This left/right/up/down un-noticed variance will be magnified at longer distances. If you set your baseline sight setting at those longer distances you will hit the extreme short distance target regardless of center shot. 

I've been playing with 4 arrows and a laser to find the sweet spot. I firmly believe the only way to truly tighten group size is the tighten the consistency of my arrows. The X-Impacts have proven so far to be pretty darn good. I want to see if they can be made better by tuning the spine oscillation.


----------



## GRIMWALD

I seem to remember you posting that you align your cock vane with the flat line oscillation and that you position the cock vane vertical?
Have you done any testing to see if positioning the FLO other than vertical effects your grouping?


GRIM


----------



## EPLC

GRIMWALD said:


> I seem to remember you posting that you align your cock vane with the flat line oscillation and that you position the cock vane vertical?
> Have you done any testing to see if positioning the FLO other than vertical effects your grouping?
> 
> 
> GRIM


The only testing that I have actually performed with laser tuned arrows was with the crossbow. For the compound I aligned the cock vane with the vertical line (FLO) of the laser but I haven't tested it yet. The four X-Impact arrows I laser tested were put together today. I'll test them sometime this week.


----------



## EPLC

For clarity I've revised my diagram showing why French Tuning and variations of it are no more than voodoo marketing schemes.


----------



## jim p

Keep testing EPLC. The more you test the more information we all get to analyze.


----------



## SonnyThomas

French tuning, Walk Back tuning, bare shaft tuning all arrive at center shot by moving the arrow rest and basically in the same manner. In all cases each time a movement of the arrow rest includes correcting the sight. The farther one can shoot the more refined center shot can be made. 

Always left out, for the most part, is French or Walk Back tuning is not complete without playing with the nocking point height or arrow rest height and this to see if groups can be tightened. Bare shaft tuning does include playing with the nocking point height and arrow rest height and bare shaft tuning can be done farther out than the normal 20 yards.....


----------



## bigHUN

bareshafts to 50+ yards is very normal, and don't base it on a single shaft but at least 3-5
when the tune is good can safely do on 70. 
Also, a good training to "keep in shape " through a winter - at least 1:5 exclusively BS a full round scoring.


----------



## SonnyThomas

So the bow was aimed correctly and the arrow went where it was pointed. Other than the nock of the arrow on the string, what is holding or pointing the arrow so it went to the left or right? Answer; The arrow rest. Deduction; The arrow rest was set too far left or right. So another lack luster example or poorly worded....

The 9 feet used for sighting in is a starting point. There is a measurable amount of control at short distance as in the arrow will hit the target. John Dudley used a dot the size of pencil eraser, but this is extreme and then John Dudley is far more the better archer than anyone I know in this forum... I use a level drawn line at 9 to 10 feet and hitting the line or close one way or another I find it's good enough. How many do you know that can hit pencil eraser dot or split a string consistently from 9 to 10 feet? 
We know the rest is off, this is given. To magnify the error we shoot at a longer distance, 30 or more yards. Zeroed at 9 to 10 feet and then hitting left at 30 yards we correct the arrow rest a tiny bit to the right. We start over with sighting back in at the 9 to 10 feet. Sighted in we shoot the 30 yards. If dead on center shot is set well. If still off a bit left we move the arrow rest a tiny bit right and begin anew. The process continues until corrected rest and sight gives hits dead on at the 9 to 10 feet and hit dead on at 30 yards or whatever longer yardage the one tuning uses. Using longer yardage will refine center shot all the more.
The fact is, the more one uses any tuning procedure the more they learn it, the more it works for them or one finds ways for that tuning procedure to work for them.

Most all of my pictures given anywhere on AT is that of very low FOC. For the last 5 or 6 years my arrows have had glue-in points of 80 and 90 grs and then 28 gr inserts and 75 gr screw in points. Not what you call Indoor arrows and not what you call longer distance use arrows. 

I don't normally shoot past 40 yards, my max distance in ASA events. I have shot at a couple longer distances, 50 and 60 yards. Sometime in 2014 before my accident and earlier this year. Date on the red fletched Muddy Outdoors Virtue arrows 03/03/16. The Harvest Time Archery arrows are 50 yards. All arrows are of 6.04% FOC. Bow was French tuned once at 30 yards once and French tuned again at 50 yards after a string change.
Rusted from years is my 60 yard plate and 60 yards bag.


----------



## SonnyThomas

bigHUN said:


> bareshafts to 50+ yards is very normal, and don't base it on a single shaft but at least 3-5
> when the tune is good can safely do on 70.
> Also, a good training to "keep in shape " through a winter - at least 1:5 exclusively BS a full round scoring.


bigHUN, I've heard of longer distance bare shaft tuning. Very agreeable of more than one shaft or one shot. To bare shaft tune one has to be "all there" and very probable the next time you time you many not be "all there."
I can't bare shaft tune to save my life, but for some reason I can French tune my bow to give the impression of being bare shaft tuned. One, my bows have binary cams, no yokes. Two, probably tried too hard. I changed arrows rests, used different release and even changed limbs.

20 yards. This one hurt....


----------



## bigHUN

SonnyThomas said:


> ...The fact is, the more one uses any tuning procedure the more they learn it...


Very well sad !!!
My folks at my club (maybe about 12 years ago when I just started) were laughing and making jokes at me because I was taking my bows apart whenever I got bored, but I learned things.
Then I grew to a level I would go to any tournament in 3-4 hours drive radius.
Then I started filling in my drawers with medals on state/province level. I am probably the only one from couple clubs around me, I spent so much for travelling around for tournaments,
when I look back how much $$$ green I've could save I shall be driving a nice sports car now ;\
This year I promised myself nomore shoveling money for show-ups, the Canadian championship is a whole next week...
sorry folks, nomore, now I am taking my family to EU for vacation for the same cost


----------



## EPLC

Here is a shot of 3 80 yard groups of different arrows from the shooter. The 5 arrows in the spot were the 25.5" X-Impacts that I have been working with since day one of the testing. The next lower group of 4 are the X-Impacts that I laser tuned. They are cut to 27", thus the lower POI. The third group are some old ACG 540's that I had kicking around. Of the five, three are sound, one has a slight wobble and one is 1/2" longer than the others. Nothing was changed on the bow, only the arrows were different. The best groups were the laser tuned shafts with the original shafts a close second. The ACG's would not tighten up as expected, although I thought there was a chance for 3 of them. I also shot 5 1816 aluminum shafts just for laughs and they grouped the size of a beach ball. I forgot to snap a picture of that group so you'll have to take my word for it.


----------



## EPLC

As I finished up my testing for today, a friend showed up and we went around the field course. Shooting freehand, the bow performed the same as when shot from the shooter. Of course I'm not a machine but I did have some pretty good targets. Here's my 80 walkup and my 55 or 65 yarder (?). I only shot a 261 for the half but was very strong in the middle of the round. The additional arrows were my friends.


----------



## EPLC

Here's my final word on this (I think): After shooting several days with both of my bows in several states of tune I have found nothing that has impacted group size from a bow tuning perspective. Improving arrow flight did not help or hinder. Improving center shot did not improve or hinder. The only thing that has impacted group size has been arrow preparation, and that was only minimal when using a nicely matched set of arrows to start. Precise bow tuning is only helpful if you "believe" it to be helpful. As it has been said many times; this game is 90% mental. 

Of course there are those that will continue jumping up and down professing to know what they obviously do not know and continue to quote the Pro's that continue to sell this stuff. Hey, what ever makes your boat float.


----------



## nestly

The problem with your testing is that the human factor is absent. Feel free to discount it if you want, but it is in fact the most important reason why good arrow flight does matter.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Of course there are those that will continue jumping up and down professing to know what they obviously do not know and continue to quote the Pro's that continue to sell this stuff. Hey, what ever makes your boat float.


Well, I don't jump and down professing to know what I don't know and I don't quote Pro's giving out tips until I try them. If they don't work I say so. Right now that of Donnie Thacker and "clocking" has no valid proof other than a bare shaft arrow will turn consistently one way or the other coming out of the bow. For the testing I did I'm not changing the way I fletch. Yeah, every two feet checked and my bare shaft arrow rotated less than 1/2 turn shot from 17 feet. No one that posted in that Thread, here on AT, posted any pictures to prove Thacker's opinion, belief. ontartget7 replied and was almost ridiculed for giving he couldn't tell the difference fletching one way or the other. The one that more or less chided Shane later apologized to some degree.
Thacker's article is on Lancaster's site. To me, his pictures, together, were a poor example. Check out his pictures. Below is a old photo when I was shooting Field and Outdoor target. I didn't know about spine, fletching to spine, and didn't know that you should have more than a 100 grs for point weight. For the 60 yard, I'm pretty sure I used a quarter to trace around for the black dot and there are 3 arrows in that dot.
Another test was that of Torque Tuning. The results are in here to see. Torque Tuning Revisited.
Another test that was that of the Slick Shot. It works, but then if you have a good grip you don't need it. I can dig up the link if wanted.
Another test was of several brands and models of vanes. Conclusion; They all work, just some better than others for the task at hand. 
Get right down to it and everything about archery is personal preference.....


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> The problem with your testing is that the human factor is absent. Feel free to discount it if you want, but it is in fact the most important reason why good arrow flight does matter.


See post 127. The fact is I was putting up the tightest groups of my life for the past couple months with a poor center shot and poor arrow flight. Correcting these tuning "issues" didn't make one bit of difference in these groups regardless of how they were shot, machine or human.
The only human factor I continue to deal with is the rehab of my shoulder which limits my ability to make those kind of shots for any extended period of time. And that isn't a tuning issue.


----------



## Padgett

I love tuning and over the years I have really settled on the areas and processes that I really enjoy doing, to me it gives me a really solid and forgiving setup.

With that said:

Guys that can't tune their way out of a wet paper bag and have to settle for poor tears in the paper and excuses for why they don't bare shaft beat me all the time, that is beyond irritating.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Padgett said:


> I love tuning and over the years I have really settled on the areas and processes that I really enjoy doing, to me it gives me a really solid and forgiving setup.
> 
> With that said:
> 
> Guys that can't tune their way out of a wet paper bag and have to settle for poor tears in the paper and excuses for why they don't bare shaft beat me all the time, that is beyond irritating.


:set1_rolf2:


----------



## EPLC

I know my testing won't plug even a slight hole in the ocean of information supporting various tuning (read voodoo) but it has helped me with my confidence in my equipment. Before starting this thread and series of tests I had two bows with a right tear that I could not get rid of without going to a 5/8" center shot. I refused this and went with a 3/4" center shot. These two bows were grouping fine, in fact better than that. But it bothered me having poor center shot and the arrow flight that went along with it. After spending $80 for cam shim kits and multiple days of tuning and testing I ended up with the same groups, both from the shooter and freehand. For me this has been a good thing.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Tuning procedures are only "read voodoo" if you don't understand them or haven't worked with them to understand them. Some can't get their used tuning procedure out of their minds to accept another tuning procedure. Some tuning procedures just plain don't make sense. I won't re-shim cams as the R&D departments of bow companies have to know more than me. I won't yoke tune to make a cam (s) straight at full draw only to have the cam (s) lean with bow at rest.
Like all bows specs measurement are numbers, not exact, so is the given measurement of center shot. Here's one; "Typically the specs listed in the tune charts (axle-axle, and Brace height) are accurate to +-3/16”.
This was signed by;
"Gideon Jolley
Compound Engineering Leader
Hoyt"
As for initial setting of center shot I've eye balled center shot and came darn close and ever so often so close that I don't adjust it farther.
I really don't believe in paper tuning. Any error by the shooter will show. I've had outstandingly accurate bows that give lack luster paper results. I go with target accuracy, not the dumb paper tear.
Arrow tuning is another that I don't totally believe in. Node tuning is not for me. I really don't believe in spine indexing with quality arrows, .0025" and less for straightness. Why would a tech from a big name arrow company tell me "Fletch to the blemish line and you won't really be that far off." Another arrow maker on spine; "A shaft with a deviation of less than .015" has no effect on arrow flight at all."

Why ask in here when you can get stuff straight from those who make a living making the things we use?


----------



## EPLC

Still jumping up and down Sonny?


----------



## SonnyThomas

Just telling things as I know them just like you are.....


----------



## nestly

SonnyThomas said:


> Just telling things as I know them just like you are.....


Exactly. Most good shooters (including pros) don't spend time tuning because they're sheep and are just doing what they heard or read somewhere, they do it because they can see the difference in their results. Shooter inconsistency is why tune matters (note: a "perfect" bullet isn't necessarily the "tune" that all good shooters find to be the most forgiving)


----------



## Rick!

So, the net-net is that lining up the power-stroke with the arrow shaft and using good arrows can improve target groups. K, got it.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Rick! said:


> So, the net-net is that lining up the power-stroke with the arrow shaft and using good arrows can improve target groups. K, got it.


Unless I'm reading you wrong, shouldn't it be lining the arrow up with the power stroke of the bow?

And then I'm still trying to figure out how a tuning procedure is some marketing ploy, "voodoo marketing schemes," and "voodoo things (read buy me)."


----------



## EPLC

Rick! said:


> So, the net-net is that lining up the power-stroke with the arrow shaft and using good arrows can improve target groups. K, got it.


Actually, if you are referring to my testing, that's only half what my findings suggest... The good arrow part is spot on, but lining up the power stroke did nothing to improve or degrade arrow groups, although arrow flight did improve. 



SonnyThomas said:


> Unless I'm reading you wrong, shouldn't it be lining the arrow up with the power stroke of the bow?
> 
> And then I'm still trying to figure out how a tuning procedure is some marketing ploy, "voodoo marketing schemes," and "voodoo things (read buy me)."


Books, videos, paid web pages, coaching, promotions, royalties... "buy mine"... "no buy mine". Paper tuning tips, French tuning tips, walk-back tuning, move your arrow rest .0001 to the left, etc., etc., etc. it goes on and on and then fed and promoted by the indoctrinated ones. Everything has been regurgitated and repackaged and resold over and over again. Arrows go where they are pointed and no tuning process can fix that. 

Of course not all tuning is wasted effort. In fact no tuning is a wasted effort if it builds confidence. Cam timing is a worthy effort, with some bows more than others. Torque tuning "may" have some benefit, assuming it works. I personally haven't tested that one yet. I am absolutely sure that minor center shot adjustments and minor disturbances in arrow flight have no impact on POI that I can determine. My groups in the machine and shot freehand did not change.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Cam timing is a worthy effort, with some bows more than others.


Why in the world would cam timing matter if nothing else having to do with the relationship between the bow's power path and the arrow does?


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Arrows go where they are pointed and no tuning process can fix that.


So you can just throw a bow together, no adjusting anything?


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> Why in the world would cam timing matter if nothing else having to do with the relationship between the bow's power path and the arrow does?


Because with cams out of time (depending on the cam design) one cam would hit the stops before the other making it more difficult to draw to the same point on each shot. This would be especially true for an archer that creeps and/or is inconsistent with the back end pressure of their shot. Of course if the shooter has a "very" consistent draw and anchor point this effect should be lessened greatly. Out of my shooting machine I actually see very little variance if drawn equally (or close) for each draw cycle. So I guess it really depends on the bow as mine are pretty forgiving in this regard. 

I once shot next to another archer in a league that may have had the worst cam timing issue that I have ever seen. His cams had to be close to 1/2" off from stop to stop yet he shot at least his average that night. So maybe it really doesn't matter now that I think of it. My original statement was my opinion but it is subject to change.


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> So you can just throw a bow together, no adjusting anything?


As posted earlier in this thread, my old friend (Roger Dawson) said he stopped tuning his bow and just lined things up by eye because his scores didn't change. Roger was an excellent archer who had held many state and regional records in just about every style. I'm at a point all these years later agreeing with Roger. And I never said "Just throw the bow together", but I do believe "by eye" will get you to the podium.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> ....my old friend (Roger Dawson) said he stopped tuning his bow and just lined things up by eye because his scores didn't change. Roger was an excellent archer who had held many state and regional records in just about every style. I'm at a point all these years later agreeing with Roger. And I never said "Just throw the bow together", but I do believe "by eye" will get you to the podium.


With all due respect to you and your friend, here's someone that probably aught to be a bit better qualified suggesting that it's worth checking the tune (bareshaft) when arrows aren't necessarily landing as well as they're shot.
https://www.facebook.com/BowJunky/videos/1109530682460512/


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> As posted earlier in this thread, my old friend (Roger Dawson) said he stopped tuning his bow and just lined things up by eye because his scores didn't change. Roger was an excellent archer who had held many state and regional records in just about every style. I'm at a point all these years later agreeing with Roger. And I never said "Just throw the bow together", but I do believe "by eye" will get you to the podium.


There is timing and syncing cams, but then it's usually eye balled. I've eye balled center shot and came darn close and every so often close enough horizontal center shot didn't need messed with, but then I checked it by shooting short to long distance. I do like to know if how center shot is vertically and shoot through paper. I then group shoot and play with the rest or nocking point height to see the groups can be tightened. Still tuning.
Before acquiring all tools I've set up my bows right in my kitchen. 
And I've completely set up a bow I knew the timing correct on to compete in a 3D State Championship on the tailgate of my truck and took 2nd place. I forget how many shots I had on the practice range before the event, but a couple dozen shots. Sighting in I guessed pretty good, averaging and splitting to get enough numbers (sight frame) to get the 45 NFAA max yard distance. 

Before the faster bows came on I found it pretty easy to sight for 20 yards by setting the sight pin just to the outside of the string and measuring 3 3/8" up from the top of the arrow shaft. It's usually took me 2 to 3 shots to get in the bull's eye and then I've shot some X rings with the first shot. 
None of this means finer tuning isn't needed. I told of setting up my Hoyt ProElite. Timing set, center shot eyeballed, level for the arrow so vertical was guessed good. Right from the bow vice to the Indoor practice range. Witnesses there. Two shots to get in the bull's eye and ended with a 298 and good share of Xs (5 spot). Later checked the bow with short distance French tune procedure and never moved a thing. All was set that good. Distances shot in I never touched the bow as long as I owned it. I can't say this for other bows I've owned, but some proved good, just needing some tweaking.


----------



## EPLC

Sonny, what's the best arrow you've ever owned?


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Sonny, what's the best arrow you've ever owned?


If I follow where you're going, I'm curious about the results if you've spine/FLO tested X7 Aluminum vs Carbon?


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> If I follow where you're going, I'm curious about the results if you've spine/FLO tested X7 Aluminum vs Carbon?


I haven't run that test, mainly because I don't have any X7's to test. I do have some Platinum Plus 1816's and 2114's that I could possibly test. It depends on what I have on hand to hook up the laser. If I have inserts I can test them, if not I can't. Aluminum and carbon arrows are very different animals so it would be interesting to see if the FLO is there like carbon. My test is quite simple. I secure one end of the shaft in a drill chuck that is fixed into a stud in my cellar. I have an adaptor that holds the laser that is attached to the other end of the arrow. I tap the arrow with my finger in a vertical motion to get it going up and down in a straight line. If the line remains straight throughout the cycle I determine this to be the FLO side. I mark this side with a silver magic marker. If the straight line begins to oscillate and go in a circular motion I'm not there. Once the FLO has been determined I reposition the arrow to the other end and test. The object is to get both ends with matching FLO. It's really a trial and error process but I've gotten pretty good at it. My test did show a slight improvement in long range grouping over the same shaft that was not FLO tested. I actually should re-test after cutting the FLO tested arrows to 25.5" as the ones I tested were 27". Since my tests tested the same arrow with lengths from 25.5 to 29" without changing group size I doubt it will make a difference but I should test apples to apples to be sure.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Hard to say, but I'll give a run down of things. And remember, I shoot 3D now and 40 yards is my max ASA distance....

For what I've shot, the old Carbon Express CX300 Selects were great for 3D and a bit of Indoor. CE CXLs came out and I was one of the first to get 
them in our area. I used them for everything, placed and won in all venues, club, NFAA and ASA. I've used all the CXL 250 from CXL 250, 250-2, Spine Select and Pro 250s. I switched to CXL Pro 150s with lesser draw weight, but faster bow. A change at Carbon Express and upping prices I tried Victories and they were okay. Bart came up with Harvest Time Archery. They proved as good CXLs, maybe better. These were the ones I tried to get some reaction to spine that I posted of (80 gr points up to 192 grs). Bart sold to Muddy Outdoors. Muddy carried HTAs as Virtues. Jared Mills set me up with the HT Virtues, hand selected two dozen of them for me. I'm on the last dozen just this past week. I checked them for straightness and couldn't find any run out in 9 of them and 3 had just enough to make my indicator flicker. I'm testing them right now, 5 with 80 gr points and 4 with 100 gr points. So far the 5 with 80 gr points are giving X accuracy back to 35 yards. Sad thing is, Blood Sport came about out Muddy Outdoors and split off and the Virtues or equivalent are no long made. 
It's so hot and humid here my testing is coming slow. Yesterday, I soaked 3 t-shirts. Another problem, my eyes became sensitive sometime back and sweat makes them burn. Just looked at the thermometer on the deck, 96 degrees at 8:46 am.

Another arrow on hand and waiting for pin bushings are a dozen Deer Crossing Archery Target Series in .500 spine (.350" in diameter). I got a half dozen from DCA to test when Jeremy Blackmon was with Bart. Jeremy is now with High Country Archery. That they have prove good for 3D I got a full dozen. Bart had new pin bushings come in that proved excessively heavy, 27 grs. He isn't happy one bit. The new ones are supposed to be about 16 grs. Suggested if needing quick was the Gold Tip Nine.3 pin bushing, 15.5 grs. 12 grs may not seem all that much, but when using 80 gr glue-in points and a FOC of 6.04 12 grs on the back end is a bunch.
My present 2016 target bow is maxed at 50 pounds and I need light to get a decent 280 fps. 

If I was to shoot Field or Outdoor again I'd try something different.


----------



## EPLC

So, you generally shoot mid-range arrows at distances of 50 yards or less. Here's a test for you to perform and post up the results.

With your bow tuned to the best of your ability shoot ten 5 arrow ends at 35 yards starting with a new target face. Post up a picture of your first end and your last. Repeat at 50 yards with another new face.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> ... My test is quite simple. I secure one end of the shaft in a drill chuck that is fixed into a stud in my cellar. I have an adaptor that holds the laser that is attached to the other end of the arrow. I tap the arrow with my finger in a vertical motion to get it going up and down in a straight line. If the line remains straight throughout the cycle I determine this to be the FLO side. I mark this side with a silver magic marker. If the straight line begins to oscillate and go in a circular motion I'm not there. Once the FLO has been determined I reposition the arrow to the other end and test. The object is to get both ends with matching FLO. It's really a trial and error process but I've gotten pretty good at it.


I'm moderately interested in trying this for my own purposes. Two questions
1) Do you re-position the arrow in the chuck, or turn the chuck. I would not expect "FLO" plane to be the same when a 3 jaw chuck was contacting the arrow at the 0/120/240 degree positions as when the chuck jaws are at 90/210/330
2) Is there a reason FLO test would be adversely affected if performed while the shaft was vertical? (ie shaft chucked in free standing drill press with the laser projected onto the floor/drill base)


----------



## SonnyThomas

Hey, with heat and humidity. Ten 5 arrow ends is 50 shots. Heat let's up and I'll give it a go. I like shooting when it's a lot cooler.

Spoke with Dave earlier. Weekend is to continue hot and humid for the ASA State Championship. Dave wants to go down and stay overnight two nights. He says we can shoot 15 targets Saturday and 15 targets Sunday so to bear the heat (I think more to it is the humidity). I told him I wasn't going if the heat continues. Last ASA Qualifier two weeks ago in this kind of heat took us 4 hours and 15 minutes to shoot 30 targets. I don't know how a I survived to place 2nd. Right after, blood sugar way down, I chewed up 3 candy bars before I got a blood reading of 100 (100 to 130 said to be good).

Last three days haven't been good. Blood Sugar readings of 54 (felt like I was going to pass out), 70 (shaking good), and 86 yesterday is about border line for me to develop the shakes. Me and my doctor have locked horns. He had me up on 2000 mi. of Met and 5.0 of Glipz. I've cut it back to 500 met, 2.5 Glipz and still my blood drops below 100...


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> I'm moderately interested in trying this for my own purposes. Two questions
> 1) Do you re-position the arrow in the chuck, or turn the chuck. I would not expect "FLO" plane to be the same when a 3 jaw chuck was contacting the arrow at the 0/120/240 degree positions as when the chuck jaws are at 90/210/330
> 2) Is there a reason FLO test would be adversely affected if performed while the shaft was vertical? (ie shaft chucked in free standing drill press with the laser projected onto the floor/drill base)


1) Yes, the chuck is in a permanent rigid position. So yes, I turn the arrow. 
2) I don't see why it couldn't be done in the vertical. 

There's nothing scientific about my process. I just hit it with my finger and read the movement by eye. The key is to hit it as square as possible to get a good vertical (or horizontal) line. If the line stays true throughout the cycle I have found my FLO. If it degrades into kind of a circle I move to another spot. If I get a good straight line to start with the pattern will repeat nicely. Sometimes it takes one or more additional hits to get a good starting point. I'll take some pictures of my setup and post them here shortly.

Shortly later: The laser goes inside of the adaptor in order to hold the button down. The laser is a cat toy purchased at Wal Mart.


----------



## AKDoug

nestly said:


> With all due respect to you and your friend, here's someone that probably aught to be a bit better qualified suggesting that it's worth checking the tune (bareshaft) when arrows aren't necessarily landing as well as they're shot.
> https://www.facebook.com/BowJunky/videos/1109530682460512/


And I'll counter with Chance's BowJunky video.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbI6z_OdLE or you could go watch GRIV's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Io7DuHtB4 or Reo's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fdmwj9kWSI

Pretty much all these guys claim to paper tune, then head to "group" tuning.


----------



## nestly

AKDoug said:


> And I'll counter with Chance's BowJunky video.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhbI6z_OdLE or you could go watch GRIV's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Io7DuHtB4 or Reo's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fdmwj9kWSI
> 
> Pretty much all these guys claim to paper tune, then head to "group" tuning.


Counter? Seems to me we're in agreement because they all "tune" a bow, just with somewhat different procedures. The premise of this topic is that "tuning" doesn't matter, whether it be bareshaft, paper, french, or whatever... and that would seem to be "counter" to what Jesse, Levi, Reo, Chance, Cousins and just about every other significant archer would say. Personally, I don't believe any one tuning method is "best", but any tuning method is better than none at all.


----------



## EPLC

And the experts of their time also believed the world was flat. Other voodoo falls in here as well. How much has been written by the experts about no hand manipulated back tension being the method of firing a bow? Now many of the pros say that's not what they do. Bows repeat and good arrows go where they are pointed.


----------



## SonnyThomas

The real problem with anything is the internet and AT has too much to give and making it hard to accept what really works and what really doesn't work, Pro or no Pro. Yep, one Pro might say this the best way and another Pro may say this is the best way. Two threads were running in General Discussion, one was of "clocking" by Donnie Thacker (Lancaster tip) and the other of which way to fletch due to the which way the bow string was twisted. Big discussion ensued for "clocking" and for the bow string came the well noted Crackers and his claim of fletching as to how the arrow came off the string, now deemed "clocking." Fletching to the way the bare shaft arrow coming out of the bow was brought up a ways back (can't remember when exactly). Already a long story, but shorten it here is; "Arrow accuracy and grouping is said to be far greater if fletching to the way the bare shaft arrow turns coming out of the bow. ontarget7, well respected bare shaft tuner, enters with he can't see any accuracy difference whether left or right fletched. 
Several of us tested to see which way the bare shaft arrow turned coming out of our bows. Almost foot for foot it was 17 feet in controlled atmosphere (inside my garage) that I got less than 1/2 revolution of my arrow. Another commented he got near the same as I did. Less than 1/2 revolution over 17 feet tells me there isn't any real force here. And I seriously doubt I'm that good to tell if accuracy and grouping would improve if I did fletch left instead of right.
And against this is major arrow companies fletch right, not left.

EPLC is going with FLO. Long thread on this about a year ago. There was spine indexing, FLO and something else and however they testing golf. The arrow shaft was broken down in segments (you'd have to read) where you wondered which damn way you were to fletch to the spine.
I had a arrow tech tell me fletching to the blemish line would give me good results. I've already posted picture in here of 35,60 and 80 yards where I fletched to however the arrow fell in the jig. 3 arrows in a dot slightly bigger than a quarter at 60 yards. Fletching to blemish more or less gave me confidence and that I've excellent accuracy I've stayed with it.
Floating arrows was ripped, but then floating arrows had seemed to work in the past for many. I floated some arrows, Absolute 22s. I tested those in the dead of winter, about 24 degrees, and before any more testing I had the accident. I got to shoot two three shot groups before I was froze out and arrows touched at 20 yards. Thanks to here, I just remember I was also given 1/2 dozen Absolute 19s that I have never got around to testing. More damn work 

Just a bit back in here EPLC related of maybe trying Torque Tuning. Tim Gillingham and Jesse Broadwater says it works. Reo Wilde said he couldn't tell any difference. Who do you believe? I tried it, posted in here of it and it works. EPLC is going to find whatever and that's what he is going to believe.

Not along ago I posted of a bent riser bow in I/A. Posted pictures of how far things were. I tuned it to what it was showing and still shot near 1" groups back to 30 yards with arrows that were fletched to the blemish line. I later tried 45 yards and it still had near X ring accuracy on a NFAA 5 spot bull's eye.

Paper tuning. Lord! New bow, things not going right, I paper tuned with nothing on the bow and got those magic bullet holes. Really didn't think and later, bow with stabs, weighted just so and sight frame, I shot through paper and was floored by nightmare results. So I deducted real quick that if I changed stabs and weights I better be checking. 

Again, everything archery seems to be based on personal preference. To this I'd add, whatever a individual finds that he likes (his proof) is what he's going to stay with regardless of any claim or even real absolute proof. The other part of the puzzle is whoever is somewhere else and we are here. So it's not one-on-one.


----------



## bigHUN

a flo test is better then nothing
you find the two neutral sides and the two stiff sides, and that is it. and then what side (or plane to call it as you wish) you will chose for the first vane?
Also, have you tried a chuck hollow through like a lathe chuck? If you would clamp your arrows on different length would show you something else you would'nt want to see? 
Just FYI most arrow tubes (but not alll of them) have two week sides but both not the same stiffness value; and two stiff sides and these also not the same stiffness value. I have tested under load, I could measure, I know why is that and I am telling you this now. I sad not all of them, I ran into some shafts during my play those had one stiff + week sides and vsr.
You take it as you wish
I've built my testing fixture something similar to RAM tester, let say further upgraded the PAPS
I have seen several threads here @ AT, I was in conversation with guys, the flow testing can work with golf clubs, but as is for now that machine they talking about does not apply fully to arrows. I offered them upgrading that machine but many things are involved beside the money so I left the conversation.
How I know?
I am a R&D products mechanical engineer/designer and contacting for a large science company, designing instruments, have access to any kind of testing machines + softwares you can imagine in the world  all people some scientist around me also the fellaw sitting right beside me is a FEA guru. 
Anyway, just FYI, the flo test is half job only, way better results you can get from RAM or that direction where you can physically measure things.


----------



## EPLC

I have a question to all of the "human factor" tuning proponents. If an arrow group can not be reduced by bow tuning when shot from a machine, how can putting that same bow and arrow combination in the hands of a much less consistent human be improved on with additional tuning? Please be specific on what rules apply here. What would be the specific process? And if you simply list all of the tuning procedures that are taught by the pros I'm going to call a foul. Why? Think about it.


----------



## AKDoug

nestly said:


> Counter? Seems to me we're in agreement because they all "tune" a bow, just with somewhat different procedures. The premise of this topic is that "tuning" doesn't matter, whether it be bareshaft, paper, french, or whatever... and that would seem to be "counter" to what Jesse, Levi, Reo, Chance, Cousins and just about every other significant archer would say. Personally, I don't believe any one tuning method is "best", but any tuning method is better than none at all.


It was the bareshaft thing that you highlighted that got me going. Not one of those guys mention bareshaft tuning.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Well, right now EPLC has discovered that the actual problem is that science and understanding it, doesn't compete with the opinions of people who don't know jack, but can put arrows together on a target. 

However, he is actually repeating what actual science and testing has discovered. 

That's the fun thing about science. You don't have to believe in it for it to be correct. A lot of articles are written by archers for archers. This doesn't actually prove anything except that archers will believe better archers.


----------



## hrtlnd164

So if you Creep tune your hybrid system to help negate the effects of high/low impacts due to the ARCHER (not a machine) pulling in to the wall at different rates; is this not an effective tuning procedure due to human involvement?? Has this not been proven to tighten groups? When distance group/arrow tuning, can you find better groups by tiny L/R or up/down rest adjustments? 
A few days and a shooting machine and you are ready to dis-prove everything that has ever been used to create a better group. In the pictures that you put up in this thread, the first group that you physically shot you said the first couple arrows were very low and you adjusted and finished the group. Why were those arrows low? Was it because they were inferior or less quality arrows or was it because you were influencing the grip differently than your machine? 
Why do we torque tune rests? Because it negates some human error and tightens groups.. Then we fine tune that by torque tuning the sight. Believe what you want but in my opinion that machine isn't disproving much of the history of archery...


----------



## ontarget7

To answer the question

Of coarse the bow will group better when tuned properly. 

You have to impart the human element since bow and shooter go hand in hand


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bplayer405

EPLC, I firmly believe tuning is done for the archer. Same bow and arrows in the hands of 3 different archers will have a different poi for various reasons. Differing grip pressures, facial contact, pressure into the wall, shoulder and arm geometry and how much physical movement upon release are just a few reasons poi will change. Tuning can be done to the bow for each of these areas to achieve the same poi because of the influence each has on the bow altering the path of the arrow. The tuning may be minute and a bareshaft would show the need of tuning more readily. 

I can eyeball a "new to me bow" and set it up as well if not better than any bow shop and get the bow ready to shoot. I can make sure dw is up to par, time and sync cams and set dl. But, until I shoot an arrow through the bow I don't know how the arrow will fly or if it'll have any contact during the process. I choose to shoot bareshafts first at around 5 yds to check flight and tune the bow accordingly. I nock index all my bareshafts through paper so I know my bareshafts fly true. (I've found .001 straightness, zero runout shafts still need this done.) Then I'll bareshaft tune out to 20 -30yds. I find that when I can tune my bows to shoot a bareshaft perfectly at distance everything is lined up and the most forgiving. (I remember an earlier post about torque tuning; try it because you will see a difference. My rests are set way back from the shelf.)

Why do I tune the way I do? Results. I'm no pro by a long shot, but my groups are less than an inch per 10 yds with my hunting bows. We all approach tuning our equipment from different points of view. But, to scoff at or dismiss tuning as voodoo is pretty antiquated. It definitely works and has its place. But, to each, their own and good luck.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## SonnyThomas

bplayer405 said:


> EPLC, I firmly believe tuning is done for the archer. Same bow and arrows in the hands of 3 different archers will have a different poi for various reasons. Differing grip pressures, facial contact, pressure into the wall, shoulder and arm geometry and how much physical movement upon release are just a few reasons poi will change. Tuning can be done to the bow for each of these areas to achieve the same poi because of the influence each has on the bow altering the path of the arrow. The tuning may be minute and a bareshaft would show the need of tuning more readily.


I've had several people shoot my bows. Didn't matter the bow brand, but I didn't see the need of tuning so much as I did see that the bow needed sighted in. TY, ASA Senior Pro, shot a couple of my bows and he consistently shot high and right. I mean, arrow smacking high and right. DH, side kick of mine, shot my MarXman at the last 3D target at this our regular club event. He hit the deer target low and right. Aiming at the 14 ring he put 3 arrows almost dead center in the ten ring. DP, a S3DA team leader now, shot my ProElite and shot consistently low and left on a 5 spot, but all grouped darn tight. We put his sight on the ProElite, only sighted in and drilled the X ring 3 or 4 times. We made the trade he wanted. He later told me he never moved a thing, only sighted in for more distances.


----------



## EPLC

bplayer405 said:


> EPLC, I firmly believe tuning is done for the archer. Same bow and arrows in the hands of 3 different archers will have a different poi for various reasons. Differing grip pressures, facial contact, pressure into the wall, shoulder and arm geometry and how much physical movement upon release are just a few reasons poi will change. Tuning can be done to the bow for each of these areas to achieve the same poi because of the influence each has on the bow altering the path of the arrow. The tuning may be minute and a bareshaft would show the need of tuning more readily.
> 
> I can eyeball a "new to me bow" and set it up as well if not better than any bow shop and get the bow ready to shoot. I can make sure dw is up to par, time and sync cams and set dl. But, until I shoot an arrow through the bow I don't know how the arrow will fly or if it'll have any contact during the process. I choose to shoot bareshafts first at around 5 yds to check flight and tune the bow accordingly. I nock index all my bareshafts through paper so I know my bareshafts fly true. (I've found .001 straightness, zero runout shafts still need this done.) Then I'll bareshaft tune out to 20 -30yds. I find that when I can tune my bows to shoot a bareshaft perfectly at distance everything is lined up and the most forgiving. (I remember an earlier post about torque tuning; try it because you will see a difference. My rests are set way back from the shelf.)
> 
> Why do I tune the way I do? Results. I'm no pro by a long shot, but my groups are less than an inch per 10 yds with my hunting bows. We all approach tuning our equipment from different points of view. But, to scoff at or dismiss tuning as voodoo is pretty antiquated. It definitely works and has its place. But, to each, their own and good luck.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


I believe what you are describing would be addressed with a simple sight setting for each archer. Of course this assume that each has the same DL requirements, etc. Introducing human inconsistencies to the process only serves to degrade a repeatable system. To assume there is some magical tuning process that will make a perfectly repeatable system better in the hands of the shooter than it was in a machine is what I like to call voodoo. To discount the findings discovered when shooting from a machine because you can't introduce human error is... well not very reasonable. 

That said, I believe there is a lot of carryover from the days of old where the technology of the day included a much cruder archery bow. Those big valley cams are just no longer an issue. These old bows needed creep tuning due to the big range of the valley. With todays solid wall technology tuning has become less critical. Up until recently I believed tuning was very important (I certainly have spent 1000's of hours working on it) but now after seeing with my own eyes the lack of impact on arrow grouping I have serious doubts. I now believe this is more about mind soothing than actual "forgiveness". The fact remains that my group size did not change after fine tuning methods were applied. This was true for both the machine shot groups and the freehand groups shot by me.


----------



## ontarget7

You see it all the time

Some bows when put into a hooter shooter will require way more pre lean to get them to tune. Then take that same bow in the hands of an archer and you will probably see far less pre lean. 

Don't tune the bow just by good arrows and let me know how Broadheads perform ? 
To imply that tuning doesn't matter, well let's just say I beg to differ. 

When things aren't right and you have a tail left or right, not perfectly tuned and you then put it in the hands of an archer the problems then become compounded. 
Broadheads will be all over the place and just repeatably bad at varying distances. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> To discount the findings discovered when shooting from a machine because you can't introduce human error is... well not very reasonable.


No, what's unreasonable is to assume that the sum off all the pieces is equal to the assembled shooting system (ie bow/arrow/archer)

You cannot replace the human with a shooting machine and claim the test results would be the same either way.

I can't imagine what must have affected you so severely that you think Pro's and other archers who've been doing this for years are lying about being able to improve their groups by fine tuning their setup.


----------



## EPLC

Ok, since nobody seems to want to define a process let me ask another question. 

What ca I expect from fine tuning a bow to me? Will my scores improve as a result?


----------



## EPLC

Also, wouldn't it be more effective training the archer to behave more like the machine than trying to tune the bow to behave like the archer?


----------



## grantmac

For me torque and creep tuning have tangible benefits once you start throwing in angled shots and fatigue. To the point where torque tuning is the first actual non-eyeballed step in my process. Then I'll do French tuning just to get everything hitting inline.

I don't have a shooting machine at this point so creep tuning is rather subjective.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Also, wouldn't it be more effective training the archer to behave more like the machine than trying to tune the bow to behave like the archer?


All say that the shooter, worded one way or another, must do everything the same for each and every shot. So, yeah, archer behaving machine like is good. Haven't read of where anyone said "tuning the bow to behave like the archer." 

I figure "fitting" a bow to the archer is part of tuning. Adding weights to stabilizers is tuning, but then also making the bow to behave for the archer's needs.


----------



## ontarget7

EPLC said:


> Also, wouldn't it be more effective training the archer to behave more like the machine than trying to tune the bow to behave like the archer?


This is a very good question and one that a lot will differ on. 

Me personally it's a combo to both that will yield you the best possible forgiveness out of your bow. Some bows will not tune to their full potential due to an archer not wanting to make slight changes to get the most out of it. In these cases you will be limited to how much forgiveness one can actually achieve. 

Now when you have the tune of the bow, arrows and archer working together, then you find that sweet spot in forgiveness for a particular bow. 

This is why some will shoot certain bows better than others since they don't account for the possibility of small changes to the archer. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly

I would be curious to see what happens to arrows shot from bows of various states of tune in a crosswind.
Does a bow with a hard tail left tune drift off of target the same in a left to right wind as a right to left wind?
I can see there being a difference there for the less tuned arrows.

Broadheads were mentioned earlier. For a hunter that uses fixed heads, this is going to be an issue... but I have seen many simply adjust their sights and be successful.
Here, we're generally not concerned with broadhead flight.

I've said before, I don't think fine tuning does much to group size, but I think for something like 3-D shooting, an arrow with very poor flight will lose speed faster than a well tuned one. Will that matter inside of 40 yards? Maybe.

I don't buy into "clocking", and the only torque tuning I might do is with the sight, not the rest.
For now, I still tune my bows for the following physical reasons (or suspected reasons)
Cross wind flight. Groups might still be the same size but possibly more sensitive to wind from one direction or the other.

Minimizing effects of imperfect arrows. If they are shot as perfectly straight as possible, inconsistencies between arrows is less of a concern.


Not having the exact set up to test,I can't say for sure why, but I will say that I have had a situation where I was shooting wide groups, and that went away when I moved the rest a small amount.

To get a more definitive answer, more bows in various states of tune need to be tested, and get repeatable, reproducible results.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Will my scores improve as a result?


Not necessarily.... If for example, someone can only aim well enough to hit a pie plate, "tuning" probably isn't going to make them group any better.... nor would that person benefit from shooting X10 or ProTours over $3 dollar Wal-mart arrows.

It's often been said that the purpose of tuning isn't to improve well executed shots, it's to minimize the damage when shot execution is less than ideal. I shoot a large percentage of shots that are "less than ideal shots, so yes, if there's anything that can make the bow more "forgiving" then it will improve my score. Similarly, Broadwater, Wilde, Morgan, etc shoot a low percentage of poorly executed shots, but their margin of error is much less, so once again, any degree of "forgivingness" that can be found through tuning is still to their benefit.


----------



## bplayer405

SonnyThomas said:


> I've had several people shoot my bows. Didn't matter the bow brand, but I didn't see the need of tuning so much as I did see that the bow needed sighted in. TY, ASA Senior Pro, shot a couple of my bows and he consistently shot high and right. I mean, arrow smacking high and right. DH, side kick of mine, shot my MarXman at the last 3D target at this our regular club event. He hit the deer target low and right. Aiming at the 14 ring he put 3 arrows almost dead center in the ten ring. DP, a S3DA team leader now, shot my ProElite and shot consistently low and left on a 5 spot, but all grouped darn tight. We put his sight on the ProElite, only sighted in and drilled the X ring 3 or 4 times. We made the trade he wanted. He later told me he never moved a thing, only sighted in for more distances.


Quick question. Was these other shooters using your arrows or theirs when they shot your bow?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> No, what's unreasonable is to assume that the sum off all the pieces is equal to the assembled shooting system (ie bow/arrow/archer)
> 
> You cannot replace the human with a shooting machine and claim the test results would be the same either way.
> 
> I can't imagine what must have affected you so severely that you think Pro's and other archers who've been doing this for years are lying about being able to improve their groups by fine tuning their setup.


1. That's exactly what I did and my test results are what they are. My machine and I have seen no measurable improvement in group size as a result of cleaning up either center shot or arrow flight. 
2. Fortunately, I'm not severely affected, just posting the results of my tests. I like testing things and challenging the status quo, and have found that you may get some interesting answers when you are not afraid to step out of the box. Using this "out of the box" line of thinking provided me a nice living over a long period of time working with people that appreciated this line of thought. 

And I must point out that I'm still the only one contributing to this thread that has provided any actual testing results. Everything else has been nothing but subjective opinion with nothing solid to back it up. "My groups got smaller", even if you actually believe it, isn't proof, it's opinion that has not been measured. It's kind of like asking what someone's average is. Usually you'll get an answer that is subjective. If you tune your bow and the groups get smaller then I suggest it is no more than an improvement in confidence. Not saying this is a bad thing as this aspect is one that I do know actually works... but I also know it has little or nothing to do with the actual tune of the bow. If anything improves my confidence it is a good thing, real or imagined doesn't matter so long as the confidence goes up. 

Now we are hearing that tuning only works above a certain skill level? While I do agree with this to a certain extent, where is the line drawn to gain benefit from this forgiveness tuning? (which no one has actually put a good definition on yet).


----------



## ontarget7

I don't by that tuning only works above a certain skill level. 

This makes zero sense and I have had plenty of customers at all levels that would say otherwise. 

I'm actually scratching my head that some would actually think tuning is not important


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> My machine and *I* have seen no measurable improvement in group size as a result of cleaning up either center shot or arrow flight.


Put some large fixed blade broadheads on the arrows and test the "I" part again with your bow in various states of "tune".


----------



## Mahly

Would this do anything other than confirm broadheads can affect arrow flight?


----------



## bplayer405

nestly said:


> Put some large fixed blade broadheads on the arrows and test the "I" part again with your bow in various states of "tune".


That's too funny! We know fletchings over compensate so well with just field points. It's why the out of tune bows don't get crazy with groupings. I do know how to add some "voodoo" and have EPLC most likely improve the groups he's seeing from both himself and his machine. That is, if he isn't already practicing this "voodoo". I talked about it in post #166.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

Mahly said:


> Would this do anything other than confirm broadheads can affect arrow flight?


Why would broadheads affect arrow flight? (rhetorical) Broadheads affect arrow flight most when the tail of the arrow is not following the same path as the point.


----------



## Mahly

I just don't see it being relevant. Unless you're shooting broadheads in competition, does it matter how they fly?
Yes, they are great at indicating the state of tune, but if state of tune doesn't affect fletched arrows with field/target points, who cares?


----------



## EPLC

What the hell do broad-heads have to do with any part of this conversation? Why don't we just put a propeller on the front of the arrow and see how it flies? Has anyone actually come up with an answer to my questions? No, they haven't because you cannot quantify "forgiveness". 

So I shoot a really nice group out to 80 yards and repeat this over and over out of my machine. I repeat with arrows of different lengths. My bow has a 1/2" right tear and the arrows are fishtailing. So I change the tune of the bow to provide a clean bullet hole through paper which cleans up the arrow flight and center shot issues. Oops, same grouping. Add to this the fact that I have been shooting this setup for a while now and understand the groups I was getting, which I might say were impressive (when I executed well). So now I shoot the bow freehand and still get the same grouping that I was getting before straightening out the tuning issues. I didn't even have to make a new sight tape. 

To add to the evidence: In addition to shooting the X-Impacts at different lengths (same size groups) I then shot groups with two different arrow sizes, ACG 540 and 1816 aluminum. The groups for these arrows were not as good as the X-Impacts. The grouping for the aluminums was about the size of a soccer ball. 

So now I have several tests that all point to the arrow actually being the critical factor, not tuning. You would think I was a flag burner.


----------



## SonnyThomas

bplayer405 said:


> Quick question. Was these other shooters using your arrows or theirs when they shot your bow?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Mine. I would also add the time I tried field14's 30X Gold Tips in my bow. Way heavier (short of a ton), thicker (logs), but they shot accurately, just low and left at 7:00 or so right on the edge of each bull's eye (5 shots).


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> What the hell do broad-heads have to do with any part of this conversation?


I went back and re-read the premise in your original post.... I do not find any stipulations or restrictions regarding point type or point weight. To that end, in addition to broadheads. I'll put out there that arrows with lighter FOC are probably more sensitive to "tune" than arrows with higher FOC.

What exactly is your opposition to including broadheads in this discussion? The gold standard for broadhead flight is when broadheads and field points impact the same place, and this can certainly be accomplished with adequate "tuning", so it seems fairly logical that if "tune" does matter for a broadhead tipped arrow, then it also does matters for an arrow tipped with a field point. Conversely, if "tune" does not matter for one, then it should not matter for the other either. After all, did you not say on multiple occasions that 



EPLC said:


> Bows repeat and good arrows go where they are pointed


We're not changing the bow, so is there no such thing as a "good" arrow when a broadhead is affixed instead of a field point?


----------



## Mahly

If you have a virtual zero steering input with field points, and significant steering input from broadheads (look up canards on airplanes... There is a reason most planes don't use them). I can see why tuning would matter for one and not the other... or at least would not matter to any significant (if measurable) level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

But why would the blades not "steer" consistently. If what EPLC is claiming is true, then there should be no difference in group size between a broadhead tipped arrow that shoots a "bullet" through paper, and one that tears 1" (or more) holes. Group size should be the same, only the POI should change.

Missles and rockets often incorporate canards, so it's not true that they deteriorate accuracy, if that's the implication, but they probably do wreak havoc if/when the projectile starts spinning off it's axis.

Whether field or broadhead, when an arrow is leaving a the bow fishtailing and/or porpoising, it's exposing it's side profile. The more it's wobbling, the more of it's profile it's exposing, and it's not linear either. 2 degrees exposes more than twice as much profile to the wind as 1 degree. The more it's wobbling, the longer it takes to stabilize. I just don't see how anyone can reasonably claim a projectile won't be more accurate the earlier it's becomes stabilized in it's flight, and a bow that's shoots a bullet certainly stabilizes quicker than one that shoots a tear.


----------



## EPLC

Simply put, broad heads only serve to distract from the topic.


----------



## nestly

....or you just want to exclude them from the discussion because they expose a great big hole in your theory...


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> And I must point out that I'm still the only one contributing to this thread that has provided any actual testing results.


Well, that's just it. You haven't proved anything that most of us have already found or learned. Think about it. Your actual testing is what you've found and mostly with a shooting machine. I've provided pictures of results of French tuning and torque tuning, but you've denied them with talking of testing for yourself or "Torque tuning "may" have some benefit, assuming it works. I personally haven't tested that one yet."

Yep, you can have something of a out of tuned bow that will group great. I've done it several times and have done so with couple of other different tuning procedures. I could very well sight in for bull's eye accuracy and then the great group would be off for some other shorter or longer distance.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> ....or you just want to exclude them from the discussion because they expose a great big hole in your theory...


No they do not. To place an object on the front of an arrow that interrupts air flow adds another dynamic to the equation that is outside the topic at hand. I personally do not spend a lot of time tuning my hunting setup for broad heads. I shoot 4" helical vanes which in most cases eliminate any flight issues... But that's another topic, one that belongs someplace other than a target archery forum.


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> Well, that's just it. You haven't proved anything that most of us have already found or learned. Think about it. Your actual testing is what you've found and mostly with a shooting machine. I've provided pictures of results of French tuning and torque tuning, but you've denied them with talking of testing for yourself or "Torque tuning "may" have some benefit, assuming it works. I personally haven't tested that one yet."
> 
> Yep, you can have something of a out of tuned bow that will group great. I've done it several times and have done so with couple of other different tuning procedures. I could very well sight in for bull's eye accuracy and then the great group would be off for some other shorter or longer distance.


One or two twenty year old pictures of singular groups that you've been posting over and over on this forum doesn't constitute as a test, and certainly hasn't proven anything. Most of what you have contributed has been your version of what someone else claims.


----------



## duc

So people want to throw broadhead planing into a target forum to distract from the discussion. How many of you actually know the PHYSICS of arrow flight. How many of you actually know what influence ANYTHING has on an arrow after it has left the string. Tuning beyond any more then rudimentary is a waste of time.


----------



## ontarget7

Take Broadheads out of the equation and you still have poor results from what you would have from a tuned bow. 

I'm amazed that some can not comprehend this. 

My down range groups open up without question when my bow is out of tune. 
Ever been to a FITA shoot and notice arrow flight ? It's always a fun thing to observe. Somehow it's never the guys that have their arrows cork screwing down range that seem to win. I wonder why 

Now you take a 20 yard game at one distance and you have the shooter, arrows and archer doing the exact same thing every time, yes you can have great results. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## duc

People can't repeat over and over like a machine so they make excuses. IF YOU DON'T RELEASE THE ARROW WHEN ITS IN THE CENTRE IT WON'T DAMN WELL GO IN THE CENTRE. AND NO AMOUNT OF "TUNING" WILL MAKE IT. YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD SHOOTER??? PRACTICE BEING LIKE A HOOTER SHOOTER. WHEN YOU CAN AIM AND HOLD STEADY, WHEN YOU RELEASE THE ARROW WITHOUT ANY OTHER AFFLICTION THEN THE ARROW GOES WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO. PHYSICS DICTATES IT WILL. NINTY PERCENT OF PEOPLE KILL THEMSELVES WITH "TUNING" AND WASTE VALUABLE PRACTICE TIME. 
TUNING IS SUCH AN OVERRATED EXCERSIZE.


----------



## ontarget7

I'm sorry, some of you guys are lost


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

I have tuned thousands of bows over the years from people I have never met in person and I get thousands of text messages and emails from people I have never met. All saying how much tighter they group down range. So it's definitely not my own personal test that gives me my view points. 

This is people on all levels of the spectrum

I'm still amazed how one can come to this conclusion 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> One or two twenty year old pictures of singular groups that you've been posting over and over on this forum doesn't constitute as a test, and certainly hasn't proven anything. Most of what you have contributed has been your version of what someone else claims.


 I haven't been shooting twenty years. Hell, I never saw a 3D until late 1999. Never shot a paper event until 2001. I never had access to a computer or owned a computer until September of 2006 nor did I own a camera that allowed computer use for the time or maybe even 2007. So any Frenching pictures are mostly 2010 to today. I know the most recent is of 2014 to today. Most can be verified by looking the arrows. Harvest Time Archery arrows came out when? Muddy Outdoors Virtue arrows came out when? The Absolute arrows came out when? Deer Crossing Archery arrows came out when?
Most everything I've commmented about I've done or tested. You come with your test and everybody else in world is wrong....


----------



## duc

ontarget7 said:


> I'm sorry, some of you guys are lost
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/
> 
> 
> ontarget7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, some of you guys are lost
> 
> Really. Tell me what happens to the arrow the moment it leaves the string, what the point weight is doing, how it may or may not steer the arrow and why it does so. What influence the vanes have and IF they steer the arrow and why you think they steer an arrow. Tell me it terms of science and physics what influences the path of the arrow when it leaves the string. Not what you THINK it does, what it REALLY does. Tell me why when the arrow leaves the string with constant reparation ( read shooting machine) that it hits the target with boring repetition in the centre. If it comes out of the bow the same then it will land in the same place.
Click to expand...


----------



## whiz-Oz

The biggest problem is that there are a majority of archers who like to believe that opinions are as good as facts. And that other people's opinions will back up theirs and be better than facts. 

If you aren't using a shooting machine to examine how consistent arrows group, then you are introducing your own variability into the equation. 

I'll say it again for those of you who are a bit slow. 

If you are holding the bow, your results are not reliable. 

If you're not recording your results and considering the good and bad shots, your results are not reliable. 

And, here's the kicker. You guys WILL EVENTUALLY be proven wrong in the passage of time. So please leave all you comments up here and remember to be gracious.


----------



## bplayer405

ontarget7 said:


> I'm sorry, some of you guys are lost
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Shane, I'll give you the utmost praise and respect for helping me become a better archer by teaching me how to tune my equipment through your posts in various other threads. I guess my newness to archery helped me keep an open mind as I learned about and tried all the tips, tricks and techniques I came across. Only one way to know if something works right? Try it. No, I don't have written, picture or video proof of all the testing and trials I've done. It's called personal experience. If it worked for me it should work for others, or so you would believe. Not everyone is willing or open minded enough to explore though. I have a good friend who drives me nuts by holding his pin more and more to the left the further out he goes to hit a target. It's good enough for him, so I have to let it be. His mind is closed to tuning and that's it.

Honestly, it's good to know there's people who share this thinking in competition because I definitely want to get involved in it. I'll be acquiring a target setup shortly...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

Eighty yards Un-Tuned, Tuned and Freehand (The green nocked arrows are someone else's)


----------



## EPLC

60 yards un-tuned condition. The 3 arrows with the black nocks were 3 1/2" longer than the one's in the X. Of those 3 the high arrow showed this to be a consent fro as short as 15 yards.


----------



## EPLC

After shooting at 80 yards from two different bows with center shot issues and arrow flight issues I shot these at 6 feet (if I remember correctly) with the 80 yard sight setting. So much for French or walk-back tuning. After tuning the center-shot and paper tear this result repeated.


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> I have tuned thousands of bows over the years from people I have never met in person and I get thousands of text messages and emails from people I have never met. All saying how much tighter they group down range. So it's definitely not my own personal test that gives me my view points.
> 
> This is people on all levels of the spectrum
> 
> I'm still amazed how one can come to this conclusion
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And how much of a financial hit would you take a year if it turned out that tuning wasn't as big a deal as you make it out to be? 



ontarget7 said:


> Take Broadheads out of the equation and you still have poor results from what you would have from a tuned bow.
> 
> I'm amazed that some can not comprehend this.
> 
> My down range groups open up without question when my bow is out of tune.
> Ever been to a FITA shoot and notice arrow flight ? It's always a fun thing to observe. Somehow it's never the guys that have their arrows cork screwing down range that seem to win. I wonder why
> 
> Now you take a 20 yard game at one distance and you have the shooter, arrows and archer doing the exact same thing every time, yes you can have great results.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The mind is a wonderful thing. If you truly believe it, it will happen. I will say this for confidence. If tuning provides it, then tuning is an important aspect of your game that should not be taken lightly.


----------



## Rick!

duc said:


> ontarget7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, some of you guys are lost
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/
> 
> 
> ontarget7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, some of you guys are lost
> 
> Really. Tell me what happens to the arrow the moment it leaves the string, what the point weight is doing, how it may or may not steer the arrow and why it does so. What influence the vanes have and IF they steer the arrow and why you think they steer an arrow. Tell me it terms of science and physics what influences the path of the arrow when it leaves the string. Not what you THINK it does, what it REALLY does. Tell me why when the arrow leaves the string with constant reparation ( read shooting machine) that it hits the target with boring repetition in the centre. If it comes out of the bow the same then it will land in the same place.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't use proper punctuation so it's hard to figger out what yer askin'.
> 
> Fundamentally, an impulse applied to a body, F*dt, turns into _mv_ as it leaves the string.
> The point weight, combined with the rest of the mass of the arrow components acts as a simple
> point mass with some aero forces acting on it during the projectile motion.
> Vanes supply a rotation which creates an inertial self-restoring force for outside perturbations.
> I'll also add that vanes initially steer an arrow while it's on the string.
> That's why bs and fletched can have different POI when the powerstroke is misaligned with the arrow shaft.
> (Do you move the fletched to the bs POI or bs to the fletched POI when aligning the powerstroke to the arrow shaft?)
> It's easy to state that, assuming all initial conditions are perfectly repeatable,
> a shooting machine that includes a bow that has perfectly repeatable x, y, and z forces throughout its powerstroke,
> (definition of applying the same impulse) to identical projectiles,
> one will create measurable, repeatable results.
> That's the definition of a proper experimental process.
> The interesting exercise in the thread was not performed with the rigor that I prescribe when I create and conduct tests.
> You know that the "why" question needs to be fully understood and explained by the process and results.
> Without quantified results, all I know is that one guy's shooting machine is capable of 13cm groups at 80 yards with two bows and one set of sticks.
> With greater resolution in a few key aspects of the testing, could the results have been better? Maybe.
> Maybe the OP's skill with his device is such that quantifying every aspect would not have changed the outcome.
> We're not going to find out as it would appear as a challenge or a refuting of results and that wouldn't bode well with the OP.
> (albeit it looks like the longer sticks show potential of creating smaller groups.)
> There are archers that can shoot tighter groups than the OP's machine at 80yds - I can only do it a few times a year beyond 70yds.
> 
> 
> 
> whiz-Oz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest problem is that there are a majority of archers who like to believe that opinions are as good as facts. And that other people's opinions will back up theirs and be better than facts.
> 
> If you aren't using a shooting machine to examine how consistent arrows group, then you are introducing your own variability into the equation.
> 
> I'll say it again for those of you who are a bit slow.
> 
> If you are holding the bow, your results are not reliable.
> 
> If you're not recording your results and considering the good and bad shots, your results are not reliable.
> 
> And, here's the kicker. You guys WILL EVENTUALLY be proven wrong in the passage of time. So please leave all you comments up here and remember to be gracious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've seen that removing the "forgiveness" aspect that is ingrained into archery still presents a discontinuity
> between the archer and results when employing a shooting machine.
> You'll never convince anyone that any permutation of "forgiving" is not relevant in archery conversations here.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## ontarget7

EPLC said:


> And how much of a financial hit would you take a year if it turned out that tuning wasn't as big a deal as you make it out to be?
> 
> 
> 
> The mind is a wonderful thing. If you truly believe it, it will happen. I will say this for confidence. If tuning provides it, then tuning is an important aspect of your game that should not be taken lightly.


Bro, you have no idea how much stuff I do for nothing. Besides that I am not tuning for anyone anymore. 

Like I said before, you have you as an example. I have thousands of people as an example. Have yet to have one person say their groups were better with an untuned bow. That's absolutely ridiculous 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

bplayer405 said:


> Shane, I'll give you the utmost praise and respect for helping me become a better archer by teaching me how to tune my equipment through your posts in various other threads. I guess my newness to archery helped me keep an open mind as I learned about and tried all the tips, tricks and techniques I came across. Only one way to know if something works right? Try it. No, I don't have written, picture or video proof of all the testing and trials I've done. It's called personal experience. If it worked for me it should work for others, or so you would believe. Not everyone is willing or open minded enough to explore though. I have a good friend who drives me nuts by holding his pin more and more to the left the further out he goes to hit a target. It's good enough for him, so I have to let it be. His mind is closed to tuning and that's it.
> 
> Honestly, it's good to know there's people who share this thinking in competition because I definitely want to get involved in it. I'll be acquiring a target setup shortly...
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Glad I could help out and you are very welcome 

Keep at it and never feel you are good enough, always striving for better. I'm still amazed at the accuracy we can achieve down range with the bows today and all the knowledge that gains you more forgiveness. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly

I think it would be easy to confirm or refute EPLC's theory.

Shoot a "tuned" bow at 80 yards, shoot 10 groups, measure the results.
Move the rest 1/4" left of center, adjust sights, repeat
Move the rest 1/4" right of center, adjust sights, repeat

If tuning matters, we will see a difference in group sizes (theoretically increasing when moved out of "tune"). if not, we won't

Bonus test. do the same tests but in a crosswind. Of course, crosswind tests would require measuring windspeed and only recording groups of similar windspeed... probably need 20 groups for each to ensure useable results.

I am not saying tuning is essential to good groups, not am I saying it is not essential. I don't see enough data to make a conclusion. Certainly, at the moment, EPLC has the most data presented here for this discussion.

My THEORY is that nearly identical arrows will be able to group even with an imperfect tune, but as consistency in the group of arrows decreases, the effects of tune will increase. Not talking about tip weights or the like, but how the arrow shaft itself reacts to being fired from a bow. This is where spine tuning, and spine indexing (for arrows with a significant change in stiffness at the spine) could play a large role.

In my own personal experience, I have never gotten a bow to group better than when it is shooting bare shafts (and even broadheads) the same as fletched with field points. I have adjusted center shot and saw an improvement once, but I didn't see the state of tune immediately before or after that. As EPLC mentions, that COULD have just been a confidence thing, who knows.


----------



## SonnyThomas

SonnyThomas said:


> Yep, you can have something of a out of tuned bow that will* group great*. I've done it several times and have done so with couple of other different tuning procedures.* I could very well sight in for bull's eye accuracy and then the great group would be off for some other shorter or longer distance.*





Mahly said:


> I think it would be easy to confirm or refute EPLC's theory.
> 
> Shoot a "used" bow at 80 yards, shoot 10 *groups*, measure the results.
> Move the rest 1/4" left of center, *adjust sig*hts, repeat
> Move the rest 1/4" right of center, *adjust sights*, repeat
> 
> *If tuning matters, we will see a difference in group sizes (theoretically increasing when moved out of "tune"). if not, we won't*.


You have just noted what I've gave more than a couple of times only I noted one could have good to great groups (good execution needed) and I then noted that point of impact will change for shorter or longer distances. As such, rest/arrow aligned to power stroke of bow and sight married is paramount for shooting dead on up close and far down range. Again, EPLC has posted the same pictures giving of up close and far out, but his initial statement said he already had the bow in tune..

These pictures were I believe of April 2014, after I felt I failed with bare shaft tuning. Initial sighting in 10 feet, zeroing sight after each test shots at least 50 yards down range. I made about 4 or 5 moves of the arrow rest and correcting the sight from the first picture and until the last picture. Finished, I was dead on at 10 feet and the last pictures shows I dead on at 50 yards. Groups really aren't that bad for 50 yards, less than 1" per every 10 yards. Pretty sure all 3 groups could be positioned to fit in the 3" bull's eye.

Beings I've only French tuned with very similar results 100s times over I see no reason to prove it all over again. 

Only way anyone can prove anyone's finding is having reliable unbiased witnesses. Me, hundreds and maybe thousands of articles, manuals, and books by hundreds or thousands of different people prove that EPLC findings are wrong, that he's worded something wrong or left out pieces.


----------



## duc

Rick!;.
You've seen that removing the "forgiveness" aspect that is ingrained into archery still presents a discontinuity
between the archer and results when employing a shooting machine.
You'll never convince anyone that any permutation of "forgiving" is not relevant in archery conversations here.[/QUOTE said:


> Here we we go with this forgiveness fairy dust again. People suck at being consistent, bow or a shooting machine doesn't. The only "permutation of forgiving" is between the ears. The more consistent the archer is the more "forgiving" the bow is. It's so simple.


----------



## EPLC

Great Sonny, I have witnesses!


----------



## EPLC

Rick! said:


> duc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ontarget7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, some of you guys are lost
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/
> 
> You didn't use proper punctuation so it's hard to figger out what yer askin'.
> 
> Fundamentally, an impulse applied to a body, F*dt, turns into _mv_ as it leaves the string.
> The point weight, combined with the rest of the mass of the arrow components acts as a simple
> point mass with some aero forces acting on it during the projectile motion.
> Vanes supply a rotation which creates an inertial self-restoring force for outside perturbations.
> I'll also add that vanes initially steer an arrow while it's on the string.
> That's why bs and fletched can have different POI when the powerstroke is misaligned with the arrow shaft.
> (Do you move the fletched to the bs POI or bs to the fletched POI when aligning the powerstroke to the arrow shaft?)
> It's easy to state that, assuming all initial conditions are perfectly repeatable,
> a shooting machine that includes a bow that has perfectly repeatable x, y, and z forces throughout its powerstroke,
> (definition of applying the same impulse) to identical projectiles,
> one will create measurable, repeatable results.
> That's the definition of a proper experimental process.
> The interesting exercise in the thread was not performed with the rigor that I prescribe when I create and conduct tests.
> You know that the "why" question needs to be fully understood and explained by the process and results.
> Without quantified results, all I know is that one guy's shooting machine is capable of 13cm groups at 80 yards with two bows and one set of sticks.
> With greater resolution in a few key aspects of the testing, could the results have been better? Maybe.
> Maybe the OP's skill with his device is such that quantifying every aspect would not have changed the outcome.
> We're not going to find out as it would appear as a challenge or a refuting of results and that wouldn't bode well with the OP.
> (albeit it looks like the longer sticks show potential of creating smaller groups.)
> There are archers that can shoot tighter groups than the OP's machine at 80yds - I can only do it a few times a year beyond 70yds.
> 
> 
> 
> You've seen that removing the "forgiveness" aspect that is ingrained into archery still presents a discontinuity
> between the archer and results when employing a shooting machine.
> You'll never convince anyone that any permutation of "forgiving" is not relevant in archery conversations here.
> 
> 
> 
> I also believe there are things that can be done to increase the forgiveness factor and those things do not fall within my definition of "tuning" but some may expand the definition to include these items as well. These items all pertain to the fitting the bow to the archer. Draw length, peep height, loop length, bow balance, etc., etc. I want to be perfectly clear that these items, which I consider very important, are not what I'm talking about when I say "Tuning"...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> Bro, you have no idea how much stuff I do for nothing. Besides that I am not tuning for anyone anymore.
> 
> Like I said before, you have you as an example. I have thousands of people as an example. Have yet to have one person say their groups were better with an untuned bow. That's absolutely ridiculous
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have no issues with people making a living. People have responded positively, of course they have, if someone believes it, it will happen. Real or imagined doesn't really matter, so long as they believe it. Hey, I'll bet you believe it. Sonny believes it. I'm thinking of starting a poll to guess how many times he's now posted up his 100 year old pictures  

Still there is absolutely no way to quantify forgiveness as a result of tuning a bow. The act of shooting is such a confidence dependent thing that anything that someone believes can effect it. If I think that bow won't shoot because of its tune, it won't. If I think it will, it will. Unfortunately these beliefs are usually have a short shelf life and then we move on to the next magic pill. Wiz-Oz hit it smack on the head when he said once you put the bow in the hands of the shooter all bets are off (not an exact quote).


----------



## ontarget7

I'm convinced you can't tune 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> I'm convinced you can't tune
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Tuning doesn't matter &#55357;&#56832;


----------



## ontarget7

Ok 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## whiz-Oz

SonnyThomas said:


> . Me, hundreds and maybe thousands of articles, manuals, and books by hundreds or thousands of different people prove that EPLC findings are wrong, that he's worded something wrong or left out pieces.


There you go again Sonny. Relying on other people who are wrong because you can't figure it out for yourself. 

A single arrow with crazy arrow flight shot from a consistently aimed and operated shooting machine will hit the same spot when there is no wind. Regardless of if the bow is tuned or not. 

How do you explain this? 

You can't. Apparently it's beyond your understanding and almost every other person on here. 

But because only a few people understand basic common sense about really simple physics we all must be wrong.


----------



## duc

I think a day long test with two people, one shooting 6 arrows at a time, the other de-tuning the bow, would be a rather good test to see what the average was over the time plotted with changes done. 30-40 or more ends. This would give a rather unbiased result. I tried it once with my brother. It sure did open my eyes to the myth of tuning.


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> I'm convinced you can't tune
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you assume I can't tune my way out of a wet paper bag, wouldn't that assumption make my test results even stronger? Think about it. I started off with one crappy tune that grouped nicely in the 5 ring at 80 yards, shot after shot with two different bows. Then I took those two bows and re-shimmed the cams to get another crappy state of tune (note different but still crappy) and those silly arrows still grouped well in the 5 ring at 80 yards? Wow, what a lucky guy I am! Oh, lets not forget that the freehand grouping didn't change either? Makes me even luckier... Still my crappy tune testing continues to point to the arrow being a much more important factor in getting decent groupings. And lets not forget about consistency of execution... It was mentioned that there are pro shooters that can put up groups tighter than my testing produced. Do they accomplish this amazing feat with the tune of their bows or do they have really good arrows flying down range with machine like execution? I'll bet the latter... It's late but I think I'll just fumble down to the cellar and mess up my bow some more. I have a shoot in the morning and I want to see those arrows really wobble...


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Eighty yards Un-Tuned, Tuned and Freehand (The green nocked arrows are someone else's)


Alright, let's start being honest. The picture you're using to demonstrate 80 yds (freehand) appears to be a 3X 19... correct?
3 of the arrows are grouped BETTER than the Hooter group(s) and even the 4 arrow group is equal to (or smaller than) the Hooter group(s) From a size to distance ratio, 80 yards is the single hardest shot in Field archery, so if you can shoot 3X 19's at 80yds with any regularity, then you should be shooting *AT LEAST* 545-550's in Field. So honestly, is that an accurate representation of your freehand groups at 80, is it basically luck? If not the former, then it's proof of nothing, other than if you throw 4 dice long enough, eventually they'll all come up the same.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Still there is absolutely no way to quantify forgiveness as a result of tuning a bow..


Of course there is. First, push your hooter shooter into the corner and throw a blanket over it. It has it's uses, but determining "forgiveness" of a hand held bow is not one of them.
Earlier in this topic, you challenged someone else to shoot 50 arrows at 35yds followed by 50 arrows at 50 yards and post a pic of the target(s) I suggest you do that yourself with a bow that's tuned to shoot a bullet through paper vs one shooting a 2" sideways tear. Do that once a day for a full week and count EVERY arrow (ie no cherry picking good/bad shots) and now you'll have enough data to start drawing conclusions about shooting freehand.


----------



## SonnyThomas

whiz-Oz said:


> There you go again Sonny. Relying on other people who are wrong because you can't figure it out for yourself.
> 
> A single arrow with crazy arrow flight shot from a consistently aimed and operated shooting machine will hit the same spot when there is no wind. Regardless of if the bow is tuned or not.
> 
> How do you explain this?
> 
> You can't. Apparently it's beyond your understanding and almost every other person on here.
> 
> But because only a few people understand basic common sense about really simple physics we all must be wrong.


I've contended all along that a bow with the arrow rest off can be sighted in for a distance and shoot good to great groups and accurately at that distance. Show me where I haven't. 
This same bow, not moving the sight accept for elevation, will shoot good to great groups at different distances, but group to a different point of impact. This is not a tuned bow. The fact is the arrow rest is moved to make the bow tuned. The arrow rest is moved with French tuning. The arrow rest is moved with Walk Back tuning. The arrow rest is moved with Bare Shaft Tuning. With these three the sight is corrected within as the tune takes place. The arrow rest is moved to correct paper tears, whether a bare shaft or fletched arrow. After such the bow is sighted in. 
Fact, you just can't throw a arrow rest on the bow, not adjust it and expect a tuned bow.

Have you moved a arrow rest to arrive at center shot? If so, why?


----------



## GRIMWALD

Sonny you are forgetting a large segment of archers. Traditional shooters and even a good percentage of recurve shooters, don't have the option of moving the arrow rest. There is a certian degree of "Tuning" built into the bows when tillering them but altering the arrow itself and modifying ones form is really the means of "Tuning" available.
Also, forgiveness is not really an accurate description of what bow tuning is trying to accomplish. Bow tuning is to increase the efficiency of the bow and it's power stroke. Some will argue that they are the same, maybe but efficiency is more accurate and it is what I shoot for.
A car with a misaligned front end will still get you to the mark but aligning the front end is more efficient.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

Some of you that claim forgiveness has nothing to do with a bows tune, you will never meet your full potential. 

Everybody else that believes this. Next time you buy a bow just slap a rest and sight on and go place first place at USA nationals. After all, that's all they do to make the team 

Your groups will open up and be less forgiving once placed in an archers hand from an untuned bow, it's that simple. Why ? 
It just compounds the problems of poor arrow flight. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Some of you that claim forgiveness has nothing to do with a bows tune, you will never meet your full potential.
> 
> Everybody else that believes this. Next time you buy a bow just slap a rest and sight on and go place first place at USA nationals. After all, that's all they do to make the team
> 
> Your groups will open up and be less forgiving once placed in an archers hand from an untuned bow, it's that simple. Why ?
> It just compounds the problems of poor arrow flight.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The tune of the bow has no effect on the group. Groups are solely determined by the arrows and how they are built. The bow is just a trigger for the arrow release, it is static and will produce consistent results from one shot to the next.
The arrows on the other hand, the less and less you index them the greater the group final will be. The bow will consistently place those arrow in the same hole reflecting the same group until you alter their index levels.

GRIM


----------



## bplayer405

GRIMWALD said:


> The tune of the bow has no effect on the group. Groups are solely determined by the arrows and how they are built. The bow is just a trigger for the arrow release, it is static and will produce consistent results from one shot to the next.
> The arrows on the other hand, the less and less you index them the greater the group final will be. The bow will consistently place those arrow in the same hole reflecting the same group until you alter their index levels.
> 
> GRIM


I would have to agree, as long as the tune of the bow doesn't interfere with the arrows release.

But, you cannot expect your arrows to group at 20 and then hit where you're aiming to group at 80 unless you bow is tuned. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> The tune of the bow has no effect on the group. Groups are solely determined by the arrows and how they are built. The bow is just a trigger for the arrow release, it is static and will produce consistent results from one shot to the next.
> The arrows on the other hand, the less and less you index them the greater the group final will be. The bow will consistently place those arrow in the same hole reflecting the same group until you alter their index levels.
> 
> GRIM


From a machine yes 

Humans are not machined and why a tuned bow is more forgiving in the hands of an archer. Ever so slight changes in grip will compound an untuned problem from a lateral standpoint even more. 

From a vertical standpoint the slightest change in the wall will compound the problem, thus effecting vertical group spread more from an untuned bow in the hands of an archer. This is why we synch cams to clean vertical nock travel to make it more forgiving in the hands of an archer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

bplayer405 said:


> I would have to agree, as long as the tune of the bow doesn't interfere with the arrows release.
> 
> But, you cannot expect your arrows to group at 20 and then hit where you're aiming to group at 80 unless you bow is tuned.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


The arrows will continue upon their original flight path unless you change the arrows. The tune of the bow will have no effect on the arrow once it has left the bow string. The bow only supplies the forward momentum, that, force doesn't change from arrow to arrow. Aiming supplies a general direction but it is the arrow and how it is built which will determine group size. The group size will definitely be larger at 80 yards vs. 20 yards with un-indexed arrows (even with indexed arrows) but the bows tune will only have minimal effect on group size. It will have some effect because if the force stroke is erratic it will compound the arrow reaction to it. This is why a tuned bow will be more efficent but an un-tuned bow will still propell each arrow upon a similar flight as to the shorter distances. In the past this is why people culled certain arrows, changing the bow mechanics just would not correct for a deviant arrow. Now we turn the nock to better index these few arrows to change how they react to force applied to them by the bow.

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> From a machine yes
> 
> Humans are not machined and why a tuned bow is more forgiving in the hands of an archer. Ever so slight changes in grip will compound an untuned problem from a lateral standpoint even more.
> 
> From a vertical standpoint the slightest change in the wall will compound the problem, thus effecting vertical group spread more from an untuned bow in the hands of an archer. This is why we synch cams to clean vertical nock travel to make it more forgiving in the hands of an archer
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Agreed but that is why I want my bow to shoot as efficiently as possible, so I tune but it is not for forgiveness.
Ever so slight changes to a machine will also effect placement, so it is no different then shooting by hand, that has nothing to do with bow tune. 

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Agreed but that is why I want my bow to shoot as efficiently as possible, so I tune but it is not for forgiveness.
> Ever so slight changes to a machine will also effect placement, so it is no different then shooting by hand that, has nothing to do with bow tune.
> 
> GRIM


It is completely different

I see it with a whole lot of people first hand when they shoot an untuned bow vs a tuned bow, it's not even close


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> It is completely different
> 
> I see it with a whole lot of people first hand when they shoot an untuned bow vs a tuned bow, it's not even close
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sorry but it is exactly the same, the difference is in the person holding the bow, not the bow itself. The bow is static and will reproduce the same effect shot after shot, tuned or un-tuned.


GRIM


----------



## bplayer405

GRIMWALD said:


> The arrows will continue upon their original flight path unless you change the arrows. The tune of the bow will have no effect on the arrow once it has left the bow string. The bow only supplies the forward momentum, that, force doesn't change from arrow to arrow. Aiming supplies a general direction but it is the arrow and how it is built which will determine group size. The group size will definitely be larger at 80 yards vs. 20 yards with un-indexed arrows (even with indexed arrows) but the bows tune will only have minimal effect on group size. It will have some effect because if the force stroke is erratic it will compound the arrow reaction to it. This is why a tuned bow will be more efficent but an un-tuned bow will still propell each arrow upon a similar flight as to the shorter distances. In the past this is why people culled certain arrows, changing the bow mechanics just would not correct for a deviant arrow. Now we turn the nock to better index these few arrows to change how they react to force applied to them by the bow.
> 
> GRIM


I understand your point. To complete my point; if your bow is not in tune (not talking cam timing, just rest and or yokes) and sighted in to group at 20yds, at 80 yds you can't expect to hit where you're aiming unless you resight. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> Sorry but it is exactly the same, the difference is in the person holding the bow, not the bow itself. The bow is static and will reproduce the same effect shot after shot, tuned or un-tuned.
> 
> 
> GRIM


It will not. 
Take that untuned bow in a real world setting at a FITA shoot, even with a hooter shooter. 
When you factor in all the elements a tuned bow will perform and group better than an untuned bow. Go to the Arizona Cup and do this in the wind and see what you get. 

There is a reason why the top archers in the world tune their bows and don't just tune their arrows


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

bplayer405 said:


> I understand your point. To complete my point; if your bow is not in tune (not talking cam timing, just rest and or yokes) and sighted in to group at 20yds, at 80 yds you can't expect to hit where you're aiming unless you resight.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Agreed ^^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

Traditional shooters don't have the option to move a sight, they achieve accuracy by controlling the arrow reaction to the bow.
I am a firm believer in bow tuning, a more efficient power stroke makes building correct arrows much more responsive (or maybe it should be less responsive) to the bow release. 

GRIM


----------



## bplayer405

In my hands, a well tuned bow shoots more fluid. Take that bow out of tune and it kicks and bucks at the shot. My best accuracy comes when I have my bows tuned well with arrows that are tuned to hit the same where I'm aiming.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> It will not.
> Take that untuned bow in a real world setting at a FITA shoot, even with a hooter shooter.
> When you factor in all the elements a tuned bow will perform and group better than an untuned bow. Go to the Arizona Cup and do this in the wind and see what you get.
> 
> There is a reason why the top archers in the world tune their bows and don't just tune their arrows
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you are saying that arrow placement from a tuned bow will be different than an un-tuned bow Of coarse it will but each bow will respectively place an arrow consistently every time and that is where sighting in and arrow construction take over.

GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

bplayer405 said:


> In my hands, a well tuned bow shoots more fluid. Take that bow out of tune and it kicks and bucks at the shot. My best accuracy comes when I have my bows tuned well with arrows that are tuned to hit the same where I'm aiming.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


Absolutely, this is why I tune for efficiency, smooth release and comfort, but that has nothing to do with the repeatably of the bows. The bow is static, it will preform the same shot after shot.

GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

I give up, you guys can just take your bows out of tune and go shoot [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Skip that process and make sure those arrows are tuned

Oh wait, tune so it's efficient [emoji23]



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> I give up, you guys can just take your bows out of tune and go shoot [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
> 
> Skip that process and make sure those arrows are tuned
> 
> Oh wait, tune so it's efficient [emoji23]
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


LOL!!!

Don't worry Shane, just because you are wrong doesn't make you a bad person, besides you are not completely wrong just a little wrong.

LOL!!!!!

GRIM


----------



## nestly

ontarget7 said:


> I give up, you guys can just take your bows out of tune and go shoot ....


Yeah I'm not far behind you. 

I'd wager none of the "tune doesn't matter" crowd would knowingly take a bow shooting a 2" tear to national level tournament. Talk is cheap, when results matter, so does "tune". This is why you won't find ANY top level shooter in ANY division that doesn't use some type of results based tuning.


----------



## GRIMWALD

nestly said:


> Yeah I'm not far behind you.
> 
> I'd wager none of the "tune doesn't matter" crowd would knowingly take a bow shooting a 2" tear to national level tournament. Talk is cheap, when results matter, so does "tune".


Absolutely tune matters, it matters to me but not to direct arrow flight and if you watch some of the slow motion videoof the pro's shooting. Some of their arrows come out almost sideways.


GRIM


----------



## ontarget7

nestly said:


> Yeah I'm not far behind you.
> 
> I'd wager none of the "tune doesn't matter" crowd would knowingly take a bow shooting a 2" tear to national level tournament. Talk is cheap, when results matter, so does "tune". This is why you won't find ANY top level shooter in ANY division that doesn't use some type of results based tuning.


And the reason you are seeing more tune with bareshafts, I know a couple personally that have experienced some of their best shooting ever. 
Yes, they are already great archers and finding ways to make them even better. 
Why ?? They are gaining more forgiveness in a tuned bow [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

Oh, by the way. They can not tune to bareshafts just by the arrow alone [emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> Oh, by the way. They can not tune to bareshafts just by the arrow alone [emoji23][emoji23]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


LOL!!!

Of coarse you can. That is why we alter the arrow length, weight and nock position. Not to mention uniform indexing of spine.


GRIM


----------



## GRIMWALD

nestly said:


> Yeah I'm not far behind you.
> 
> I'd wager none of the "tune doesn't matter" crowd would knowingly take a bow shooting a 2" tear to national level tournament. Talk is cheap, when results matter, so does "tune". This is why you won't find ANY top level shooter in ANY division that doesn't use some type of results based tuning.


You add a little to your first response.

This is why they would alter their arrow tune, to remove the tare.

GRIM


----------



## nestly

GRIMWALD said:


> Absolutely, this is why I tune for efficiency, smooth release and comfort...


Forgive me if you already said, but what method(s) do you use to "tune" for efficiency, smooth release, and comfort?


----------



## ontarget7

GRIMWALD said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> Of coarse you can. That is why we alter the arrow length, weight and nock position. Not to mention uniform indexing of spine.
> 
> 
> GRIM


If you think you can tune and have perfect results with a bareshaft by zero bow tuning and only arrow, you really need to shoot some more bows. 

This is completely not true 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GRIMWALD

ontarget7 said:


> If you think you can tune and have perfect results with a bareshaft by zero bow tuning and only arrow, you really need to shoot some more bows.
> 
> This is completely not true
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Shane, how do you think archers hit the target before movable sights came into being?
People still shoot competitively with traditional bows and even some recurve bows shoot from the shelf.
I am an old man and have been shooting since the early 60's, believe me when I tell you, there are other methods of tuning than just moving a sight mount.

GRIM


----------



## hrtlnd164

For all the guys saying tuning don't matter.. Go set your rest at 1" center shot and 3/8" nock low and go shoot a field round and post your results.. Is something repeatable at 1 given distance with minimal tuning? Yep. Does that mean you will shoot well at more than 1 distance? Nope..


----------



## EPLC

hrtlnd164 said:


> For all the guys saying tuning don't matter.. Go set your rest at 1" center shot and 3/8" nock low and go shoot a field round and post your results.. Is something repeatable at 1 given distance with minimal tuning? Yep. Does that mean you will shoot well at more than 1 distance? Nope..





nestly said:


> Of course there is. First, push your hooter shooter into the corner and throw a blanket over it. It has it's uses, but determining "forgiveness" of a hand held bow is not one of them.
> Earlier in this topic, you challenged someone else to shoot 50 arrows at 35yds followed by 50 arrows at 50 yards and post a pic of the target(s) I suggest you do that yourself with a bow that's tuned to shoot a bullet through paper vs one shooting a 2" sideways tear. Do that once a day for a full week and count EVERY arrow (ie no cherry picking good/bad shots) and now you'll have enough data to start drawing conclusions about shooting freehand.





Mahly said:


> I think it would be easy to confirm or refute EPLC's theory.
> 
> Shoot a "tuned" bow at 80 yards, shoot 10 groups, measure the results.
> Move the rest 1/4" left of center, adjust sights, repeat
> Move the rest 1/4" right of center, adjust sights, repeat
> 
> If tuning matters, we will see a difference in group sizes (theoretically increasing when moved out of "tune"). if not, we won't...


Sorry guys, I haven't tested these extremes and don't intend to since I never made these extreme claims, nor would I ever want to shoot a bow in any of these conditions. What I have tested is whether or not minor variance in center-shot position has any impact on group size when shooting a set of decently matched arrows. My finding indicate that it does not. I also tested if moving the distance shot from 80 yards to 6ft without moving the elevation would change L/R POI in both a Tuned and Un-Tuned bow. It did not, so... it would seem that tuning procedures such as French tuning and its many variations have been busted. I also tested different length X-Impact arrows and noticed no change in group size. I also tested several different arrows and did see a difference in group size. The testing I performed would seem to point to the simple truth that fine tuning of the bow does not produce a better shooting platform then just setting the bow up by eye. Arrow matching and consistency would seem to be a much more fruitful path to take to improve forgiveness... and making better shots. 

Enter the human factors mentioned. When you come up with any solid measurable evidence that can substantiate your claims of forgiveness please post away.


----------



## whiz-Oz

SonnyThomas said:


> but group to a different point of impact. This is not a tuned bow.


Oh. So NOW we get to the seat of things. Apparently a bow has to be sighted in to make it tuned. 

We're talking group size. This entire thread is about tuning affecting group size and people are forgetting that, if they ever understood it at all. 

Nobody here has disputed that adjusting cam timing and torque tuning makes a bow less responsive to archer variation in holding force or grip torque. 

Those two factors have actual science and geometry behind them. 

Group size after that is limited by arrow consistency once shooter inconsistency is removed by using a shooting machine. This is called reducing variables. 

If you buy or assemble arrows that aren't consistent, no force on earth will make them group as well as arrows that are perfectly consistent. No state of "tune" can do this. 

However, archers are incapable of actually assessing data without accurately recorded results, because they are human. 

You like referring to other archers who aren't using the scientific method and just because they can shoot better than you, they obviously must know absolutely what they're talking about. 

You Sonny, can't understand what is going on. Now that you've got a computer, learn something. Look up "cognitive bias" on Wikipedia. Listen to "You are not so smart" podcasts. Learn about how human nature makes us make mistakes understanding data. 

Want to see how easy it is? 

If a bat and a ball together cost $1.10 and the bat costs a dollar more than the ball, how much does the ball cost? 

You just got that answer wrong, but don't worry. Everyone else did too.


----------



## grantmac

$0.05


----------



## whiz-Oz

And I bet that was the first thing into your head...


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> And I bet that was the first thing into your head...


...or maybe you're not as smart as you think you are... or maybe everyone else isn't as dumb as you think they are?



whiz-Oz said:


> However, archers are incapable of actually assessing data without accurately recorded results, because they are human.


That is complete non-sense. Whether archery, or any other type of activity that relies on repeatability, humans can and do learn by trial and error what tends to "work" and what tends not to "work" whether they physically record data or not. This is something that happens continuously among amateur archers, pro archers, and archery shops. Everyone that's anybody in archery believes that tune matters, not because someone told them they should believe in it, but because they have personal practical experience on the subject.


----------



## duc

To all those saying tuning makes a bow more "forgiving". What is "forgiving"???? and how does it effect where the arrow goes. PLEASE TELL US IN REAL TESTABLE TERMS (PHYSICAL PROPERTIES) WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS.


----------



## ontarget7

Forgiving is tighter groups day in and day out and a tuned bow gives you just that. 

Still can't even believe people feel that a tuned bow does not equal a more forgiving bow. 

Sorry guys, I have to laugh. 

I can tell right away at 70 yards if my bow is tuned or not just by group size. I already index arrows, have for years so that aside. 
I don't get near the consistent or tightest groups down range. 

I think you guys might be high, maybe live in Colorado 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## whiz-Oz

nestly said:


> ...or maybe you're not as smart as you think you are... or maybe everyone else isn't as dumb as you think they are?


Well, nestly. 
How about you go ask 100 people of your choice exactly that question, exactly as written?
Take note of how many get it correct. 
Then you'll know what I know. 

This question is used around the world in English speaking countries. The results never differ, so I know exactly what percentage of people got it right if they stop to think about it. 



nestly said:


> That is complete non-sense. Whether archery, or any other type of activity that relies on repeatability, humans can and do learn by trial and error what tends to "work" and what tends not to "work" whether they physically record data or not. This is something that happens continuously among amateur archers, pro archers, and archery shops. Everyone that's anybody in archery believes that tune matters, not because someone told them they should believe in it, but because they have personal practical experience on the subject.


That's where you're wrong. 
Go and read up why the scientific method is used in actual science, where people find out what actually happens. 

Go and actually LEARN something, rather than continue to assert something which all professional scientists (and most psychologists and enconomists) know is absolutely incorrect and has always been.

I am pretty sure that you won't though. 
Because that would mean that you'd have to come back and admit in writing that you were wrong. 
Can't have that, can we?

Go read about cognitive bias. Then look around about how you and everyone you know is affected by it. 

Just go and read about "Confirmation bias" and apply that to every single archer you know. 
Then look at all the other biases that humans have. 

These are actual facts. You do these things every single day of your life.


----------



## duc

ontarget7 said:


> Forgiving is tighter groups day in and day out and a tuned bow gives you just that.
> 
> Still can't even believe people feel that a tuned bow does not equal a more forgiving bow.
> 
> Sorry guys, I have to laugh.
> 
> I can tell right away at 70 yards if my bow is tuned or not just by group size. I already index arrows, have for years so that aside.
> I don't get near the consistent or tightest groups down range.
> 
> I think you guys might be high, maybe live in Colorado
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It still doesn't answer my question. Simply saying it just is because you think or want it to be doesn't answer the question. 
Please don't treat us like children and dismiss questions as if we can't comprehend what you are saying. Prove what you say, show us and enlighten us. Am I asking to much???


----------



## ontarget7

duc said:


> It still doesn't answer my question. Simply saying it just is because you think or want it to be doesn't answer the question.
> I can fly but I can't prove it.


I have had guys say over and over again that their bows do not shoot near as good of groups down range prior to tuning. We are not talking a few people either. 

What proof would you like ? 

So do you compete with an untuned bow ?

Just slap on a rest and your good to go ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

Forget all the pics, who knows what's real or not. 

Let's go ahead with some uncut video clips at 70 yards. And bareshaft / fletched at 20 yards on the money and from a poor tune. Then compare each at 70 yards. 


This should not be a problem for the guys that say tune doesn't matter and groups will be the same regardless. 

Let me know and PM me when your ready. I will make time and do the same video clips with results. 

Who's ready ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly

The only things I describe as forgiving, as for as bow tuning is concerned, is the result of torque tuning. Knowingly adding torque to the bow, and the arrow still hits where the dot is aimed.
This can be accomplished to various extents by adjusting the distance the sight is from the bow, or where the arrow contacts the rest (front to rear mounting of the rest).
That and "creep" tuning so an imperfect anchor is less likely to miss high or low.

Other than that, I don't believe in "forgiveness". If the bow is pointed somewhere to the left of the X, no tuning trick will make that arrow hit the X (provided the bow is properly sighted in)...it should hit left.
The method one uses to shoot the bow can be more or less forgiving. I've had numerous arrows hit the X when I was sure I would have a miss. My brain had seen the imperfection of the sight picture and started moving back to the X as the shot fired. Call it what you want (just shoot, let it float...whatever).
But I don't know of a way to get the bow to NOT put the arrow where it's aimed when shot. How would it know the direction and amount of compensation needed to get back to the X?

I concede that tuning to a machine will not always work for all archers...if tune is what they are looking for (i.e. hunters w/fixed blades). If the shooter has some weird torque on the grip, the machine tuned bow won't be in tune for them....but it may still GROUP well for them.

I still feel better/more consistent arrows (not always more expensive) will be less effected by the state of tune than arrows that behave differently when dealing with the forces present when shooting a bow that doesn't have the power stroke lined up with the arrow.
Some arrows are getting so good, I am starting to question if spine indexing is even needed on them anymore. 
That said, no 2 arrows are identical, so I think tuning WILL improve their grouping...but will that improvement be measurable? Will it make a real world difference? With better arrows, based on EPLC's findings alone, the answer seems to be "no".


----------



## duc

ontarget7 said:


> I have had guys say over and over again that their bows do not shoot near as good of groups down range prior to tuning. We are not talking a few people either.
> 
> What proof would you like ?
> 
> So do you compete with an untuned bow ?
> 
> Just slap on a rest and your good to go ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


People see flying saucers all the time. Is that proof they exist???
With all due respect Shane all some of us ask is proof in testable terms and not just anecdotal evidence. No p1ssing match, no put downs, just some hard testable and repeatable data.?


----------



## ontarget7

duc said:


> People see flying saucers all the time. Is that proof they exist???
> With all due respect Shane all some of us ask is proof in testable terms and not just anecdotal evidence. No p1ssing match, no put downs, just some hard testable and repeatable data.?


And that's what I'm getting at. Are you ready to step up to the plate ?

Not just written out data but actual real live results. 

Never said it was a pissing match

Whoever, I can still laugh that this is a debate 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## duc

http://www.npr.org/sections/decepti...uble-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad


----------



## duc

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis


----------



## ontarget7

So I take it your game to test this out ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## duc

Yep I'm up for it. We need to design a test with no bias. I have some ideas, but it's work time here in Australia so I'll post up tonight. (Aus time)


----------



## ontarget7

Sounds good

Let me know what you got planned


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

I may be up for the video challenge depending on the criteria. I'm not sure I have the stones to shoot untuned bareshafts at 70 though.


----------



## whiz-Oz

It's a pointless demonstration because you all know what you're trying to do and you'll interpret your results to suit yourself, and also take way too small a data sample. 
This will let everyone believe what they want to believe. 

The only way that this will ever be sorted is to have all respondents at the same place at the same time and see the results of the testing for themselves. Otherwise people start claiming that editing was used to show what they don't believe happens. 

If everyone had their own reliable shooting machine, it would be pretty easy. 

Everyone shoots one arrow continuously a minimum of 200 times with their bow considered to be tuned. The group size is recorded.

Then everyone does something to "detune" their bow and shoot the same arrow all over again. The group size is recorded. 

Then the results are posted with no mention of which group was which. 

At that point, everyone starts making excuses because what they say is supposed to be really obvious isn't that obvious. Nobody wants to put their opinion out there because it just might get shot down by them being wrong. Being forced to actually evaluate evidence without knowing if you're supposed to be correct or not, publically, puts a lot of credibility at risk. 

You guys that are laughing at how all of this sounds because of "everyone else says so" are going to be in for a really big shock one day. 
So remember that you first had this discussion here and now. 

Then you can claim that "You thought that we were onto something.." 

This discussion has a lot of avoiding the basic principles that can't be denied and a lot of reliance on "Things I noticed when I was shooting my bow, that agreed with other opinions that I read or heard from someone else."

Why is nobody attacking the very basics of "A bow pointed consistently at the same spot, propelling an arrow in a cosistent direction under consistent conditions will hit a consistent spot" ?

Why is nobody saying that this isn't true? 

Then you can explain how a "tuned" bow differs from an "untuned" bow in terms of ability to release energy consistently. 

I'm waiting to have that explained. 

I'll spell it out for you all again. 
Torque tuning to compensate for archer hold variation. 
Flat nock travel at anchor to account for holding tension variation. 
That's it. 
This is the limit of what someone can do to make a bow less responsive to archer variation. Anything else is not addressable by science and all supported by opinion. 

You will not be able to find anyone who is able to point to anything other than opinion, yet torque tuning uses geometric matching of the effect of torque by compensating with sight radius or arrow rest position. Flat nock travel at anchor eliminates riser tilt and thus up or down variation induced by different hold pressure. 

No other phenomenom can be explained exactly in two sentences. 

In a shooting machine, a bow fired without heavy arrow strikes, group size is directly related to arrow consistency. It's a pretty simple fact. 

Without the archer there to introduce variation, how does "tuning" affect grouping when there are no changes with the forces and alignment being involved?

Oooh. Magic and opinion. That's how. 
Things that nobody likes to talk about because opinion needs fact to back things up. 

Laugh it up all you like guys. Go and find actual rocket scientists and aerodynamicists. Explain about how the system is constant but the result is variable. 
They'll look at you and say "Ah, yeah. Sure it is."

Even the most basic scientific evaluation says that you guys are interpreting the data how you want to, without thinking of what has to be happening.


----------



## EPLC

^ What he said...


----------



## Rick!

whiz-Oz said:


> Torque tuning to compensate for archer hold variation.
> Flat nock travel at anchor to account for holding tension variation.
> That's it.


This is good.



> Laugh it up all you like guys. Go and find actual rocket scientists and aerodynamicists. Explain about how the system is constant but the result is variable.
> They'll look at you and say "Ah, yeah. Sure it is."
> 
> Even the most basic scientific evaluation says that you guys are interpreting the data how you want to, without thinking of what has to be happening.


SMH. Really?! One discussion we had, you related a stabilizer to aeroelasticity and planes were going to fall out of the sky.
Now, we need to bring in rocket scientists and this aerodynamicist guy to help us with POI variation? Puhleeease.
Let's keep this within the context of I-A folks. The testing done so far was so "inside the box" that most results were lost in the noise.

Like I said before, YOU, are not going to eliminate the term "forgiveness" from archery no matter how much you tell folks to "science the f#$! out of it." 
It's akin to stating that pure BT cannot exist.  

So, play along and maybe throw out some simple exercises to demonstrate your point(s). Then maybe everyone can learn a nugget or two.


----------



## EPLC

Rick! said:


> This is good.
> 
> 
> 
> SMH. Really?! One discussion we had, you related a stabilizer to aeroelasticity and planes were going to fall out of the sky.
> Now, we need to bring in rocket scientists and this aerodynamicist guy to help us with POI variation? Puhleeease.
> Let's keep this within the context of I-A folks. The testing done so far was so "inside the box" that most results were lost in the noise.
> 
> Like I said before, YOU, are not going to eliminate the term "forgiveness" from archery no matter how much you tell folks to "science the f#$! out of it."
> It's akin to stating that pure BT cannot exist.
> 
> So, play along and maybe throw out some simple exercises to demonstrate your point(s). Then maybe everyone can learn a nugget or two.


Actually we didn't find much of that.


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

> ...I suggest you do that yourself with a bow that's tuned to shoot a bullet through paper vs one shooting a 2" sideways tear...





> ...Go set your rest at 1" center shot and 3/8" nock low and go shoot a field round and post your results..





> Sorry guys, I haven't tested these extremes and don't intend to since I never made these extreme claims, nor would I ever want to shoot a bow in any of these conditions. What I have tested is whether or not minor variance in center-shot position has any impact on group size when shooting a set of decently matched arrows...





> ...if your bow is not in tune (not talking cam timing, just rest and or yokes) and sighted in to group at 20yds, at 80 yds you can't expect to hit where you're aiming unless you resight.





> This entire thread is about tuning affecting group size and people are forgetting that, if they ever understood it at all.


I think this thread would have been a little easier if everyone had a clear definition of what ones idea of "bow/tuning" is. I've learned that everyone seems to interpret "bow/tuning" a little differently. I think that's where a lot of the disconnect comes from and not just here on AT but everywhere.




> ...but group to a different point of impact. This is not a tuned bow.





> Oh. So NOW we get to the seat of things. Apparently a bow has to be sighted in to make it tuned.





> ...If the bow is pointed somewhere to the left of the X, no tuning trick will make that arrow hit the X (provided the bow is properly sighted in)...it should hit left...





> ...I don't know of a way to get the bow to NOT put the arrow where it's aimed when shot. How would it know the direction and amount of compensation needed to get back to the X?...





> ...Why is nobody attacking the very basics of "A bow pointed consistently at the same spot, propelling an arrow in a consistent direction under consistent conditions will hit a consistent spot" ?...





> ...Torque tuning to compensate for archer hold variation.
> Flat nock travel at anchor to account for holding tension variation.
> That's it...





> ...IF YOU DON'T RELEASE THE ARROW WHEN ITS IN THE CENTRE IT WON'T DAMN WELL GO IN THE CENTRE. AND NO AMOUNT OF "TUNING" WILL MAKE IT. YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD SHOOTER??? *PRACTICE BEING LIKE A HOOTER SHOOTER*...


I tend to lean towards the last two quotes^ out of experience but once again just do whatever makes you a better shooter.

Enough yakkin' I'm going to go shoot.


----------



## nestly

> PRACTICE BEING LIKE A HOOTER SHOOTER... .


Indeed, that's great advice. Now take a moment and pick a few names of the archers who you believe have been most successful at replicating a "shooting machine". Do any of them NOT tune their bows?


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

Depends on what you mean by tuning. To be clear I don't mean just slap a rest on, sight in and you're golden.


----------



## Mahly

Would they tell you if they didn't?


----------



## nestly

FeelMyWrathSHO said:


> Depends on what you mean by tuning. To be clear I don't mean just slap a rest on, sight in and you're golden.


"tuning" is results based adjustment, or in other words, adjustments made to achieve better results.



Mahly said:


> Would they tell you if they didn't?


Yes, as a matter of fact I do believe that if for whatever reason Pros (singular or plural) determined "tuning simply doesn't matter" they'd offer that information just as freely as they currently offer their advice about how to tune.


----------



## duc

nestly said:


> Indeed, that's great advice. Now take a moment and pick a few names of the archers who you believe have been most successful at replicating a "shooting machine". Do any of them NOT tune their bows?


How many archers and to what extent do they tune. South African Seppie Cilliers when he shot for Hoyt only did basic, and I mean basic tuning an he has to his name a 1418 FITA score. I don't believe he even bare shaft tunes.


----------



## whiz-Oz

nestly said:


> Yes, as a matter of fact I do believe that if for whatever reason Pros (singular or plural) determined "tuning simply doesn't matter" they'd offer that information just as freely as they currently offer their advice about how to tune.


So when more variation is due to the archer, you can say what you like because people will expect an improvement with a tuned bow. They'll see it if they have the slightest chance to believe it and archers who don't see it will just shut up and believe that they're not good enough archers. 

You're going back to using other people's opinions. That's a sure method of demonstrating that you can't actually explain it in terms of a provable concept. 

You do realise that placebos work for a reason? There are thousands of people who are absolutely convinced that sugar flavoured water will cure their ills. They use other people who believe it to try and convince themselves. 

There are people who are convinced that vitamin C doses will sort out colds, despite it being comprehensively disproven. People take a huge hit of Vitamin C and when their cold sorts itself out a couple of days later like it would have anyway, they are convinced that the Vitamin C did the job. 

That's what tuning past flat nock travel and torque compensation is.


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> That's what tuning past flat nock travel and torque compensation is.


Wait..... what?!? Did you just suggest there may be benefit in tuning for flat nock travel? Maybe we're not as far apart on this subject as it seems.


----------



## whiz-Oz

This has been the basis of the entire discussion. Have you been asleep? 
Torque compensation and nock travel are the only two factors which have legitimate science behind them in terms of reducing archer variation when being shot by a real variable archer. 
These are the total explainable elements of "forgiveness" which is "making a bow less sensitive to archer variation"

Nothing else does. 

In a shooting machine operated accurately and consistently, these factors aren't a problem. Arrow consistency exactly relates to group size minus the factor of operator error and things that can't be accounted for like atmospheric conditions. 

That's it. 

If you show someone that their single arrow still ends up in the same hole with ragged arrow flight, they can't comprehend it. Archers are trained by uninformed opinion that "bad arrow flight" equals "innacurate" arrows. 

Consistent bad arrow flight, is still consistent arrow flight. 

If you guys all bought excellent quality arrows, you probably would have figured this out by now.


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> This has been the basis of the entire discussion. Have you been asleep?


Only once in 12 pages has the OP referenced "torque" or "torque tuning" and it was made with at least a bit of uncertainty about it's effectiveness. (post #141)



EPLC said:


> Torque tuning "may" have some benefit, assuming it works. I personally haven't tested that one yet.


So based on that, the OP's tests/finding are not dependent on whether the bow has been (torque tuned) or not. Lining up the arrow with the power stroke is just as important whether or not the bow has been torque tuned, and to that end, even if a bow is "torque tuned" it's still going to be less forgiving when shooting a 2" tear than when shooting a bullet. Torque tuning reduces the amount of misalignment between the bow/arrow/sight system due to inconsistencies in grip pressure, it doesn't necessarily improve the attitude of the arrow leaving the bow when grip pressure is inconsistent.


----------



## bplayer405

whiz-Oz said:


> If you show someone that their single arrow still ends up in the same hole with ragged arrow flight, they can't comprehend it. Archers are trained by uninformed opinion that "bad arrow flight" equals "innacurate" arrows.
> 
> Consistent bad arrow flight, is still consistent arrow flight.
> 
> If you guys all bought excellent quality arrows, you probably would have figured this out by now.


I had this "ah - ha" moment a couple years back when trying the latest and greatest cx reds. Bought 6 to try from a dealer bin already fletched. Worst arrow fight I've ever had! Took me a couple months to figure out what was really going on. Shooting 5 spot at the same dealer I still saw the erratic, but consistent grouping. Numbered the arrows and sure enough the same numbered arrow hit the same place every time. We're talking 4" and 6" off center for a couple and 3 hit dead center. Took the ones that were hitting off center and spun them and found nasty wobbles on those shafts. Pitched them on the spot and started my quest for better flight from all my arrows.

I build my own arrows now. It's the only way I can assure myself of the best arrow flight. Not saying others can't build them better, but with the money I have invested in supplies and tools it's easier to buy shafts only and go through my process. Although, I would like to try a set of spine matched shafts from Shane sometime.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> If you guys all bought excellent quality arrows, you probably would have figured this out by now.


Arrows made of all carbon, even those marketed as "premium" or "Pro" grade, are less consistent than aluminum or A/C composite. Arrow quality is but one factor in accuracy A great shooter can still shoot a Vegas 600 with $3 Walmart arrows, or an economy bow, or a bow that's un-tuned. As said before, none of those things matter when the shot is perfect, and ALL of them matter when the shot is not.


----------



## ontarget7

whiz-Oz said:


> So when more variation is due to the archer, you can say what you like because people will expect an improvement with a tuned bow. They'll see it if they have the slightest chance to believe it and archers who don't see it will just shut up and believe that they're not good enough archers.
> 
> You're going back to using other people's opinions. That's a sure method of demonstrating that you can't actually explain it in terms of a provable concept.
> 
> You do realise that placebos work for a reason? There are thousands of people who are absolutely convinced that sugar flavoured water will cure their ills. They use other people who believe it to try and convince themselves.
> 
> There are people who are convinced that vitamin C doses will sort out colds, despite it being comprehensively disproven. People take a huge hit of Vitamin C and when their cold sorts itself out a couple of days later like it would have anyway, they are convinced that the Vitamin C did the job.
> 
> That's what tuning past flat nock travel and torque compensation is.


I'm convinced that you are lost. 

I can't even count how many customers I have had with no expectations other than simply dropping a bow off for new strings. Once getting the bow back and I get calls like what did you do to my bow ? I say nothing, other than my normal tuning routine. Then they say, not sure what you did but I have never shot this well before. 

We are talking hundreds of comments like this, not just a couple. 

So, if tuning doesn't matter and it's only arrows that matter, why is there so many that have the same response I mentioned above ? 

This is supposed to be intermediate to advanced archery topics and we have some that don't even grasp the basics. 

I know an Olympic archer personally that also competed in the Pan American Games, a recurve shooter and he not only is picky about his arrows but also picky on tuning. Between rest adjustments, proper grip, hold into the backend, consistent release, and you have a well tuned bow, archer and arrows. 

You take any one of those out of the equation and maybe he would have not won 10 medals, 6 of those being gold. 

Even worked for Easton for 23 years and he will tell you it's not just the arrows. 

Still amazed that some feel it's only the arrows that matter. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> You'll never convince me that tune doesn't matter.
> 
> In preparation for State Field Championship this weekend, I've been group testing Easton ACC 3-28 (.255 O.D.) vs Easton Lightspeed 500's (.286 O.D.) from 20 ft to 80yds. Both were showing about 1/4" nock high through paper, which is pretty typical for my target setup. The ACC's were generally better inside 40 yds, but I was surprised that the Lightspeeds did better at longer distances, especially after 60 yds.
> 
> Reluctantly, I decided on the Lightspeeds even though I wanted to shoot ACC's, but I really wasn't very happy with how I was shooting either shaft at long range, so took it inside an bumped the rest up until it shot bullets. First arrow after moving the rest was considerably high at 80 yds using my old sight marks but it was within the spot for left/right. After moving my indicator, the next 4 went into the X at 80, which admittedly was a bit lucky as I don't shoot *that* good, but I was only hitting the spot about 50% right before that. Next I moved up to 50 yds and shot a 2X 19 on the left side, but again it was a significantly better group than I had been shooting with the arrow leaving the bow nock high.
> 
> It's too late to change now, but I really wish I had tuned the bow individually for each arrow while group testing instead of shooting them head-to-head out of the same setup.





nestly said:


> Arrows made of all carbon, even those marketed as "premium" or "Pro" grade, are less consistent than aluminum or A/C composite. Arrow quality is but one factor in accuracy A great shooter can still shoot a Vegas 600 with $3 Walmart arrows, or an economy bow, or a bow that's un-tuned. As said before, none of those things matter when the shot is perfect, and ALL of them matter when the shot is not.



I won't debate carbon vs aluminum as this would be pointless based on a comparison of ACC's vs. Lightspeeds. 

After 12 pages and almost 300 posts we are in an endless loop. We need to find some common understanding so please correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding of "forgiveness" (as it has been championed here) is a shot that is less than perfect will find its mark better if shot from a finely tuned bow? What specific action takes place to allow this to happen? Does this "forgiveness" correct an arrow in flight? What things can actually be forgiven? How far from the spot can I aim and expect a recovery? Some step by step description of what actually happens would be very helpful.


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> I'm convinced that you are lost.
> 
> I can't even count how many customers I have had with no expectations other than simply dropping a bow off for new strings. Once getting the bow back and I get calls like what did you do to my bow ? I say nothing, other than my normal tuning routine. Then they say, not sure what you did but I have never shot this well before.
> 
> We are talking hundreds of comments like this, not just a couple.
> 
> So, if tuning doesn't matter and it's only arrows that matter, why is there so many that have the same response I mentioned above ?
> 
> This is supposed to be intermediate to advanced archery topics and we have some that don't even grasp the basics.
> 
> I know an Olympic archer personally that also competed in the Pan American Games, a recurve shooter and he not only is picky about his arrows but also picky on tuning. Between rest adjustments, proper grip, hold into the backend, consistent release, and you have a well tuned bow, archer and arrows.
> 
> You take any one of those out of the equation and maybe he would have not won 10 medals, 6 of those being gold.
> 
> Even worked for Easton for 23 years and he will tell you it's not just the arrows.
> 
> Still amazed that some feel it's only the arrows that matter.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Finger shooting requires a stricter adherence to the rules. You can't compare the two. With regard to your customers comments: I seem to have lost something here? Do you tune to spec or to the individual? And if tuning to the individual is required to make a bow more "forgiving", how do you do that for people you've never met? And if you do tune to the individual what is the difference?


----------



## ontarget7

EPLC said:


> Finger shooting requires a stricter adherence to the rules. You can't compare the two. With regard to your customers comments: I seem to have lost something here? Do you tune to spec or to the individual? And if tuning to the individual is required to make a bow more "forgiving", how do you do that for people you've never met? And if you do tune to the individual what is the difference?


You will never know
One of those things that will remain a mystery to you 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> You will never know
> One of those things that will remain a mystery to you
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You used two poor analogies, My customers said so and a finger shooter said so, and won't answer the question? Can we say your opinions are more forgiving than your answers?


----------



## ontarget7

Good luck, with never tuning a bow again 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> Good luck, with never tuning a bow again
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks


----------



## nestly

*Carbon vs Aluminum*.
Just because Aluminum is more consistent than carbon, doesn't mean Aluminum is always a better choice than Carbon. In long distance shooting, small diameter/lightweight shafts have always had an accuracy advantage, and not just because of wind. Aluminum is the choice of most top level shooters for indoor. I believe aluminum has won Vegas (20 yd) something like 48 out of 50 years, yet when you go to longer Indoor competitions, the winners primarily shoot carbon or A/C.
As for the ACC vs Lightspeed comparison, the ACC's are about 30 grains heavier because the A/C shaft is much heavier than the all carbon shaft I was shooting and they're also a different diameter, so there are *at least* three variables in play. 1) Velocity / Velocity decay rate 2) F.O.C 3) Tune. 
I shot those shafts against each other head-to-head for hundreds of shots, and there was a clear advantage in group size for ACC's under 40 yards, and a clear advantage for Lightspeeds over 60 yards. I was frankly shocked that the ACC's didn't shoot as well at long distances because they have a clear advantage in every area where arrow consistency can be measured. In the future, I do plan on changing point weight in the ACC's so their initial launch speed will be on par with the Lightspeeds, unfortunately, this will widen the FOC differential even more, and also the velocity decay rate, but it will at least add to the data base. Maybe I'll find that downrange velocity is more important than FOC... maybe I'll find the opposite. 

What I don't have any doubt about however is that there's a lot more than "quality" that determines an arrows suitability for a specific task.

*"Forgiveness"*

An arrow that's *aimed* poorly will not magically change direction and find the middle just because a bow is "tuned". But on a *perfectly aimed* shot with *less than perfect shot execution*, the arrow has a better chance of landing where it was *aimed* if the bow is "tuned" through a process of adjusting based on results vs being set up with a tape measure and a square using arbitrary numbers from a chart or manual.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> *Carbon vs Aluminum*.
> Just because Aluminum is more consistent than carbon, doesn't mean Aluminum is always a better choice than Carbon. In long distance shooting, small diameter/lightweight shafts have always had an accuracy advantage, and not just because of wind. Aluminum is the choice of most top level shooters for indoor. I believe aluminum has won Vegas (20 yd) something like 48 out of 50 years, yet when you go to longer Indoor competitions, the winners primarily shoot carbon or A/C.
> As for the ACC vs Lightspeed comparison, the ACC's are about 30 grains heavier because the A/C shaft is much heavier than the all carbon shaft I was shooting and they're also a different diameter, so there are *at least* three variables in play. 1) Velocity / Velocity decay rate 2) F.O.C 3) Tune.
> I shot those shafts against each other head-to-head for hundreds of shots, and there was a clear advantage in group size for ACC's under 40 yards, and a clear advantage for Lightspeeds over 60 yards. I was frankly shocked that the ACC's didn't shoot as well at long distances because they have a clear advantage in every area where arrow consistency can be measured. In the future, I do plan on changing point weight in the ACC's so their initial launch speed will be on par with the Lightspeeds, unfortunately, this will widen the FOC differential even more, and also the velocity decay rate, but it will at least add to the data base. Maybe I'll find that downrange velocity is more important than FOC... maybe I'll find the opposite.
> 
> What I don't have any doubt about however is that there's a lot more than "quality" that determines an arrows suitability for a specific task.
> 
> *"Forgiveness"*
> 
> An arrow that's *aimed* poorly will not magically change direction and find the middle just because a bow is "tuned". But on a *perfectly aimed* shot with *less than perfect shot execution*, the arrow has a better chance of landing where it was *aimed* if the bow is "tuned" through a process of adjusting based on results vs being set up with a tape measure and a square using arbitrary numbers from a chart or manual.


My point being on the ACC's vs Lightspeeds is that neither is a high quality shaft. The ACC's are entry level AC and Lightspeeds aren't even considered entry level for a quality shaft. And you have only posted (once again) an opinion based on opinion... not what I asked for. Not to mention that my tests have produced results that contradict your opinion.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Finger shooting requires a stricter adherence to the rules.


Nonsense. In relative terms, I was a much better finger shooter than I am a release shooter. The concept and principals are no different. If you fix a set of "fingers" to a hooter shooter, and "tuned" the arrow rest for minimal lateral nock travel, it would be just as capable of one-hole accuracy as with a conventional mechanical release. This is exactly what you've been professing all along, out of machine, it doesn't matter how sideways he arrow is leaving, it's path and recovery will always be the same. Now suddenly, if the lateral nock travel is a result of the release and not the arrow rest position, it becomes important? In fact, well tuned finger release could easily have less lateral/vertical nock travel than an "untuned" bow shot with a mechanical release. Fingers is actually a perfect example of why tune DOES matter. The better the bow is tuned, the more "forgiving" it will be to inconsistencies in the shot.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> Nonsense. In relative terms, I was a much better finger shooter than I am a release shooter. The concept and principals are no different. If you fix a set of "fingers" to a hooter shooter, and "tuned" the arrow rest for minimal lateral nock travel, it would be just as capable of one-hole accuracy as with a conventional mechanical release. In fact, well tuned finger release could easily have less lateral/vertical nock travel than an "untuned" bow shot with a mechanical release. Fingers is actually a perfect example of why tune DOES matter. The better the bow is tuned, the more "forgiving" it will be to inconsistencies in the shot.


Nonsense.


----------



## Mahly

I think nestly's results are fascinating.
I wonder what the trajectory of each arrow would look like.
How one style of arrow would look grouping better near than far and vise versa.
I wonder: do the ACCs fall apart after so long of flight, and why. And/or do the Lightspeeds correct in flight after so many yards.
The latter seems implausible.

That said, I no longer buy the old carbon vs. aluminum generalizations. I think good carbons can be as good as aluminum, better for some things.... but that is a different topic.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> My point being on the ACC's vs Lightspeeds is that neither is a high quality shaft. The ACC's are entry level AC and Lightspeeds aren't even considered entry level for a quality shaft.


You don't know enough about arrows. There isn't a single category where your X-Impacts would exceed the consistency of ACC's. In fact, I'm not aware of any arrow shaft that has higher tolerances than ACC's. During a personal conversation with Tim Gillingham (Gold tip employee and spokesman) about the very subject of spine and weight consistency, he referred to ACC's as the "gold standard". Just because arrow "X" costs more than arrow "Y" doesn't mean"Y" is better, talk about Placebo effect....


----------



## Mahly

I'm wondering if Tim spends a lot of time checking other brands (especially Black Eagle) of arrows. They have some amazing arrows for the price.

This gives me an idea to further test these theories, only there are too many variables for me to test efficiently.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

Mahly said:


> I'm wondering if Tim spends a lot of time checking other brands (especially Black Eagle) of arrows. They have some amazing arrows for the price.
> 
> This gives me an idea to further test these theories, only there are too many variables for me to test efficiently.


I don't think anyone does more archery related testing than Tim.... I'd be surprised if he doesn't have boxes and boxes of Black Eagles hidden in his office that he throws on the GT test fixtures when no one is looking. LOL



Mahly said:


> This gives me an idea to further test these theories, only there are too many variables for me to test efficiently.


Yeah, just to test what affect GPI, FOC, and FPS has on long range accuracy would cause my shoulder to explode... Arrow testing is one area where I believe a shooting machine would actually be beneficial.


----------



## whiz-Oz

nestly said:


> A great shooter can still shoot a Vegas 600 with $3 Walmart arrows, or an economy bow, or a bow that's un-tuned. As said before, none of those things matter when the shot is perfect, and ALL of them matter when the shot is not.


This part is particularly hilarious. 
It appears that the force of an archers personality can magically compensate for arrows that are of inferred random quality. 

The fun part is that you actually can't explain how this happens with real, actual scientific principles. Just lots of claims that you can't back up. So I'm going to encourage you to dig yourself in deeper. 

This is so that you can really really commit yourself. 
I'll tell you now that it IS a trap. 
Doesn't have to be now or even in this thread. 

All you guys relying on opinions that you can't actually explain, yet go against established science AND practice by participants in other shooting sports like, benchrest, varmint shooting, crossbow who are absolutely critical about the consistency of their ammunition. Apparently, they just don't have tuned or forgiving enough equipment? 

I guess match grade ammo is just a vanity thing? Snipers get special ammo just to bolster their egos? 

So, all the Olympians who are the top of their game must be saving a few bucks by using walmart arrows? 
They must be just like, paid to say that they use top quality stuff? Surely they don't NEED to use them.


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> The fun part is that you actually can't explain how this happens with real, actual scientific principles. Just lots of claims that you can't back up.
> 
> ... benchrest, varmint shooting, crossbow who are absolutely critical about the consistency of their ammunition. Apparently, they just don't have tuned or forgiving enough equipment?


I gather you lack competitive experience in shooting sports, or you're just clowning. Neither is helpful in this topic.

All of those other shooting sports also require careful attention to "tuning" the ammunition to the weapon. Firearms accuracy is not determined by the precision of the weapon, nor the precision of the ammunition, they must also be "tuned" to achieve greatest accuracy. Further more, in the case of bench rest, the action must be "tuned" to the stock. Even slight variation in action screw or barrel pressure will degrade accuracy. 
Those other shooting sports are also significantly different than archery because the shooting device is a self contained mechanism that once "tuned" for greatest accuracy, need only be aimed and triggered by the shooter. In archery, the person holding the device not only aims and triggers it, they are ALSO *part of the shooting device*. Hand torque, heel pressure, consistent draw length/draw pressure, and face contact are but a few of the variables that have a significant affect on the consistency with which the arrow leaves the bow, and therefore where the arrow lands relative to where it was aimed. Simply put, there are A LOT more variables in the accuracy equation than with the other shooting sports you mentioned, and the biggest variables that affect accuracy in archery are the human variables.





whiz-Oz said:


> So, all the Olympians who are the top of their game must be saving a few bucks by using walmart arrows?
> They must be just like, paid to say that they use top quality stuff? Surely they don't NEED to use them.


Not what I said at all....and I'll spell it out for you as it appears you may not have much experience competing at a high level. Most archery tournaments are not won by the person that makes the most "good" shots, they're won by the person that makes the fewest "bad" ones.



nestly said:


> As said before, none of those things matter when the shot is perfect, and ALL of them matter when the shot is not.


----------



## ontarget7

nestly said:


> I gather you lack competitive experience in shooting sports, or you're just clowning. Neither is helpful in this topic.
> 
> All of those other shooting sports also require careful attention to "tuning" the ammunition to the weapon. Firearms accuracy is not determined by the precision of the weapon, nor the precision of the ammunition, they must also be "tuned" to achieve greatest accuracy. Further more, in the case of bench rest, the action must be "tuned" to the stock. Even slight variation in action screw or barrel pressure will degrade accuracy.
> Those other shooting sports are also significantly different than archery because the shooting device is a self contained mechanism that once "tuned" for greatest accuracy, need only be aimed and triggered by the shooter. In archery, the person holding the device not only aims and triggers it, they are ALSO *part of the shooting device*. Hand torque, heel pressure, consistent draw length/draw pressure, and face contact are but a few of the variables that have a significant affect on the consistency with which the arrow leaves the bow, and therefore where the arrow lands relative to where it was aimed. Simply put, there are A LOT more variables in the accuracy equation than with the other shooting sports you mentioned, and the biggest variables that affect accuracy in archery are the human variables.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said at all....and I'll spell it out for you as it appears you may not have much experience competing at a high level. Most archery tournaments are not won by the person that makes the most "good" shots, they're won by the person that makes the fewest "bad" ones.


Agreed ^^^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## montigre

I shoot both, competitive archery and am starting to shoot competitive firearms.... I disagree that firearm accuracy has nothing to do with the precision of the weapon. If that were the case, there would be no need for the production of match-grade firearms and ammo. I can fully attest there is a marked difference between my regular go plinking at the range weapons and those that have been built specifically with competition in mind--same is true of the ammo used. There is also a marked difference in accuracy between my lesson bow and those I personally use for competitions...

Additionally, like with archery, the firearms competitor has to be mindful of their trigger control, grip, breathing, stance, muscular tension, and if shooting long guns, their consistent anchor and their consistent shooting length. 

So, the human variable is just as important in archery as it is with the other shooting sports--that is is you have any gumption of winning.....


----------



## whiz-Oz

nestly said:


> I gather you lack competitive experience in shooting sports, or you're just clowning. Neither is helpful in this topic.


Ooh, you got me. Not as much as I'd like. Olympic Selection for 96, Military Crossed rifles and IPSC World Shoot Adelaide. 





nestly said:


> All of those other shooting sports also require careful attention to "tuning" the ammunition to the weapon. Firearms accuracy is not determined by the precision of the weapon, nor the precision of the ammunition, they must also be "tuned" to achieve greatest accuracy. Further more, in the case of bench rest, the action must be "tuned" to the stock. Even slight variation in action screw or barrel pressure will degrade accuracy.
> Those other shooting sports are also significantly different than archery because the shooting device is a self contained mechanism that once "tuned" for greatest accuracy, need only be aimed and triggered by the shooter. In archery, the person holding the device not only aims and triggers it, they are ALSO *part of the shooting device*. Hand torque, heel pressure, consistent draw length/draw pressure, and face contact are but a few of the variables that have a significant affect on the consistency with which the arrow leaves the bow, and therefore where the arrow lands relative to where it was aimed. Simply put, there are A LOT more variables in the accuracy equation than with the other shooting sports you mentioned, and the biggest variables that affect accuracy in archery are the human variables.


The matching of the load to the weapon is exactly what we're talking about. Except that you've now crossed over and totally ignored that the consistency of the projectile is still the limiting factor of the performance that can be extracted in ALL shooting sports. 





nestly said:


> Not what I said at all....and I'll spell it out for you as it appears you may not have much experience competing at a high level. Most archery tournaments are not won by the person that makes the most "good" shots, they're won by the person that makes the fewest "bad" ones.


I note that once again, you've totally avoided answering with any hard science or fact.


----------



## nestly

montigre said:


> I disagree that firearm accuracy has nothing to do with the precision of the weapon. If that were the case, there would be no need for the production of match-grade firearms and ammo. I can fully attest there is a marked difference between my regular go plinking at the range weapons and those that have been built specifically with competition in mind--same is true of the ammo used. There is also a marked difference in accuracy between my lesson bow and those I personally use for competitions...


And I didn't say or suggest that. Better quality firearm will likely be capable of higher precision, and better quality ammo will similarly be capable of higher precision. But neither a better gun, nor better ammo will cause you to win against someone that has taken great care in tuning their gun and matching the ammo to the gun. I have a match grade air rifle (spring piston) and the best groups out of it are not with "match grade" pellets.


----------



## EPLC

ACC's $148.08 Doz
Lightspeed $133.08 Doz
Gold Tip Ultra Light Pro's $149 Doz

Get a handle on yourself. These are not high end shafts by any stretch of the imagination. Goldtip doesn't even make one. My testing has shown that the only way to reduce an existing group size would be to improve the consistency of the arrows. Also, to claim that finger shooting does not greatly increase the criticality of arrow spine and bow/arrow match is, in your own words.. nonsense.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Well, I had a match grade side lever Feinwerkbau which wouldn't group with any pellets because the previous owner used mineral oil in it that dieselled and had up to 8fps velocity variation. It wouldn't group in a vice. 

I think it might be beneficial if we had a bit of a summary of what we think each other's viewpoints are, because this is turning into credibility and experience attacks rather than a factual debate.


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> I note that once again, you've totally avoided answering with any hard science or fact.


"Science" isn't the primary factor in determining how close to the middle an arrow lands. There plenty of archers that could destroy you or me in competition while using Walmart arrows or re-straightened Gamegetter arrows. The "proof" that tuning works is found in the record books, and what the people that hold those records say contributed to their success. Equipment a factor?.... Yes, Tuning also a factor?.... Yes


----------



## whiz-Oz

Okay then. 
Shall we investigate that with a few simple questions? 

If you had a shooting machine that was absolutely perfect in every way, and you had whatever bow that you liked to use, If I handed you six arrows of completely different spines, how well do you reckon that they would group? 

We'll assume that your ability to operate this shooting machine is faultless and we have a controlled environment with no appreciable atmospheric movement. 

The only variable that will make a difference is the arrow variation. 

Please describe the obvious.


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> If you had a shooting machine that was absolutely perfect in every way, and you had whatever bow that you liked to use, If I handed you six arrows of completely different spines, how well do you reckon that they would group?


Define "completely different spine"? Within normal spine tolerances for a particular model, or are we talking about randomly selected shafts pulled out of the lost and found box?

I'll share another piece of info from my conversation with Tim G. He said he couldn't tell any difference between arrows that had a +/- 15 spine variation at 50 yards, and I'll admit that I can't either. 
On the other hand, some years ago George Tekmitchov did observe a small, (but significant) advantage for arrows with higher spine consistency (however the actual difference in consistency of the arrows tested was not revealed so there's no point of reference) The article however is more about consistencies (or rather inconsistencies) with carbon, and he touches on the reason(s) why aluminum is more consistent than carbon. The article is dated, but his observations about carbon is still valid and confirmed by myself while talking to Gold Tip support recently.

I want to be perfectly clear about one thing. All else being equal, I absolutely believe arrows with higher tolerances can reasonably be expected to perform better than arrows with lower tolerances. I haven't said or suggested otherwise, nor do I recall anyone else in this topic having done so either. Having said that there are many variables in archery that have a bigger impact on accuracy than spine tolerance, one of them being that all else being equal, an arrow that shoots a bullet through paper will perform better than one that tears a 2" hole.


----------



## EPLC

I can't speak to a 2" tear because I didn't test a 2" tear. What I did test was a 1/2" tear vs a clean hole. The was no difference in group size using two different bows.

Oh, tech support is not a reliable source. Mathews tech once told me their bows didn't run long. That's just one example. In your example you've quoted a company that doesn't even offer a high end target shaft. What would you expect them to say?


----------



## Mahly

whiz-Oz said:


> Okay then.
> Shall we investigate that with a few simple questions?
> 
> If you had a shooting machine that was absolutely perfect in every way, and you had whatever bow that you liked to use, If I handed you six arrows of completely different spines, how well do you reckon that they would group?
> 
> We'll assume that your ability to operate this shooting machine is faultless and we have a controlled environment with no appreciable atmospheric movement.
> 
> The only variable that will make a difference is the arrow variation.
> 
> Please describe the obvious.


I'll answer this, and a couple of other topics with what I believe and whatever theories I can articulate:

I think the wider the variability in spine, the larger the groups will be. I can not say HOW large the groups would be without doing the test, or at least knowing of a similar tests results.
I also think the less "tuned" (and by tuned I mean basically perfect arrow flight, bullet holes, BS tuned...whatever) the larger the groups will be with the arrows of dissimilar spine. Again, HOW much larger? No idea. Of course, there would likely be a limit as to how much variability you could have in spine and still consider the bow "tuned". The less horizontal movement, the less vertical movement in the shot cycle, the less effect it (spine)should have on the test.

How much of this is "real world" applicable? Again, need to see some similar tests. EPLC did test some different arrows and some grouped poorly, but there were more variables other than just spine.

Are we assuming that all of the arrows are spine indexed as well? Or at least that the arrows in question are consistent enough that spine indexing wouldn't make much difference?


Other topics discussed here:
I don't understand how a "pro" would be able to shoot "bad" arrows and still win, but a lesser shooter would notice the difference. If the "bad" arrows won't group better out of the bow, how does a "pro" compensate and know which way to compensate in his/her aiming to hit the X if the arrows are not capable of it on their own.
I would think a "pro" would be more likely to see a difference in bad arrows as he knows the groups he/she is capable of, and if the arrows are increasing the size of that group, it would be obvious.

I think the VAST majority of "pro" archers...the guys winning Vegas have a sponsorship with a company that sells aluminum arrows. When most of the pros shoot your arrow, you win most of the Vegas shoots. The relatively few wins for carbon arrows are still wins. And the fact that they beat everyone else shooting aluminum is impressive on its own (even though it's likely the arrows had nothing to do with the win). Even in the cases that aluminum arrows were shot by the winner....many more aluminum arrows were shot by those that didn't win. Personally, I think indoors at 20y/18m is the LEAST important arena to have the best arrows.

If you couldn't tell by now, I don't believe that aluminum arrows in general are any better than decent carbon arrows.

As mentioned before, torque tuning and creep tuning are most likely the most important things in making a bow more "forgiving". "Tuning" MAY help lesser arrows perform closer to better arrows, but with perfect arrows, tuning becomes unimportant. HOW perfect is perfect as far as human beings are concerned? I don't know the answer.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> I can't speak to a 2" tear because I didn't test a 2" tear. What I did test was a 1/2" tear vs a clean hole. *The was no difference in group size using two different bows.*


Out of a machine? I find that entirely plausible depending on the sample size. I will point out that when George did long term test of an Olympic archer, the difference was 2 points out of 120 possible points. That's probably not something you could easily discern without actually counting every arrow and/or recording each group size. So when you say there's "no difference" are you certain there wouldn't be any difference on a full round.






EPLC said:


> Oh, tech support is not a reliable source. Mathews tech once told me their bows didn't run long. That's just one example. In your example you've quoted a company that doesn't even offer a high end target shaft. What would you expect them to say?


I don't know how many pros you've ever spoke to in your life, but my experience is that the overwhelming majority are straight forward, honest, and sensible people. I believe Tim was completely honest with me, he gave other manufacturers credit for the quality of their product, but it didn't prevent him from pitching is brand as the best overall solution. 
BlackEagles have a +/- 10 spine tolerance within a weight coded "matched dozen" so it's perfectly reasonable to assume their tolerance for any specific model may be no better than Gold Tips ( ie +/- 15) LINK


----------



## EPLC

Like I said, I did testing, you rely on hearsay.


----------



## nestly

Mahly said:


> I don't understand how a "pro" would be able to shoot "bad" arrows and still win


They all shoot "bad" arrows every round (relatively speaking) They "tune" their bow so their bad shots are less bad. It's not substantially different than torque tuning, you're "tuning" the bow so shooter inconsistencies have the minimum affect possible. No one is claiming an arrow released while the dot was moving out of the 10 ring is going to somehow correct itself and land better than is was shot.



Mahly said:


> I think the VAST majority of "pro" archers...the guys winning Vegas have a sponsorship with a company that sells aluminum arrows.


Not sure I understand the point since Easton also sells carbon arrows in the same diameters that are typically used for Indoor/Vegas. Unless you're suggesting that Easton is somehow influencing shooters to choose aluminum, it must be assumed that the archers themselves find some advantage in shooting aluminum vs carbon in that particular game where speed/drag are significant considerations.




Mahly said:


> If you couldn't tell by now, I don't believe that aluminum arrows in general are any better than decent carbon arrows.


see above 
"Better" is subjective, but all you need is a spine tester, straightness, tester, and arrow scale to know which has higher tolerances.

George said in the article linked previously " _All experienced shooters know that when it comes to pure consistency, there’s nothing better than aluminum 
as a shaft material._" and if that's an overstatement at all, it's only because fewer and fewer shooters are comparing aluminum and carbon head-to-head.


----------



## EPLC

thawk said:


> My opinion is that people spend way to much time tuning, paper tune, walk back, french, modified french, bare shaft, BS paper, blah blah blah.
> But the same people spend little time getting a bow to aim. They may play with some weight, but don't invest in multiple length stabilizers, don't try different mounting locations, don't tiller tune, don't mess with holding weight, don't play with nock height or rest height, don't try advancing or ******ing cams because they don't want to mess up their perfect 9 step tune. As a result they have a bow that sends a perfect arrow down range every time, but they can't hold on the dot to save their life.
> 
> These days I have a harder time telling when I have a forgiving setup then I did 15 years ago, I simply don't hold as good as I used to. But I will say some of the least forgiving bows I ever shot had the best flying arrows. If I got a perfect hole it seemed like I had to make a perfect shot, but if I left my tune at 1/2" high left my marginal shots still found the dot.
> 
> Had a friend over the other night that has won many pro events this year and a gold medal with a bow that has a 2"+ tear. They know it's flying bad, but the arrows go where they are pointed and it is forgiving. So Mahly there you go, if it works you have to let it go between the ears.


This post is probably the most pertinent bit of information to help build forgiveness into a setup and it has nothing to do with tuning arrow flight. The better a bow holds the easier it is to shoot. Why does my shooter shoot better than I do? Because it holds better. And because it holds better it is a better platform to assess what really works and what is actually voodoo. To discount this is foolish. 

And what do the great shooters all have in common? They all hold really well. I read a Dave Cousins quote a long time ago that said the one that is the steadiest on any given day is the one that wins. As mentioned earlier, wouldn't it be best to train the archer to be more of a machine than trying to get the bow to perform like the archer?


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Like I said, I did testing, you rely on hearsay.


In post #205 you included pics of 3 groups, and I'm certain at least one of them is not representative of what an unbiased test would show. (unless you're asserting that 3 -3.5" groups at 80 yards freehand is your average group size). If that group isn't "typical" or included only to show one extreme within the range of testing, then why post it at all. Why would I assume any of the pics are not cherry picked to bolster your point?


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> ACC's $148.08 Doz
> Lightspeed $133.08 Doz
> Gold Tip Ultra Light Pro's $149 Doz
> 
> Get a handle on yourself. These are not high end shafts by any stretch of the imagination....


Yeah, and the arrow shaft that wins Vegas every year costs less than all of your examples. Now what was your point again?



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> Yeah, and the arrow shaft that wins Vegas every year costs less than all of your examples. Now what was your point again?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


Vegas is 20 yards. Jessie shot carbon stabilizer blanks quite well in Springfield a while back from 20. My point was that your examples are not high end target arrows and they are not what the pros are shooting for long range venues. My X-Impacts are not high end either but they test out quite well. I have a dozen Nano Pros that I'm almost tempted to test but you wouldn't be convinced no matter what the results turned out to be anyway. Tuned or un-tuned my X-Impacts drop right in the 5 ring at 80 yards. I have not found that center shot position (within reason) alters the group size. Altering the spine by changing lengths within a 3.5" range did not change group size. Changing bows, tuned or un-tuned did not change group size. Changing to different arrows did impact group size based on the match of these arrows. The ACG's I tested were not as tight as the carbon X-Impacts. The aluminums I tested were all over the place. Same tune, different arrows, different results. Different tune, same arrows, same results. I know, I just repeated myself.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> In post #205 you included pics of 3 groups, and I'm certain at least one of them is not representative of what an unbiased test would show. (unless you're asserting that 3 -3.5" groups at 80 yards freehand is your average group size). If that group isn't "typical" or included only to show one extreme within the range of testing, then why post it at all. Why would I assume any of the pics are not cherry picked to bolster your point?


The original post http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4094626&p=1092513865#post1092513865 said this was the 80 walk-up. And I did not say that the freehand pic was my average group size or in any way elude to that. I even posted my score for that half round which was 261. What I did say was that I'm getting groups like this on a consistent basis. I also stated all over this message board that due to an injury I have trouble sustaining those type of shots. On the other hand, the two pics of the machine groups are typical of the groups I have been getting from the machine at 80 yards. 

I've been a member of this forum since day 2 and have never been anything but honest about my shooting. I also know a thing or two about bow tuning, it's half the enjoyment I get out of this game. So now I'm not only a crappy tuner, I'm a liar. I take exception to your insinuations.


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> And what do the great shooters all have in common? They all hold really well. I read a Dave Cousins quote a long time ago that said the one that is the steadiest on any given day is the one that wins. As mentioned earlier, *wouldn't it be best to train the archer to be more of a machine than trying to get the bow to perform like the archer*?


Getting a solid hold is generally a large investment. It's part physical, part equipment, and part mental. Generally takes months to years to get repeatable results.

For the relatively little time it takes to tune a bow there's no reason to not do it. It doesn't hurt and just that little extra confidence can help with execution.

Do both.


----------



## EPLC

Bobmuley said:


> Getting a solid hold is generally a large investment. It's part physical, part equipment, and part mental. Generally takes months to years to get repeatable results.
> 
> For the relatively little time it takes to tune a bow there's no reason to not do it. It doesn't hurt and just that little extra confidence can help with execution.
> 
> Do both.


Bob, am I correct in my assumption that you have formed your opinion solely on the bow that was tuned for you? I do agree that the confidence factor is large here, perhaps the most important thing in shooting. If a tune provides it, then tune away. I've said this from the very start, whether real or imagined, anything that improves confidence is a good thing. That said; do not underestimate the value of a good hold... it's well worth the effort. I just wish I were better at it.


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> Bob, am I correct in my assumption that you have formed your opinion solely on the bow that was tuned for you? I do agree that the confidence factor is large here, perhaps the most important thing in shooting. If a tune provides it, then tune away. I've said this from the very start, whether real or imagined, anything that improves confidence is a good thing. That said; do not underestimate the value of a good hold... it's well worth the effort. I just wish I were better at it.


Just an observance:

I remember when Dave Cousins would also tune his bow on his Hooter Shooter, then alter his form to mimic the impact point that the machine had. It's a good lesson of doing what you said, "trying to be more of a machine". 

I do not have Dave-Cousins-esque form. But, I make the most out of the dozen's of bows I've had, because in my hands they score better in the real world when tuned. Probably subjective, as I couldn't put any more weight into the reason being confidence, "forgiveness", or pure luck. Hard to disprove a negative. Its also hard to dismiss the fact that everyone that shoots perfect, or nearly so, tunes their bow. I'm not willing to give up any advantage, real or perceived, especially since it takes so little effort in the grand scheme of things. 

Even Dave Cousins misses, as they all do. I suppose that's why they tune their bows.


----------



## EPLC

Bobmuley said:


> Just an observance:
> 
> I remember when Dave Cousins would also tune his bow on his Hooter Shooter, then alter his form to mimic the impact point that the machine had. It's a good lesson of doing what you said, "trying to be more of a machine".
> 
> I do not have Dave-Cousins-esque form. But, I make the most out of the dozen's of bows I've had, because in my hands they score better in the real world when tuned. Probably subjective, as I couldn't put any more weight into the reason being confidence, "forgiveness", or pure luck. Hard to disprove a negative. Its also hard to dismiss the fact that everyone that shoots perfect, or nearly so, tunes their bow. I'm not willing to give up any advantage, real or perceived, especially since it takes so little effort in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> Even Dave Cousins misses, as they all do. I suppose that's why they tune their bows.


I would be in total agreement with this if you didn't use the term "everyone" although you did qualify it. It's not tuning in general, it's what's important. I do know that almost all of the best shooters shoot really good arrows. How much time they actually spend tuning their bows would be speculative at best. I know for sure that some never so much as touch their bows as not all good shooters are good mechanics... in fact I'll bet many of them are not. An archer can be one or another or both. One is not dependent on the other. Same would apply to coaching, etc. although to some lesser degree.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> . I know for sure that some never so much as touch their bows as not all good shooters are good mechanics... in fact I'll bet many of them are not.


I would be interested to hear the the name of even one top level archer that does not tune their own bow.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rick!

nestly said:


> And I didn't say or suggest that. Better quality firearm will likely be capable of higher precision, and better quality ammo will similarly be capable of higher precision. But neither a better gun, nor better ammo will cause you to win against someone that has taken great care in tuning their gun and matching the ammo to the gun. *I have a match grade air rifle* (spring piston) and the best groups out of it are not with "match grade" pellets.





whiz-Oz said:


> Well,* I had a match grade side lever Feinwerkbau* which wouldn't group with any pellets because the previous owner used mineral oil in it that dieselled and had up to 8fps velocity variation. It wouldn't group in a vice.
> 
> I think it might be beneficial if we had a bit of a summary of what we think each other's viewpoints are, because this is turning into credibility and experience attacks rather than a factual debate.


Ok, I was wondering when the long barrel comparison was going to happen. You guys don't disappoint. 

Agree to disagree and move on...


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> I would be in total agreement with this if you didn't use the term "everyone" although you did qualify it. It's not tuning in general, it's what's important. I do know that almost all of the best shooters shoot really good arrows. How much time they actually spend tuning their bows would be speculative at best. I know for sure that some never so much as touch their bows as not all good shooters are good mechanics... in fact I'll bet many of them are not. An archer can be one or another or both. One is not dependent on the other. Same would apply to coaching, etc. although to some lesser degree.


I wonder if we could detune the bow to where it groups worse? A case of "good enough" for the task at hand. 

I know many of the top shooters are self-proclaimed anal-retentive tuners, though it may not be for the best arrow flight as it is a starting point for group tuning. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

More and more top shooters are starting to bareshaft tune, I wonder why 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

Bobmuley said:


> I wonder if we could detune the bow to where it groups worse? A case of "good enough" for the task at hand.
> 
> I know many of the top shooters are self-proclaimed anal-retentive tuners, though it may not be for the best arrow flight as it is a starting point for group tuning.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you think about it that's what I did, although I started with the bad tune and went to a good tune. Neither showed any difference in group size. With the poor tune I shot 7 arrow ends for about two hours and only had 2 out of the spot from 80 yards. With the tuned center shot (I had to shim the cams to add some lean) I didn't shoot quite as long but the results were the same. I did produce one group that was very tight but was unable to repeat it.


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

nestly said:


> "tuning" is results based adjustment, or in other words, adjustments made to achieve better results



Yes, I know but you still didn't answer my question. What are you doing to achieve your results? You're being vague. Do you mean "tuning" is rest based adjustments to acheive better results? Yokes if you have them and/or both?

You mean moving your rest a hair to the left or a hair to the right from the center shot based on results you get from shooting freehand at a certain distance(s) after the initial set up (leveling everything in a vise and I'm assuming you set the actual center shot). Or is "tuning" how you find "your center shot"? 

I have my own way of finding the true center shot of a given bow. Not from reading or from other people but from experience and I have yet to see or hear anyone doing it or describing it, not to toot my own horn I'm just saying. 

Moving the rest a hair to the left/right or yoke adjustments isn't much of bow "tuning" in my opinion. 

In my mind bow "tuning" is tuning the actual bow itself (string/cables) to acheive optimum bow efficiency, performance, fine adjustments for draw length, timing/sync and holding weight. Everything else is just an initial setup to me (draw length, peep height, leveling arrow/rest elevation/nock point and setting the true center shot in the vise) and then on to sighting in. 

I've tried most if not all the known "tuning" techniques. Not saying they don't work, do it by all means if it makes you a better shooter but I now just leave it on the true center shot and adjust my wrist if needed (granted that the bow can actually shoot a bullet hole haha).

Once again just do whatever makes you a better shooter, who cares. For most people though I suggest and agree with Bob just do both. I'm just kinda OCD about my setup haha.


----------



## ontarget7

A bows true centershot is just a matter of aligning with the said powerstroke. This can vary some do to current shim configuration,
Pre lean etc. Now you can manipulate those things to create a certain centershot measurement but you are still just aligning the rest so it matches that said power stroke. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ex-wolverine

nestly said:


> I would be interested to hear the the name of even one top level archer that does not tune their own bow.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


You would be very surprised 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thawk

Did I miss it where EPLC said he wasn't going to tune his bows anymore? What I gathered was he no longer feels that a perfect tune is as important as many think it is.
What's wrong with that? Why does his testing with a hooter shooter offend everyone so much?
Is it because he is using a machine and not testing hand held? A machine gives the best, most consistent results, it's why shooters use them to "prove" arrows before they put them in their quiver.

EPLC thank you for taking the time to both do the testing and sharing your results, your results didn't surprise me, but it's nice to see it tested with a machine rather then just what I have felt from my own shooting.


----------



## nestly

thawk said:


> Did I miss it where EPLC said he wasn't going to tune his bows anymore?


No, I don't think he said *HE* would stop tuning, but the implication is clearly that tuning is "voodoo" (his word, used multiple times) and an archer can just measure rest and nock height and head off to the next competition with full confidence that the outcome will be no different than if finer adjustments were made based on what may be learned by shooting it through paper, or bareshaft tuning, etc.



thawk said:


> Is it because he is using a machine and not testing hand held?


Yes, at least in part. The phenomenon commonly known as "forgiveness" is real, and it cannot be evaluated when the bow is held in a machine, because there's nothing to "forgive" when a machine (shooter) is holding a machine (bow). Many including myself have said that "tuning" doesn't make good shoots better, it helps make bad shots less bad. To be clear, for the purposes of this discussion, a "bad shot" is not a poorly aimed arrow, it refers to poor shot execution.

Another grievance I have with the test is the way results were evaluated. I don't see any indication that group sizes were ever measured, or even that arrows were scored, so how is his test more valid than the thousands of people who evaluate what affect (tuning) changes have on their group size in a real world scenario when they are the ones holding the bow? The OP often uses the phrase "no difference" in reference to group sizes where one or more variables changed. (including change of 3.5" in shaft length) I assert that's a statistical impossibility. In the test of the Olympic archer referenced earlier, the difference was 2 point out of 120. It's likely that if someone merely "looked" at group sizes, they would also have determined there's "no difference". No one is claiming that tuning will turn an average shooter into a world class shooter, but every little bit counts in competition, so the value of 3-1/16" groups vs 3-1/8" is a lot greater than 1/16th of an inch. To be credible, group sizes have to be recorded as well as measuring the adjustment made to the bow a each stage of the test. It also needs to be a blind test performed by humans, not machines, since you're not allowed to set up a hooter shooter on the shooting line, and it gets extremely crowded when you try to drag a shooter up in the tree with you.



thawk said:


> it's why shooters use them to "prove" arrows before they put them in their quiver.


Absolutely agree. A shooting machine is an excellent tool for evaluating arrow consistency and performance because the ONLY variable is the arrow.


----------



## thawk

I don't know how to do the individual quotes so I'll go in order.

I didnt get the impression that EPLC will just set nock height and center shot and head into the woods or to the range, I simply get the impression he will no longer stress out if his tune isn't perfect.

The forgiveness factor with and without a machine, to me goes back to tuning the bow. Many have trashed nuts and bolts for saying to make small adjustments at longer ranges till you find the sweet spot. This is almost exactly what Rio says he does as does Jessie and others. 
So as to forgiveness through the machine, you are right it does not tell you when it will be the most forgiving in a shooters hand, nor does paper tuning or bare shaft tuning, they simply tell you when you have good arrow flight. But some people won't make adjustment if their arrows are flying great even if the setup is not forgiving. The machine also takes out the human factor from group to group. I don't know about you but I have shot a smoking group from 60+ yards, pulled my arrows and sprayed them all over the dot the next round, pulled them and shot all in the X again, nothing changed, just human factor.

I agree with both your next points, all group sizes should have been measured and recorded then the averages would give the true results, but I have no reason to think he would lie about the results so I'm fine with how he reported them. 
I 100% agree with a group being 1/16 tighter being important. I miss a few points at redding every year by a 1/16 or less in 2015 I fell one point short of winning the nfaa side of the tournament. That's why in the thread about arrow clocking I said if it helps by any measurable amount it's worth doing.

Anyway, not a big deal, I just felt ELPC was getting beat up more then he deserves for doing a test and posting his results.


----------



## duc

ontarget7 said:


> More and more top shooters are starting to bareshaft tune, I wonder why [emoji848]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because the myth born on ignorance and perpetuated through fear of ridicule is beaten into people's heads at an early age. Just like the belief in God.


----------



## Mahly

Why is it we can't replicate the "imperfect" shot on a shooting machine?
We can creep tune with one. Why couldn't we simulate an imperfect shot to test the "forgiveness" theory?


----------



## thawk

ontarget7 said:


> More and more top shooters are starting to bareshaft tune, I wonder why [emoji848]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because it can't hurt to try anything, it's just a little time, but here is a fact that comes straight from your words.
If top shooters are "starting" to bareshaft tune then bareshaft tuning had nothing to do with them becoming top shooters in the first place.


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

Could it be that the more you tune, the more you shoot, the more your muscles build up, the better shooting shape you're in, the steadier you become, the more accurate you are and you just contribute it to tuning instead of giving yourself the credit?


----------



## ontarget7

thawk said:


> Because it can't hurt to try anything, it's just a little time, but here is a fact that comes straight from your words.
> If top shooters are "starting" to bareshaft tune then bareshaft tuning had nothing to do with them becoming top shooters in the first place.


Here is another fact [emoji6]

They are seeing more forgiveness when doing so. This is not me just pulling this out of a hat either. 

I know some that have shot their best scores to date by doing so [emoji15]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

duc said:


> Because the myth born on ignorance and perpetuated through fear of ridicule is beaten into people's heads at an early age. Just like the belief in God.



I was raised atheist and I am Christian now. Nothing was beaten into my head. What I got is a relationship, that is a choice. 

To each their own 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thawk

ontarget7 said:


> Here is another fact [emoji6]
> 
> They are seeing more forgiveness when doing so. This is not me just pulling this out of a hat either.
> 
> I know some that have shot their best scores to date by doing so [emoji15]
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


how is that a fact? Cause you said so? Who are they? How much better are they shooting? 
What about the top shooters that don't BS tune and are shooting better then ever? They don't count?


----------



## nestly

Mahly said:


> Why is it we can't replicate the "imperfect" shot on a shooting machine?
> We can creep tune with one. Why couldn't we simulate an imperfect shot to test the "forgiveness" theory?


No reason I can think of. Heck, in addition to modifying the shooter so grip pressure and draw length is random, mount the whole thing to one of those springy playground animals to simulate "float". I think there would be a limited amount of people interested in such a test though because the whole reason to have a shooter is to eliminate as many variables as possible... and there's the rub, who cares if a bow can stack arrows on top each other from a machine, there's no competition or awards for accuracy when using a shooting machine. I'm not even sure whether it even qualifies as "archery" when a person has no direct contact with the bow.


----------



## ontarget7

thawk said:


> how is that a fact? Cause you said so? Who are they? How much better are they shooting?
> What about the top shooters that don't BS tune and are shooting better then ever? They don't count?


Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

It's rather easy IMO

Not sure why it's so hard to grasp that an arrow in flight with less correction to be made would naturally be more forgiving. When there is more correction in flight that needs to be made and you impart a imperfect shot via form etc you compound the issues even more. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

ontarget7 said:


> A bows true centershot is just a matter of aligning with the said powerstroke. This can vary some do to current shim configuration,
> Pre lean etc. Now you can manipulate those things to create a certain centershot measurement but you are still just aligning the rest so it matches that said power stroke. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Lol


----------



## duc

ontarget7 said:


> It's rather easy IMO
> 
> Not sure why it's so hard to grasp that an arrow in flight with less correction to be made would naturally be more forgiving. When there is more correction in flight that needs to be made and you impart a imperfect shot via form etc you compound the issues even more.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Shane. Try to balance an arrow point first on a table. After 3-4 tries you see that it falls in a random fashion. Now instead of trying to balance it, give it a bit of lean in one direction. It always now falls in the direction of lean. What I'm getting at is that if you are trying to get the arrow to be pushed directly through centre of the power-stroke you wil get deviation on how the arrow leaves the bow. If it has a slight up, down, left, right, then it will always come out the same. This is why I think tuning doesn't work as people think it should. So you get so called perfect arrow flight from bare shaft tuning only to mess it up when you so called group tune. So a perfect group tuned bow isn't perfectly bare shaft tuned any more. So why not just eyeball everything and be done. Lots of people have learned that it works.


----------



## nestly

duc said:


> Shane. Try to balance an arrow point first on a table. After 3-4 tries you see that it falls in a random fashion. Now instead of trying to balance it, give it a bit of lean in one direction. It always now falls in the direction of lean. What I'm getting at is that if you are trying to get the arrow to be pushed directly through centre of the power-stroke *you wil get deviation on how the arrow leaves the bow. If it has a slight up, down, left, right, then it will always come out the same.* This is why I think tuning doesn't work as people think it should. So you get so called perfect arrow flight from bare shaft tuning only to mess it up when you so called group tune. So a perfect group tuned bow isn't perfectly bare shaft tuned any more. So why not just eyeball everything and be done. Lots of people have learned that it works.


The deviation still occurs whether the arrow is perfectly aligned with the power stroke or not. I don't disagree that an arrow being pushed directly through the middle of the power stroke will sometimes leave the bow x-amount tail high and sometimes x-amount tail low due to shooter inconsistencies (same for left/right), but so too will an arrow that's tuned 1/2" tail high sometimes be 1/2" tail high *plus* x-amount and other times 1/2" tail high *minus* x-amount due to shooter inconsistencies. Either way, the attitude of both arrows deviate from the average by "x-amount". 

All else being equal, a stabilized arrow is more accurate than a non-stabilized arrow. The farther the arrow is from being in state of stabilized flight when it leaves the bow, the longer it takes for the arrow to enter a state of stabilized flight. An arrow that's stabilized for 100% of it's flight time is going to be more consistent than one that's only stabilized for 50% of it's flight time. 90% is better than 60%, and so too is 95% better than 94%.

If there's an advantage to setting up an arrow slightly tail high, I suggest it has more to do with getting the arrow off the arrow rest sooner so shooter inconsistencies have less affect on the amount of time the arrow rest can influence the arrow. If it were actually true that an arrow with a predefined "direction" was inherently more consistent, and it had nothing to do with rest contact, then slightly tail low should be just as good at slightly tail high.


----------



## duc

Tragically the picture is wrong. Point weight pulls the arrow in a straight line and oscillation is around it (point weight) not the arrow centre. Vanes waggle around like a dogs tail but the point weight doesn't move from its shot path. Weight PULLS the arrow from the front. The arrow is ONLY DRIVEN FROM THE REAR WHEN ITS ON THE STRING. Think when you sling a stone attached to a string. Stone goes straight, string all over the place.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> I would be interested to hear the the name of even one top level archer that does not tune their own bow.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk


Jimmy Butts


----------



## nestly

duc said:


> Tragically the picture is wrong. Point weight pulls the arrow in a straight line and oscillation is around it (point weight) not the arrow centre. Vanes waggle around like a dogs tail but the point weight doesn't move from its shot path. Weight PULLS the arrow from the front. The arrow is ONLY DRIVEN FROM THE REAR WHEN ITS ON THE STRING. Think when you sling a stone attached to a string. Stone goes straight, string all over the place.


LOL only about one quarter of the arrows weight is in the point. You're saying the 25% of the arrow's weight controls 100% of it's momentum... c'mon. I know you don't actually believe that. When fishtailing, the arrow pivots about it's center of gravity (FOC) which is typically 5-20% *front of center*. 
BTW, those images are from Easton... http://cdn.eastonarchery.com/uploads/download-files/Tuning_Guide.pdf


----------



## Rick!

duc said:


> Tragically the picture is wrong. Point weight pulls the arrow in a straight line and oscillation is around it (point weight) not the arrow centre.


Though the point does influence flight, the arrow's CG is where it most likely will oscillate around.



> Vanes waggle around like a dogs tail but the point weight doesn't move from its shot path. Weight PULLS the arrow from the front. The arrow is ONLY DRIVEN FROM THE REAR WHEN ITS ON THE STRING.


Try this: remove one vane, then reattach it to the arrow only on by its rearmost 1/4". Go find a high speed camera or at worst an iPhone 6 and video the shot from the side. Once the arrow leaves the bow and the vane folds back, it will impart a most unusual cork screw motion with the CG being the least affected while travelling somewhat along the intended path. 



> Think when you sling a stone attached to a string. Stone goes straight, string all over the place.


A most classic example of the "dynamic potato" used in texts to demonstrate all kinds of motion relative to an arbitrary CG location (vector, spin, etc).

Easton was only trying to give some simple illustrations for their tuning guide. You know how industrial design types are - all about the "look" with little regard for physics. 

Only 50 days until Yankton, we gotta get consensus pretty soon.


----------



## ontarget7

duc said:


> Shane. Try to balance an arrow point first on a table. After 3-4 tries you see that it falls in a random fashion. Now instead of trying to balance it, give it a bit of lean in one direction. It always now falls in the direction of lean. What I'm getting at is that if you are trying to get the arrow to be pushed directly through centre of the power-stroke you wil get deviation on how the arrow leaves the bow. If it has a slight up, down, left, right, then it will always come out the same. This is why I think tuning doesn't work as people think it should. So you get so called perfect arrow flight from bare shaft tuning only to mess it up when you so called group tune. So a perfect group tuned bow isn't perfectly bare shaft tuned any more. So why not just eyeball everything and be done. Lots of people have learned that it works.


Personally, I have yet to have a bow I have to tweak after my bareshaft tuning is done. Short to long range groups it doesn't matter. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> Jimmy Butts


Great shooter! Little crazy, but solid form. 

I'll counter point with Clint Freeman and Nathan Brooks to keep with some of the "older guys". 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley

duc said:


> Tragically the picture is wrong. Point weight pulls the arrow in a straight line and oscillation is around it (point weight) not the arrow centre. Vanes waggle around like a dogs tail but the point weight doesn't move from its shot path. Weight PULLS the arrow from the front. The arrow is ONLY DRIVEN FROM THE REAR WHEN ITS ON THE STRING. Think when you sling a stone attached to a string. Stone goes straight, string all over the place.


The node travels a straight line, the arrow point does not. The column loading on a tuned shaft keeps everything lined up better than a set it and forget it setup. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley

Indoors, 20 yards, or other instances where there are no environmental or shooter induced variance I don't think it matters a whole lot whether tuned or not...reference the old Terry Ragsdale story for reference. At least not in a large way. 

Those places with wind, changes in humidity, places with rain, or different air pressure it absolutely makes a difference. 

If I sighted in with a well tuned bow at EPLCs range and we both came up to my house at 7,000 feet to shot...I'd be a lot closer to my sight mark than his machine would. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Rosewater

Been waiting for someone to mention how an arrow actually bends relative to the two nodes every arrow has. Used to have VHS tape by Easton that showed slow-mo footage of actual arrows being shot by Terry Ragsdale and Jay Barrs. It was enlightening.


----------



## thawk

duc said:


> Shane. Try to balance an arrow point first on a table. After 3-4 tries you see that it falls in a random fashion. Now instead of trying to balance it, give it a bit of lean in one direction. It always now falls in the direction of lean. What I'm getting at is that if you are trying to get the arrow to be pushed directly through centre of the power-stroke you wil get deviation on how the arrow leaves the bow. If it has a slight up, down, left, right, then it will always come out the same. This is why I think tuning doesn't work as people think it should. So you get so called perfect arrow flight from bare shaft tuning only to mess it up when you so called group tune. So a perfect group tuned bow isn't perfectly bare shaft tuned any more. So why not just eyeball everything and be done. Lots of people have learned that it works.


I agree with this completely. The problem people have is they want to think they are perfect on every shot and you will be dealing with only the effects of the bow itself. Nestly said there will be added X factor to both a off path tune and a perfect tune, this is true add in human error and the X factor becomes larger. This is my opinion which is no more or less valid then Shane's opinion so it's not hard to grasp I just disagree. When an arrow is pushed perfectly straight and an archer influences in a small way (let's say 1/8 ") the arrow can change it path of flight by leaving the bow with an 1/8" difference influence from dead center weather it is low, high, left, or right, but if the bow is tuned say 1/4 high left that same influence will still result in the arrow starting out with a high left flight path maybe a little more maybe a little less but still high left.
We are not talking about a big difference here (as stated earlier in this thread) if you groups tighten up by a 1/8" it's a good thing, to me this could be why I have never felt a perfect tune was forgiving. All your good shots will be good, but when your bad shots are "less bad" that's a forgiving setup.
Maybe the reason ontarget has never needed to adjust away from a perfect bareshaft tune is because he never makes a bad shot, or it could be he knows his bow is tuned so well that he would rather take the blame for a miss then see if his setup could be better, or maybe he just isn't good enough to know. None of that is ment to be an insult (although I'm sure it will be taken that way) just looking at it from different ways.
The only top pro I have ever tuned a bow with is Paige so everything else I mention from top pros comes from videos, and conversations. But if a perfect bareshaft tune was the ulitimate perfect most forgiving tune there is why does almost ever pro say they group tune by making small adjustments at longer ranges by making small adjustments to the rest to find the sweet spot?


----------



## Bobmuley

thawk said:


> ...But if a perfect bareshaft tune was the ulitimate perfect most forgiving tune there is why does almost ever pro say they group tune by making small adjustments at longer ranges by making small adjustments to the rest to find the sweet spot?


How would a set-it-and-forget-it-er (new term) ever know either?

I'd wager that 90% of group tuners end up just slightly high and left tear. Just like they always have. 

Anyone see Jesse's bow junky interview last week where he talked about his bare shaft hits low right when his setup is best for him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AKDoug

Bobmuley said:


> How would a set-it-and-forget-it-er (new term) ever know either?
> 
> I'd wager that 90% of group tuners end up just slightly high and left tear. Just like they always have.
> 
> Anyone see Jesse's bow junky interview last week where he talked about his bare shaft hits low right when his setup is best for him?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I did catch that. That's the first time I've seen him mention bare shaft testing in a bunch of interviews over the years. I've watched Dave Cousins, Reo and Chance B. mention setting up by eyeball, paper tuning and then group tuning, but that info was pretty old.


----------



## Bobmuley

I thought it was a good archery-equivalent to bore sighting, but for tune instead of sighting. 

I never thought of going back to bare shaft after group tuning. I've done paper after, but it seems the least effective of most of the tuning methods to me. I can't tell the difference between a 0.37"x0.36" and 0.36"x0.37 holes. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## duc

Bobmuley said:


> The node travels a straight line, the arrow point does not. The column loading on a tuned shaft keeps everything lined up better than a set it and forget it setup.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Put the weight in the back of the arrow and see what happens to arrow flight. An arrow flexes through its nodes but is pulled along by front of centre mass.


----------



## duc

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R7XgF-gomQ0
Look at the flex. Look at the flight (sideways). Look at point path.


----------



## ontarget7

Bobmuley said:


> How would a set-it-and-forget-it-er (new term) ever know either?
> 
> I'd wager that 90% of group tuners end up just slightly high and left tear. Just like they always have.
> 
> Anyone see Jesse's bow junky interview last week where he talked about his bare shaft hits low right when his setup is best for him?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This gives better clearance with a lizard tongue rest and less chance for any contact. 
You will not see guys that have been switching to a dropaway that prefer the tail high 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley

duc said:


> Put the weight in the back of the arrow and see what happens to arrow flight. An arrow flexes through its nodes but is pulled along by front of centre mass.














Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley

duc said:


> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R7XgF-gomQ0
> Look at the flex. Look at the flight (sideways). Look at point path.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley

duc said:


> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R7XgF-gomQ0
> Look at the flex. Look at the flight (sideways). Look at point path.


I think it helps to have a reference. Sure looks to me like the point oscillates. 











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thawk

Bobmuley said:


> How would a set-it-and-forget-it-er (new term) ever know either?
> 
> I'd wager that 90% of group tuners end up just slightly high and left tear. Just like they always have.
> 
> Anyone see Jesse's bow junky interview last week where he talked about his bare shaft hits low right when his setup is best for him?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The set it and forget its would not know if their bows are the best for them, that is the main reason I don't believe in having anyone else tune a bow for you. 
I would also bet that 90% of shooters are shooting a setup that is not the best it could be for them. Once a bow is tuned and shooting pretty good most of us just practice to improve our scores.
That is why I like to have two bows that are the same, once one is shooting good I can tinker with the other to get it shooting or aiming better without worry of loosing what I had or not having good marks for the next weekends shoot. Then when it becomes the #1 bow work on the other till it's even better.

Yes I saw the interview, thought it was interesting


----------



## ontarget7

For those that feel they need to have a certain tear in paper to have their best results, would you post up pics of bareshafts at 20 yards ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly

duc said:


> Shane. Try to balance an arrow point first on a table. After 3-4 tries you see that it falls in a random fashion. Now instead of trying to balance it, give it a bit of lean in one direction. It always now falls in the direction of lean. What I'm getting at is that if you are trying to get the arrow to be pushed directly through centre of the power-stroke you wil get deviation on how the arrow leaves the bow. If it has a slight up, down, left, right, then it will always come out the same. This is why I think tuning doesn't work as people think it should. So you get so called perfect arrow flight from bare shaft tuning only to mess it up when you so called group tune. So a perfect group tuned bow isn't perfectly bare shaft tuned any more. So why not just eyeball everything and be done. Lots of people have learned that it works.


I have issue with this.
If it falls randomly, it is only because you are failing to line it up perfectly.

I'm still going with "the less sideways forces the arrow has to deal with (i.e. Perfect BS tune) the less the arrow needs to do to recover. If all arrows are identical, tune won't matter much. Is there are inconsistencies in the group of arrows, tune will matter more"

I see no reason that adding a sideways input on the arrow would improve grouping save for giving clearance to the rest.


----------



## nestly

Bobmuley said:


> Anyone see Jesse's bow junky interview last week where he talked about his bare shaft hits low right when his setup is best for him?


Yes, and if I recall correctly, the said the amount low/right was 1/2" to 1" at 20 yards. To put that into context, 1/2" on a 20Yd field face is still a solid "X" and even 1" could also hang the X-ring depending on shaft diameter. I'm not sure how 1/2" to 1" low-right bareshaft translates into a paper tear, but I suspect most archers would categorize it as a "bullet hole"


----------



## Mahly

nestly said:


> No reason I can think of. Heck, in addition to modifying the shooter so grip pressure and draw length is random, mount the whole thing to one of those springy playground animals to simulate "float". I think there would be a limited amount of people interested in such a test though because the whole reason to have a shooter is to eliminate as many variables as possible... and there's the rub, who cares if a bow can stack arrows on top each other from a machine, there's no competition or awards for accuracy when using a shooting machine. I'm not even sure whether it even qualifies as "archery" when a person has no direct contact with the bow.


I think it would be useful as you could measure the imperfection (as you are adding them to the test) and see which groups, if any, open up when an imperfect shot is made.


----------



## nestly

Mahly said:


> I have issue with this.
> If it falls randomly, it is only because you are failing to line it up perfectly.


I agree, no person can hold an arrow point perfectly vertical, and even if they could, they couldn't remove their finger without influencing it. If said arrow point were put in a precise fixture and released, I don't believe it would be random, it would likely fall according to the Earth rotation.



Mahly said:


> I'm still going with "the less sideways forces the arrow has to deal with (i.e. Perfect BS tune) the less the arrow needs to do to recover. If all arrows are identical, tune won't matter much. Is there are inconsistencies in the group of arrows, tune will matter more"
> 
> I see no reason that adding a sideways input on the arrow would improve grouping save for giving clearance to the rest.


Also agree.


----------



## ontarget7

Mahly said:


> I have issue with this.
> If it falls randomly, it is only because you are failing to line it up perfectly.
> 
> I'm still going with "the less sideways forces the arrow has to deal with (i.e. Perfect BS tune) the less the arrow needs to do to recover. If all arrows are identical, tune won't matter much. Is there are inconsistencies in the group of arrows, tune will matter more"
> 
> I see no reason that adding a sideways input on the arrow would improve grouping save for giving clearance to the rest.


I'm not quite following this

So your saying perfect bareshaft but if all arrows are identical, tune won't matter as much ? 

You can't have one without the other and take all lateral nock travel out of the picture


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly

Within reasonable limits, and with reasonable results.
While it is virtually impossible to launch an arrow from a bow with absolutely zero sideways forces, and no 2 arrows are perfectly identical, we can talk about getting as close as possible.

A bow tuned as good as possible will still have SOME sideways movement. That movement will affect different arrows differently. One arrow will flex less, the other more. One will recover faster than the other. Those variables get smaller with more consistent arrows and less sideways input.

Of course this doesn't consider the effects of wind on arrows coming out of the bow in various degrees of flight.

I suspect a better tuned bow will have smaller groups in the wind, but I don't have any evidence to prove it.

While the analogies here have been pretty far out, I'll risk adding to them.

Imagine a bow that has a large left hand tear, or BS hits very far the side of your fletched group.

If you have nearly identical arrows, you will have nearly identical results, thus decent grouping.
If your arrows have wildly different spines, weights, and/or significant "strong sides" of the spine without spine indexing your arrows, they will all react quite differently. The amount of flex will be large.
Good arrows end up grouping better.

Same test with a nearly perfectly tuned bow, ALL of the arrows will flex much less, to hardly at all. Even the highly variable arrows flex less (and don't need as much time to recover/stabilize)

Better tune, better groups from imperfectly matched arrows, less change with "perfect" arrows.


----------



## nestly

Mahly said:


> Within reasonable limits, and with reasonable results.
> While it is virtually impossible to launch an arrow from a bow with absolutely zero sideways forces, and no 2 arrows are perfectly identical, we can talk about getting as close as possible.
> 
> A bow tuned as good as possible will still have SOME sideways movement. That movement will affect different arrows differently. One arrow will flex less, the other more. One will recover faster than the other. Those variables get smaller with more consistent arrows and less sideways input.
> 
> Of course this doesn't consider the effects of wind on arrows coming out of the bow in various degrees of flight.
> 
> I suspect a better tuned bow will have smaller groups in the wind, but I don't have any evidence to prove it.
> 
> While the analogies here have been pretty far out, I'll risk adding to them.
> 
> Imagine a bow that has a large left hand tear, or BS hits very far the side of your fletched group.
> 
> If you have nearly identical arrows, you will have nearly identical results, thus decent grouping.
> If your arrows have wildly different spines, weights, and/or significant "strong sides" of the spine without spine indexing your arrows, they will all react quite differently. The amount of flex will be large.
> Good arrows end up grouping better.
> 
> Same test with a nearly perfectly tuned bow, ALL of the arrows will flex much less, to hardly at all. Even the highly variable arrows flex less (and don't need as much time to recover/stabilize)
> 
> Better tune, better groups from imperfectly matched arrows, less change with "perfect" arrows.


Now on a streak of 3 for 3. I'm happy to just keep quite now.


----------



## ontarget7

That's a given, but we will still need to tune. If we do not, you will have groups that very in size at different distances. 

This is why some see better results at 30 and 40 yards than they do at 20 yards and less do to the arrow needing to stabilize for a pour tune. 

When things are right, meaning bow, arrow and archer, there is way less movement side to side than you think. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly

But there is some, and arrow spine will determine how much that side motion affects the arrow.
One would hope/think there would be virtually none, but with most bows having unbalanced cams and cable guards, there will be some.

Of course we are discussing minute details... Things that apparently allow for an arrow to still hit the X at 80 yards without adding the human imperfection element.


----------



## duc

ontarget7 said:


> That's a given, but we will still need to tune. If we do not, you will have groups that very in size at different distances.
> 
> This is why some see better results at 30 and 40 yards than they do at 20 yards and less do to the arrow needing to stabilize for a pour tune.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I can't agree here. Physics won't allow for small groups at distance but bigger at close range. That would mean that from a zero point (bow) the arrow flies in a random pattern and converges to a point at distance. Can't happen.


----------



## ontarget7

Sure it can, I have seen it and tested it first hand. A stable arrow will group tighter, not sure how one can not see this. 

It's common sense if an arrow is trying to stabilize as it porpoises down range the group size can be larger than just 10 yards after it stabilizes. 

Depending on how pour the tune is, the longer it will take to stabilize 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

Mahly said:


> But there is some, and arrow spine will determine how much that side motion affects the arrow.
> One would hope/think there would be virtually none, but with most bows having unbalanced cams and cable guards, there will be some.
> 
> Of course we are discussing minute details... Things that apparently allow for an arrow to still hit the X at 80 yards without adding the human imperfection element.


How is it possible to have a bareshaft hit with fletched out to say 60-80 yards or more ? It's do to clean nock travel transferred to the arrow upon release 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly

At some point I would have to question if hitting at distances like that really indicate perfect nock travel... Especially vertically. 
You would think at some point the drag of the fletching would start to make arrows hit lower than BS arrows.

How many bows out there have "perfect" nock travel, especially ingle can bows and hybrid cam bows?


----------



## ontarget7

Mahly said:


> At some point I would have to question if hitting at distances like that really indicate perfect nock travel... Especially vertically.
> You would think at some point the drag of the fletching would start to make arrows hit lower than BS arrows.
> 
> How many bows out there have "perfect" nock travel, especially ingle can bows and hybrid cam bows?


The difference is tuning a bow to zero nock travel transferred to the arrow upon release. This can be done with any cam system


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> Here is another fact
> 
> They are seeing more forgiveness when doing so. This is not me just pulling this out of a hat either.
> 
> I know some that have shot their best scores to date by doing so
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I chalk this up to that old mental thing. If I think it will shoot better it will. Doesn't really matter what provides the confidence.


----------



## ontarget7

Couldn't find my 80 yard clips 
But I do have a 60 yard YouTube clip from last year of bareshaft. This was dialing in for a sight tape but still gives you an idea of the difference in impact point. 
https://youtu.be/y-vQRGFVB8k


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

Here's a buddy of mine clear across the US putting the techniques I have coached him through over the last year or so. Amazing how far he's come in a relatively short period of time. He's like a sponge, when it comes to taking in the information. 
Great job 

Bareshaft and fletched at 140 yards 
https://vimeo.com/177783663


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

ontarget7 said:


> Couldn't find my 80 yard clips
> But I do have a 60 yard YouTube clip from last year of bareshaft.


Am I seeing correctly that your "bareshaft" is really a fletched arrow with the vanes shaved off above the vane bases? If so, I'm I'll need a little time to mull over what you've been saying about "bareshafts" as the presence of the vane base almost certainly adds both drag and spin that would not be present with a traditionally defined "bareshaft".


----------



## ontarget7

nestly said:


> Am I seeing correctly that your "bareshaft" is really a fletched arrow with the vanes shaved off above the vane bases? If so, I'm I'll need a little time to mull over what you've been saying about "bareshafts" as the presence of the vane base almost certainly adds both drag and spin that would not be present with a traditionally defined "bareshaft".




Your not the first person I would prove wrong at that assumption 

I have shot both and have both and they shoot the same. 

I can bore you with proof of another clip with nothing at all and the same results 

Will try and post that up for you this week, but back at 100 yards with no bases




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly

I'd think those levels would be insignificant compared to full vanes.

Still curious how some see different vanes hit high or low compared to other (often similar) vanes, but no vane (save for the base) hits the same as fletched.


----------



## nestly

ontarget7 said:


> Your not the first person I would prove wrong at that assumption


Can I bother you to explain why then you cut the vane off above the base rather than removing the entire vane, or just leaving the arrow unfletched. At this point, whether it affect the results is less interesting to me than the fact that you still consider that a "bareshaft". No need to be defensive, just explain your rational because I would expect most would not regard that a "bareshaft"


----------



## AKDoug

Mahly said:


> I'd think those levels would be insignificant compared to full vanes.
> 
> Still curious how some see different vanes hit high or low compared to other (often similar) vanes, but no vane (save for the base) hits the same as fletched.


You've just hit on something I've been wondering as well. I have had arrows with different fletchings hit 6" off vertically with different fletchings at 80 yards. I wish I had my notes, but I think 2" quick spins hit almost a foot lower than my 1.87 FF arrows at 80 yards. If an arrow that has vanes hits with an arrow that doesn't have vanes at 80 yards, is the tune actually right on?


----------



## ontarget7

nestly said:


> Can I bother you to explain why then you cut the vane off above the base rather than removing the entire vane, or just leaving the arrow unfletched. At this point, whether it affect the results is less interesting to me than the fact that you still consider that a "bareshaft". No need to be defensive, just explain your rational because I would expect most would not regard that a "bareshaft"


I work three jobs and always in a hurry, it's just easy to shave and go sometimes. 

I usually have quite a few of each bareshafts. Currently the ones on hand are my GT Platinum Pierce and they are clean bareshafts. Actually have one that still has a base so I can shoot both if you would like ? It really doesn't matter to me, both are literally the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

AKDoug said:


> You've just hit on something I've been wondering as well. I have had arrows with different fletchings hit 6" off vertically with different fletchings at 80 yards. I wish I had my notes, but I think 2" quick spins hit almost a foot lower than my 1.87 FF arrows at 80 yards. If an arrow that has vanes hits with an arrow that doesn't have vanes at 80 yards, is the tune actually right on?


Those same arrows in the video were on the money at 20 yards. 

Guys try and split hairs always when I post this stuff but honestly the impact is not that different from a bareshaft vs a fletched with 2" Blazers. 

Now the Quick Spins and 4" vanes at 80 yards will be lower. I have tested both out to 100 yards. More drag so they will be lower 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## duc

Mahly said:


> I'd think those levels would be insignificant compared to full vanes.
> 
> Still curious how some see different vanes hit high or low compared to other (often similar) vanes, but no vane (save for the base) hits the same as fletched.


They're actually not. You would be suprised how much drag a cut off vane has on a small diameter shaft. 
Try shooting an arrow with one vane only at 50mt. The results will shock you.


----------



## thawk

I wouldn't have thought a bare left on a shaft would do anything at all. Sense I'm not a bareshaft tuner when I have checked where mine hit I just cut them off at the base


----------



## ontarget7

duc said:


> They're actually not. You would be suprised how much drag a cut off vane has on a small diameter shaft.
> Try shooting an arrow with one vane only at 50mt. The results will shock you.


Your a physics guy so you should no why the impact will change with one vane. 

It's more the balance and the lost energy in flight 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

Ok your bare shaft videos are impressive, but would be more so if they showed groups instead of 1 or 2 arrows. Take some 5 or 6 arrow group shots. I had a Dominator Max shooting bare shafts like that last season but my scores didn't improve as a result. While certainly a great talking point, I'm not sure what it proves or disproves based on the topic at hand?


----------



## ontarget7

Here's 50 yard group and you can see one bareshaft and two different types of fletchings on the others as well. 











Here is 12 bareshafts at 30 yards










Have done a whole lot of testing over the years with many different configuration 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mathewsex11

Back when the aluminum areiws were big we picked off of a chart shot 2 sometimes 3 different arrows out of the group to see which ones bare shaft tuned best then made our decision after setting the rest in the proper position eye balling seemed to work well and went from there of course our bows had steal cables and such not like today we have solo cams to cam in halfs as well as 2 cam bows etc. Great thread i will continue to read more but for now off to the river the dog and the himans are hot

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> Here's 50 yard group and you can see one bareshaft and two different types of fletchings on the others as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is 12 bareshafts at 30 yards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have done a whole lot of testing over the years with many different configuration
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ok, now move the rest 1/32" to the left or right and shoot again. Also, since there was no face, what were you shooting at? Also, is this the only group you shot or were there more? If there were more what were the results? And... what arrows were used in these tests?


----------



## ontarget7

Why only 1/32 ? 
Thought tuning doesn't matter ? 

When you are not tuned to true center of that said powerstroke your groups will open up laterally down range. 

When you are not tuned to clean vertical nock travel your groups will spread out vertically down range. 

Yes, I have tested this to great length over the years with a whole lot of different bows. 





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly

As one who normally bare shaft tunes, I know with proper tuning, yes, you can get bare shafts to match fletched.
We still need more data to show how much (if any) difference there is between a proper BS tuned bow and one that is not.

Here is a bow that is not tuned well, as evidenced by the poor bare shaft, yet the fletched group together well.


----------



## ontarget7

Short range 
Long range will open up


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> Why only 1/32 ?
> Thought tuning doesn't matter ?
> 
> When you are not tuned to true center of that said powerstroke your groups will open up laterally down range.
> 
> When you are not tuned to clean vertical nock travel your groups will spread out vertically down range.
> 
> Yes, I have tested this to great length over the years with a whole lot of different bows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because 1/32" is a lot and enough to be out of tune. 1/16 total (+/- 1/32") is also the range that I was testing. It's some of you that wanted to go to extremes. You want to move more later that's fine, but 1/32" will do.


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> Short range
> Long range will open up
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's not what my testing showed.


----------



## slimgravy

About half way through this video is some good shots of untuned slo motion arrows. The guy with the orange shoot through looks pretty good though. Really shows how flight could cause random poi. 

https://youtu.be/rG4m48HXoSk


----------



## duc

How many of you "group tune" and how do you do it after bare shaft testing and why.


----------



## EPLC

slimgravy said:


> About half way through this video is some good shots of untuned slo motion arrows. The guy with the orange shoot through looks pretty good though. Really shows how flight could cause random poi.
> 
> https://youtu.be/rG4m48HXoSk


While this video proves absolutely nothing, it is fun to watch. I especially enjoyed the QAD failure to drop, looks a lot like mine. As a result I've retired all of my QAD rests.


----------



## ontarget7

duc said:


> How many of you "group tune" and how do you do it after bare shaft testing and why.


After my bareshaft process is done I do nothing else other than put in the time down range. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

slimgravy said:


> About half way through this video is some good shots of untuned slo motion arrows. The guy with the orange shoot through looks pretty good though. Really shows how flight could cause random poi.
> 
> https://youtu.be/rG4m48HXoSk


This is a perfect video as to why you want to tune your bow, arrows and yourself for best results 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

EPLC said:


> Because 1/32" is a lot and enough to be out of tune. 1/16 total (+/- 1/32") is also the range that I was testing. It's some of you that wanted to go to extremes. You want to move more later that's fine, but 1/32" will do.


There are many things that can come into play. The FOC % is one, the vane size another. The larger the number on either of those the faster the recovery rate for a bow that is not in tune. 

When we are only talking 1/32 of a rest adjustment, depending on ones ability you might not even notice it. For me personally, I can tell and will see my group sizes spread out more vertically, especially at 1/32 of a movement one way or another from true center. Now at 1/64 I would say you start splitting hairs whether you could tell or not due the recovery rate of a finished arrow

Those target shooters that hunt with fixed blade heads will definitely see the difference down range on those longer shots thou. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> This is a perfect video as to why you want to tune your bow, arrows and yourself for best results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, we agree. It also explains why folks such as yourself have so many happy customers. It is also a reminder of how many truly messed up setups there are out there... and how many poor bow mechanics are setting up bows in these unacceptable conditions. While some in the video are more obvious than others, arrow contact for various reasons is the root cause for many of these very poor arrow flights. You fix arrow contact and any bow/arrow combination will shoot much better.


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> There are many things that can come into play. The FOC % is one, the vane size another. The larger the number on either of those the faster the recovery rate for a bow that is not in tune.
> 
> When we are only talking 1/32 of a rest adjustment, depending on ones ability you might not even notice it. For me personally, I can tell and will see my group sizes spread out more vertically, especially at 1/32 of a movement one way or another from true center. Now at 1/64 I would say you start splitting hairs whether you could tell or not due the recovery rate of a finished arrow
> 
> Those target shooters that hunt with fixed blade heads will definitely see the difference down range on those longer shots thou.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We are not talking arrow tuning; we are not talking fixed blades... what we are talking about is center shot using a good set of matched arrows. With everything else equal, my prediction is that moving the arrow rest left or right will impact the bare shaft but the fletched arrows will group the same. Mahly's example validates this. My long range testing validates this. Posting up your old pictures has about the same value as Sonny's old pictures so let's see some realtime results.


----------



## ontarget7

EPLC said:


> We are not talking arrow tuning; we are not talking fixed blades... we are talking about is center shot. My prediction is that moving the arrow rest left or right will impact the bare shaft but the fletched arrows will group the same. Mahly's example validates this. My long range testing validates this. Posting up your old pictures has about the same value as Sonny's old pictures.


Well you are limited to your own ability then. 

I can definitely tell with a rest adjustment when set off to 1/32 one way or another. 

Especially when shooting varying distances from 20 yards to 120 yards. 

We all have our limitations 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> That's not what my testing showed.


Which is why we need to measure. 

I'd bet good money that it incrementally opens up from equipment. 

Then there's the amount that it opens from the archer (not seen in your testing) as we can only hold so well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> Well you are limited to your own ability then.
> 
> I can definitely tell with a rest adjustment when set off to 1/32 one way or another.
> 
> Especially when shooting varying distances from 20 yards to 120 yards.
> 
> We all have our limitations
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Bobmuley said:


> Which is why we need to measure.
> 
> I'd bet good money that it incrementally opens up from equipment.
> 
> Then there's the amount that it opens from the archer (not seen in your testing) as we can only hold so well.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My tests do not validate your opinions. They were shot from a machine and the results were consistent over several days of testing with two different bows shooting in various degrees of tune. The pictures I posted were taken of the actual test POI. There was no measurable variation of group size at 80 yards regardless of the arrow flight. This is why they invented vanes.


----------



## ontarget7

Well then your test suck since we aren't machines. 
On top of that you are basing these hard facts off of a couple days. 

You claim everyone else is an opinion when your results are facts . 

You just said at one distance and you call that a complete test. 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> Well then your test suck since we aren't machines.
> On top of that you are basing these hard facts off of a couple days.
> 
> You claim everyone else is an opinion when your results are facts .
> 
> You just said at one distance and you call that a complete test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My tests were intended to remove as much of the human factor as possible to eliminate the confusion the human factor adds. And while the test were mostly performed at 80 yards, they were validated at 60, 30 and 3 yards. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify any results that have this human factor involved. Add a human element and what you end up with is just what we have here... 17 pages of mostly hearsay and opinion with absolutely no basis of fact (opinion is not fact). I've noticed that when you are faced with any reasonable challenge to back up your opinion you resort to insults and/or mockery. Put up or shut up.


----------



## thawk

Ontarget, are you a target shooter? Field or fita not 3D?


----------



## ontarget7

thawk said:


> Ontarget, are you a target shooter? Field or fita not 3D?


Don't get to shoot FITA or field as much as I would like, but yes To answer your question. 

Probably won't for awhile with the new job, it looks like all hunting from here on out. 

Punched paper at 20 as well and been to Vegas twice. 

Not really my thing and would rather shoot field or FITA. 

I suck at judging yardage so marked 3D for me. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

EPLC said:


> My tests were intended to remove as much of the human factor as possible to eliminate the confusion the human factor adds. And while the test were mostly performed at 80 yards, they were validated at 60, 30 and 3 yards. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify any results that have this human factor involved. Add a human element and what you end up with is just what we have here... 17 pages of mostly hearsay and opinion with absolutely no basis of fact (opinion is not fact). I've noticed that when you are faced with any reasonable challenge to back up your opinion you resort to insults and/or mockery. Put up or shut up.


I will put up with anyone out there so I have no reason to hide. 

Got plenty of support from testing over the years to say with 100% confidence tuning matters. 

Just because I don't agree, that tuning doesn't matter your butt hurt. 

I'm not butt hurt just cause you feel other results are invalid and only your results matter. 

It's a simple debate, that's it. I do feel a couple days of limited testing mean very little in the evidence you brought forth. 

Heck, we could go on with a whole other thing about arrows being indexed the same and the position of indexing. Why certain positions yield better tune settings 

So what's the challenge ? 

I already have shot groups down range,
not set for true center and not just a few days. I have been testing this for quite some time in regards to bareshafts and the end results vs others when tuning is not quite right. 

It's easy to shoot through a machine but it's a whole other aspect when you bring an archer in to the picture. 

Got a string builder I used to use that was into competition quite heavily, has a shop back east and would send all the guys that wanted to bareshaft tune stuff my way. He just did not have the time to bareshaft tune everyone's bow. Not to mention did not believe in it at first. Well, he got a wild hair up his butt one day and decided to give it a go. For all his personal stuff, it's the only way he tunes now. Said as much as it pains him to say it, he noticed a difference in forgiveness without question. He now charges more for that service and offers it in his shop. 






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thawk

ontarget7 said:


> Don't get to shoot FITA or field as much as I would like, but yes To answer your question.
> 
> Probably won't for awhile with the new job, it looks like all hunting from here on out.
> 
> Punched paper at 20 as well and been to Vegas twice.
> 
> Not really my thing and would rather shoot field or FITA.
> 
> I suck at judging yardage so marked 3D for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just to be clear I wasn't trying to pick a fight or imply anything but I was trying to figure out why people have such a difference in opinions when it comes to the same game.
I wish I had a clear reason as to why some of my least forgiving bows and great tunes, and some of my most forgiving setups didn't. I guess we all need to do what works the best for each of us.


----------



## ontarget7

thawk said:


> Just to be clear I wasn't trying to pick a fight or imply anything but I was trying to figure out why people have such a difference in opinions when it comes to the same game.
> I wish I had a clear reason as to why some of my least forgiving bows and great tunes, and some of my most forgiving setups didn't. I guess we all need to do what works the best for each of us.


I'm not taking it at all like that, bro ! 

I just don't see how this limited test run over a couple days is so much greater than anyone else's testing. 

Not bent out of shape in the least 

I completely agree with you on finding what works best for the individual. 

Personally I have yet to see one person after learning the bareshaft tuning techniques to ever go back to another method. 

I'm sure there might be some but I just have not experienced it with anyone else. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> I will put up with anyone out there so I have no reason to hide.
> 
> Got plenty of support from testing over the years to say with 100% confidence tuning matters.
> 
> Just because I don't agree, that tuning doesn't matter your butt hurt.
> 
> I'm not butt hurt just cause you feel other results are invalid and only your results matter.
> 
> It's a simple debate, that's it. I do feel a couple days of limited testing mean very little in the evidence you brought forth.
> 
> Heck, we could go on with a whole other thing about arrows being indexed the same and the position of indexing. Why certain positions yield better tune settings
> 
> So what's the challenge ?
> 
> I already have shot groups down range,
> not set for true center and not just a few days. I have been testing this for quite some time in regards to bareshafts and the end results vs others when tuning is not quite right.
> 
> It's easy to shoot through a machine but it's a whole other aspect when you bring an archer in to the picture.
> 
> Got a string builder I used to use that was into competition quite heavily, has a shop back east and would send all the guys that wanted to bareshaft tune stuff my way. He just did not have the time to bareshaft tune everyone's bow. Not to mention did not believe in it at first. Well, he got a wild hair up his butt one day and decided to give it a go. For all his personal stuff, it's the only way he tunes now. Said as much as it pains him to say it, he noticed a difference in forgiveness without question. He now charges more for that service and offers it in his shop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





ontarget7 said:


> I'm not taking it at all like that, bro !
> 
> I just don't see how this limited test run over a couple days is so much greater than anyone else's testing.
> 
> Not bent out of shape in the least
> 
> I completely agree with you on finding what works best for the individual.
> 
> Personally I have yet to see one person after learning the bareshaft tuning techniques to ever go back to another method.
> 
> I'm sure there might be some but I just have not experienced it with anyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What testing of yours are you talking about? All we have seen from you is some 1-2 arrow demo's, one or two old pictures of bare shaft examples and a lot of opinion. When someone posts a tight group with a poor bare shaft you say at long distance the group will spread, yet my test says otherwise. You can say what you want about my testing, but I did it honestly and posted the results. You don't like the results and would seem to have your undies in a bunch. Add to this the fact that you have posted nothing more than a few things that I find hard to believe would reflect your average group size. Hey, if you are capable of 2" groups at 100 yards why are we not seeing you on archery TV? You won't take the challenge with the rest because you know that I am right.


----------



## ontarget7

No feelings hurt here 

At 80 yards shooting 6 arrow groups I would average 2" larger lateral group spread when the rest is 1/32 off of true center compared to the rest true center. 


It was equivalent to to about 1 full twist in one side of the yoke on a hybrid cam bow and this gave the same results compared to yokes in tune. 

Then throwing the cams out of synch by one full twist, having the bottom cam hit first would equate to the same amount of gain on a vertical group spread at 80 yards. 

I have done this on several occasions with different bows over the years and very similar results in overall group size differences. 

The slightest difference pulling into the wall when one cam is floating makes for the difference in vertical group spread. 

The lateral change is due to grip as well. When you take a bareshaft you will see that ever so slight changes at the grip change the path of that arrow. When you take a bow and deliberately take it out of tune, those slight grip changes from shot to shot are compounded even more, thus changing the lateral group spread. 

When you start with a perfect tune, there is no compounding anything and it's all on the archer. Thus the same slight changes are smaller lateral group spreads, since you are not compounding the issues of the arrow flight. 

All these equate to more or less forgiveness down range to the archer and the reason why the archer has to be accounted for. 

Needless to say, the 2" gain vertically and laterally overall was enough for me to stick with bareshaft tuning. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

Ok, I'll test it myself. What is your process for setting up the bare shaft?


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> What testing of yours are you talking about? All we have seen from you is some 1-2 arrow demo's, one or two old pictures of bare shaft examples and a lot of opinion. When someone posts a tight group with a poor bare shaft you say at long distance the group will spread, yet my test says otherwise. You can say what you want about my testing, but I did it honestly and posted the results. You don't like the results and would seem to have your undies in a bunch. Add to this the fact that you have posted nothing more than a few things that I find hard to believe would reflect your average group size. Hey, if you are capable of 2" groups at 100 yards why are we not seeing you on archery TV? You won't take the challenge with the rest because you know that I am right.


You conducted a test to prove what you wanted it to prove. By your own admission, you "refused" to move the rest past an arbitrary measurement, and so you set out to validate why you should not "have to" exceed the self imposed arbitrary limit. You basically decided that since you couldn't get the bow "tuned" that "tuning" isn't important and instead chose to test arrow consistency... and yes, that's ALL you tested while shooting arrows out of a machine, and to prove that point, again by your own admission, the ONLY factor that changed group size was the consistency of the arrow. Not tune, and not even making a significant change in the spine/length of the arrow. During your test, you spoke of testing some aluminum 1918 aluminum shafts having very large groupings... was that because they are "inconsistent" or because 1918's have a .750 spine (where any of your other arrows similarly spined?). Seems you've concluded the former, which is probably the opposite of what is true if you actually test the consistency of aluminum against the best carbon shaft in your test. Your conclusions are wrong because your methodology is wrong... and your bias has been evident and noted from the very first page of this thread.

The "tests" that Shane, myself, and others are talking about are real world tests conducted under real world shooting conditions. They happen every day, by hundreds of people, many of which are far better archers than anyone that's participated in this topic. None of said people are buying what you're saying because it simply does not pass the smell test of what happens in the real world where benches aren't used to shoot bows.


----------



## EPLC

I'm done with this. I provided results of an honestly run test(s). To this point nobody else has been willing to provide one shred of evidence to disprove these results. Instead we choose to post about tests of yesteryear or hearsay evidence or video of two arrow groups that when challenged for various reasons we get more opinion but no additional evidence. I have come to the conclusion that no matter what I would test beyond this point would face this same BS. I give up, the world is indeed flat.


----------



## EPLC

Congrats to Shane for shooting this bare shaft group with an un-tuned bow. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u08iVysfoak


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

Right, It ALMOST seems like some archery industry propaganda to make it seem a little bit more difficult than it actually is..

jus kidding :tongue:


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Congrats to Shane for shooting this bare shaft group with an un-tuned bow.


Shane is an advocate of "bareshaft tuning" which is when bare and fletched hit together. If the POI's in the video are typical of that setup, then the bow in the video is in fact "tuned" or pretty close to "tuned". If you're under the assumption that tuning has to be a painful and agonizing process, that's not the case. Sometimes the *starting point* is already very close.... other times it may take significant adjustment to get the bow "tuned" to your liking.


----------



## ontarget7

EPLC said:


> Congrats to Shane for shooting this bare shaft group with an un-tuned bow.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u08iVysfoak


I wouldn't consider it un-tuned since my tuning process is done and finished back to 20 yards. Which I said out of the gate in the beginning of this clip. 

Yep, through my process there is no need to group tune, creep tune etc. stopped doing that a long time ago and haven't looked back. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> I wouldn't consider it un-tuned since my tuning process is done and finished back to 20 yards. Which I said out of the gate in the beginning of this clip.
> 
> Yep, through my process there is no need to group tune, creep tune etc. stopped doing that a long time ago and haven't looked back.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually you said you checked it at 20 yards and hadn't done anything but put a new string on it. The rest of what you did sounds very much like you eyeballed it.  I didn't make the tape, you did.


----------



## ontarget7

EPLC said:


> Actually you said you checked it at 20 yards and hadn't done anything but put a new string on it. The rest of what you did sounds very much like you eyeballed it.  I didn't make the tape, you did.


My apologies for misleading you

Checking it at 20 with bareshafts and if they are good, my tuning is done. I was more checking sight tape in that clip. 

There is no way I could just eyeball and have bareshafts fly like that. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> My apologies for misleading you
> 
> Checking it at 20 with bareshafts and if they are good, my tuning is done. I was more checking sight tape in that clip.
> 
> There is no way I could just eyeball and have bareshafts fly like that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So, is this bare shaft process something you can share or is this something you are marketing?


----------



## EPLC

EPLC said:


> So, is this bare shaft process something you can share or is this something you are marketing?


Interesting how one simple unanswered question has quieted things down.


----------



## nestly

LOL, you can't find information about how to bareshaft tune?

If by chance you're only interested in learning from Shane, have no fear, it's already in the works.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> LOL, you can't find information about how to bareshaft tune?
> 
> If by chance you're only interested in learning from Shane, have no fear, it's already in the works.


Now there's an $85 question! I have no issue with people trying to make a buck. The problem is the bias that they provide to any debate such as this one. Shane isn't the only one marketing a tuning process that posted objections here.


----------



## ontarget7

Marketing, that's hilarious!!

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

I have been giving free advise for years and plenty of info on this very topic. Believe me, I have got plenty of slack from it at first but not much anymore since others are reaping the benefits once they grasp the concept. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley

How about this. Tuning is of little use when shooting out of a machine. 

I'm not a machine. I try to take advantage of every little bit. 

I seeShane doesn't do creep tuning any more. I do. I shoot up and down hills enough to warrant it in my opinion...no more blowing out the top on downhillers. 

I do a little paper (rough), bare shaft to get groups pretty close together (not exact), walk back/yoke to get the thing leveled and centered and then group tune to see where I hold and shoot the best. 

Now I suppose that indoors or close range that having clean arrow flight is of little use. All you need is consistent arrow flight. 

Outdoors and longer distances and environmental conditions favor the clean arrow flight every time. Even out of a machine. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

Bobmuley said:


> How about this. Tuning is of little use when shooting out of a machine.
> 
> I'm not a machine. I try to take advantage of every little bit.
> 
> I seeShane doesn't do creep tuning any more. I do. I shoot up and down hills enough to warrant it in my opinion...no more blowing out the top on downhillers.
> 
> I do a little paper (rough), bare shaft to get groups pretty close together (not exact), walk back/yoke to get the thing leveled and centered and then group tune to see where I hold and shoot the best.
> 
> Now I suppose that indoors or close range that having clean arrow flight is of little use. All you need is consistent arrow flight.
> 
> Outdoors and longer distances and environmental conditions favor the clean arrow flight every time. Even out of a machine.


Think we're pretty much on the same page. 
- Shooting machines don't simulate the reasons why tuning may improve efficiency and "forgiveness"
- There's not any one "correct" way to tune, and any process that systematically serves to tighten groups or improved "forgiveness" is better than using no system at all.
- "Clean" arrow flight is more important in some types of archery than others, and some arrow rests may be better suited to "clean" flight than others.
- There are many variables that affect an arrows suitability for different types of archery. It's not only consistency and tolerance of the arrow that makes it a good choice for a particular type of archery, but also it's physical properties (ie diameter/length/weight/FOC/fletching style etc)


----------



## Bobmuley

nestly said:


> Think we're pretty much on the same page.
> - Shooting machines don't simulate the reasons why tuning may improve efficiency and "forgiveness"
> - There's not any one "correct" way to tune, and any process that systematically serves to tighten groups or improved "forgiveness" is better than using no system at all.
> - "Clean" arrow flight is more important in some types of archery than others, and some arrow rests may be better suited to "clean" flight than others.
> - There are many variables that affect an arrows suitability for different types of archery. It's not only consistency and tolerance of the arrow that makes it a good choice for a particular type of archery, but also it's physical properties (ie diameter/length/weight/FOC/fletching style etc)


Yep. All about choices and reasoning. 

For instance; let's suppose that EPLC found 2712s with 375 grains up front to group tremendously well at 80 yards out of his machine. 

Does that make them the best option for a full FITA or field round? (Not that it has anything to do with tuning, but everything to do with the conclusions drawn from limited testing)

They're a great arrow with awesome tolerances. Very repeatable. So why not?

The test in the OP doesn't account for many things. For instance. 

How about setup the test with an untuned arrow shooting into various speed of headwind. Record the vertical spread of the arrow groups. Follow that up with a clean flying arrow and see if the verticality of the group improves or not. 

Maybe try the same thing with cross winds. 

I think there's an awful lot of beneficial uses to a shooting machine. I just don't see this test as one that is of particular use to an actual shooter looking to make groups as small and repeatable as possible. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

Tune the arrow and the archer to the bow after the bow is properly set up. Is what I lean towards now. 

Most people can't or aren't willing to change their form/grip/wrist position to account for how the bow wants to be held so, they must "tune" to get the most "forgiveness" out of their bow and arrow. Nothing wrong with that. *Once again*...do it by all means if it makes you a better shooter, who cares. 

This is pretty entertaining though haha I don't see how you guys have time. 

I will add that I do "bareshaft tune" when I'm trying to find the optimal spine and point weight for recurves and longbows shooting off the shelf with fingers and also surprisingly get a bullet hole through paper.


----------



## duc

Not a single person here who "group tunes" can tell me how their changes to the bow effect the CONSISTENCY of the bow and arrow flight to the target. And if the archer needs all the forgiveness he can get then please explainand what forgiveness is. WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF FORGIVENESS.


----------



## erdman41

duc said:


> Not a single person here who "group tunes" can tell me how their changes to the bow effect the CONSISTENCY of the bow and arrow flight to the target. And if the archer needs all the forgiveness he can get then please explainand what forgiveness is. WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF FORGIVENESS.


When you have shot a set up enough so that when you make a less than perfect shot you know where the arrow is going to miss before it gets there.

Make whatever changes you want and when you make that same than less than perfect shot you are surprised that it hit way closer to the middle then you thought it would. When this surprise becomes the new norm. That set up is more forgiving than the previous.

If you need something that has an assigned value or can put a micrometer to then I can't help ya.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## duc

How can a less then perfect shot go to the target the same as a perfect shot. There's no sense here.


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

Here's mine anyways along with one of the definitions from merriam-webster. 

"2: allowing room for error or weakness <designed to be a forgiving tennis racquet>"

My interpretation of a forgiving bow is the bow itself not what I do to it. Design/geometry/brace height/ata. Hence why some bows will shoot better for you than others and why I don't like short brace heights or heavily reflexed risers. I'd rather have a more forgiving bow rather than a little bit more speed.


----------



## thawk

erdman41 said:


> When you have shot a set up enough so that when you make a less than perfect shot you know where the arrow is going to miss before it gets there.
> 
> Make whatever changes you want and when you make that same than less than perfect shot you are surprised that it hit way closer to the middle then you thought it would. When this surprise becomes the new norm. That set up is more forgiving than the previous.
> 
> If you need something that has an assigned value or can put a micrometer to then I can't help ya.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Perfect description in my opinion, almost word for word what I was going to say, but I will add this.
You may not be able to tell when a setup is forgiving or not for some time, you may go weeks and think the bow is perfect, then you have a not so perfect day, or even how it reacts under the pressure of a tournament compared to practice.


----------



## thawk

duc said:


> How can a less then perfect shot go to the target the same as a perfect shot. There's no sense here.


He never said that, he said it hits better then excepted


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

And which is why I use a limbdriver with a blade on it. Best of both worlds imo. 

The blade flexes with the arrow and drops away before the fletchings get there. Hence a more forgiving rest.


----------



## duc

How then do you know it was better then expected? What are you basing your judgement on. Then what happens when you THINK you had a good shot but miss? What causes this?


----------



## erdman41

duc said:


> How can a less then perfect shot go to the target the same as a perfect shot. There's no sense here.


When I miss it's almost always left. So I set my sight to favor the right side of the x. On a field face early this summer my set up on a less than perfect shot would be a 4 out left. 

I switched arrow set up and then my less than perfect shot would be licking the 5 or a tweener 5 at 9 o'clock. My scores for a half went up a point or 2 and my x count went by 5-7 x's. 

Not sure who is saying a less than perfect shot is going to hit the same poi as a perfect shot. But some set ups will miss by more than others on bad shots. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## erdman41

duc said:


> How then do you know it was better then expected? What are you basing your judgement on. Then what happens when you THINK you had a good shot but miss? What causes this?


A person should KNOW when they make a good shot or not. If someone is still unsure of that they have bigger issues.

The judgement is a comparison between two set ups/tunes or arrow set ups.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## thawk

Duc, it is very hard to explain to someone who doesn't understand, but everything erdman is saying is clear as a bell for me. Kinda like one of those pictures you stare at then the image appears.
Question, when you shoot a shot do you get (more or less) an instant replay of where you pin was? I know some shooter who don't that's why I ask. 
So if I know my pin was drifting low right when the shot broke but was still in the spot when it broke I would expect the arrow to land where the pin was, a less forgiving bow might miss while a forgiving setup will still catch.

When I shot X10s they were the least forgiving setup I have ever had, Jeff had me shooting 410's with 1.5 off the back, I had to make perfect shots no matter what I tweeked on the bow.
I switched to 370 ace's and scores went up by a few points and x count went up by several, I wasn't shooting better but my less the perfect shots were in not out.
The bow tuned great with both (although I have never been a bareshaft tuner) 

I have had bows that seem like I had to make perfect shots to get to go in, other bows my shooting can be a little sloppy and still score the same. This is not due to bow design either as I have often had two identical bows and one is more forgiving.


----------



## duc

A VERY subjective point of view. Left misses are a form flaw. Usually caused by bow arm tension on release. (Right hand shooter)


----------



## duc

erdman41 said:


> A person should KNOW when they make a good shot or not. If someone is still unsure of that they have bigger issues.
> 
> The judgement is a comparison between two set ups/tunes or arrow set ups.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


No. He's talking about good and bad shots from the same bow, not two different set-ups.


----------



## thawk

Erdman, you miss left, I miss low right.
One day during warm ups at vegas Frank Pearson came over to BS with Tommy and I and was watching us shoot. He asked me where a perfect shot goes when I shoot it, I was confused by the question, but answered dead center X
He told me I should move my sight so it will hit half shaft x at 12:00 and said "look at your target you never miss high" the next day I shot my first 300 in vegas and had two that just caught the ten ring at 6ish because I listened to Frank


----------



## erdman41

thawk said:


> Erdman, you miss left, I miss low right.
> One day during warm ups at vegas Frank Pearson came over to BS with Tommy and I and was watching us shoot. He asked me where a perfect shot goes when I shoot it, I was confused by the question, but answered dead center X
> He told me I should move my sight so it will hit half shaft x at 12:00 and said "look at your target you never miss high" the next day I shot my first 300 in vegas and had two that just caught the ten ring at 6ish because I listened to Frank


I would say you made your sight setting more forgiving!!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## erdman41

duc said:


> Left misses are a form flaw. Usually caused by bow arm tension on release. (Right hand shooter)


Not mine

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

The only way anything is going to save you from an imperfect shot after you're already dialed in, is more forgiving equipment. In order to minimize human error from affecting the arrow and keeping it where it was pointed when released. 

Your equipment will forgive you for the imperfect shot and go to the X anyways.


----------



## duc

erdman41 said:


> Not mine
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


How do you know? And why do you keep doing it?


----------



## duc

thawk said:


> Duc, it is very hard to explain to someone who doesn't understand, but everything erdman is saying is clear as a bell for me. Kinda like one of those pictures you stare at then the image appears.
> Question, when you shoot a shot do you get (more or less) an instant replay of where you pin was? I know some shooter who don't that's why I ask.
> So if I know my pin was drifting low right when the shot broke but was still in the spot when it broke I would expect the arrow to land where the pin was, a less forgiving bow might miss while a forgiving setup will still catch.
> 
> When I shot X10s they were the least forgiving setup I have ever had, Jeff had me shooting 410's with 1.5 off the back, I had to make perfect shots no matter what I tweeked on the bow.
> I switched to 370 ace's and scores went up by a few points and x count went up by several, I wasn't shooting better but my less the perfect shots were in not out.
> The bow tuned great with both (although I have never been a bareshaft tuner)
> 
> I have had bows that seem like I had to make perfect shots to get to go in, other bows my shooting can be a little sloppy and still score the same. This is not due to bow design either as I have often had two identical bows and one is more forgiving.


You just shot better. ACE's are not more accurate than x10's.


----------



## erdman41

duc said:


> How do you know? And why do you keep doing it?


If one can't figure out why a miss was a miss they probably will never improve. Can't go by what someone else thinks as to why you are missing a certain way. Takes time behind the string.

Why do I keep doing it? It's mental thing. It used to happen a lot more than now. In the future it will happen less and less. But when it happens now about 75% of the time I still hit the dot.

Something is always going to be there in archery to work on. Some guys that one or two bad shots in a 5 spot round are 4's. Some guys that one bad shot per round is a 5. Some guys that one bad shot per round is an x but it's only a half shaft not i/o.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

FeelMyWrathSHO said:


> The only way anything is going to save you from an imperfect shot after you're already dialed in, is more forgiving equipment. In order to minimize human error from affecting the arrow and keeping it where it was pointed when released.
> 
> Your equipment will forgive you for the imperfect shot and go to the X anyways.


Again I'll ask this question. Since I think we can agree that a shot arrow does not change direction, what does happen to make these imperfect shots find center, or close to it?


----------



## duc

EPLC said:


> Again I'll ask this question. Since I think we can agree that a shot arrow does not change direction, what does happen to make these imperfect shots find center, or close to it?


Magic. No one will say why EPLC because they don't know why. We question the sacrosanct and are told we're heathens. Galaleo ring a bell?


----------



## Bobmuley

duc said:


> Not a single person here who "group tunes" can tell me how their changes to the bow effect the CONSISTENCY of the bow and arrow flight to the target. And if the archer needs all the forgiveness he can get then please explainand what forgiveness is. WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF FORGIVENESS.


Can you prove that it doesn't exist in the hands of an actual archer?


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Again I'll ask this question. Since I think we can agree that a shot arrow does not change direction, what does happen to make these imperfect shots find center, or close to it?





duc said:


> Magic. No one will say why EPLC because they don't know why. We question the sacrosanct and are told we're heathens. Galaleo ring a bell?


Either both of you are being disingenuous, or neither of you are very accomplished archers. 
There's nothing magical that makes an arrow change direction, or score better than it was aimed. Tuning a bow to be forgiving makes the bow less sensitive to shooter error. Let me say it another way so hopefully one of these comments penetrates your force field of skepticism. If you execute a "good shot" while the pin is solidly in the 9-ring, you're probably gonna get a 9 regardless of how well your bow is tuned, no one is saying otherwise. Tuning doesn't help much with "good shots" and that's why shooting machine results are worthless in this regard... .there's no such thing as a "bad shot" with a shooter, only poorly aimed shots. Try randomizing the torque on the handle while conducting the shooter test and you'll find out pretty quickly that tune does matter with regard to group size.

Will either of you deny that bareshafts are more sensitive to shooter error than fletched? I certainly hope not, and that's the reason nobody competes with bareshafts. All else being equal, fletched are more forgiving than bare. The same is true for "tuning", you can't make the bow shoot better than you do, but you can make it less sensitive to your mistakes. (not aiming mistakes mind you... form mistakes) 
Are we clear yet?


----------



## ontarget7

Imperfect shots finding center are more frequent when you have more even loads on your cables when pulling through the shot. This will minimize the amount you miss on a vertical plane. That In conjunction with the right nock height position. When right this gives you clean vertical nock travel and again tighter down range groups. Even those misses are not near as far off. 

Lateral nock travel and minimizing your lateral group sizes is done in several ways. Said center of power stroke lines up with rest and coincides with ones grip. Misses are even less from side to side when you incorporate your sight and get to the point where the slight variations in grip from shot to shot have less of an impact on a vertical plane. 

I'm sure I'm missing a few things but these will help those imperfect shots find center more frequently 
I.e. More forgiving 

Forgiveness is not all in the arrow and how they are indexed. If you feel this is the case, you will never meet your full potential. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> Again I'll ask this question. Since I think we can agree that a shot arrow does not change direction, *what does happen to make these imperfect shots find center, or close to it*?


I'm sure that you've shot long enough to have experienced it. I don't know how to explain it and haven't ran across anyone that can. 

I'll easily admit that I can't prove it, but know that it exists. How else is it that we can "oh chit" one into the X at 70 yards? How does a dot sitting in the 9 at three oclock find the X? It's not just form, because some setups it works and some it doesn't. In fact, with some setups we end up with shots we didn't deserve, but to a worse outcome (unforgiving?). 

When shooting outside what causes a perfect shot to NOT hit the center? I'd answer its all about the air. A perfect flying arrow is subjected to much less air influence than a poorly flying arrow causing an "untuned" arrow to hit further from its intended mark...that's more "unforgiving". 

I see you quoted Reo Wilde. Have you seen his setup? How did he end up there?


----------



## Bobmuley

duc said:


> How can a less then perfect shot go to the target the same as a perfect shot. There's no sense here.


Has it ever happened?


----------



## ontarget7

Sorry guys, I only use a 3 arrow quiver and with season right around the corner, 3 shots is all you get for a group. 

Here is 
1- shot at 20 yards fieldpoint 
1- shot at 80 yards fieldpoint
1- shot at 80 yards Rage Hypo D6
10 mph winds 









Now can I consistently do this shot after shot ? No.. However, I can for the most part drop them in a 4-6" group size at 80 yards. 

I was experimenting last week on a lateral plane and left bareshaft tune on a lateral plane at 20 yards off with a tail left impact compared to fletched. I definitely had more 6" group spreads at 80 then the current true bareshaft tune now. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thawk

duc said:


> You just shot better. ACE's are not more accurate than x10's.


No, I did not magically become a better shot the day I switched to ACE's they were simply a better match for my bow and made my entire setup for forgiving.
You have never got a new bow and shot better with it? Maybe the same length and brace as another bow but it just shot better or had two identical bow but one shot better?

Why do you think people shoot 140-150 grain points? Because they want slower arrows? No, but somewhere along the lines they found it was more forgiving and they shot better. Do you think someone like Dave cousins couldn't tune his bow 18 years ago when he started winning national championships? But now he shoots more point weight, clocks his arrows, and indexes them different then he ever used to, I'm sure his arrow flight was good then just as it is now but he made changes along the way for a reason, and the reason is to score better.

No one is saying a bad shot, aimed at the 4 ring will magically hit the 5 or the X or that an arrow will change directions and head to the middle, all that I'm saying is with a bow/arrow combo that is forgiving a small mistake on the archers part doesn't get magnified.
For some that might be a perfect bareshaft tune, some might be a perfect bullet hole, some might be a high left tear, and for one pro who has won a bunch of big shoots this year the tune ended up being a 2"dead left tear but it's the "most forgiving bow" they ever had.


----------



## cbrunson

erdman41 said:


> If one can't figure out why a miss was a miss they probably will never improve. Can't go by what someone else thinks as to why you are missing a certain way. Takes time behind the string.


Yep. There are a few things that cause left/ low left misses. Knowing which one you did when it happens is how you get better. Knowing how to minimize the outcome is experience.


----------



## cbrunson

To add to that, I believe left and low left misses are the most common for more advanced shooters because of the natural torque and or movements common with right handed shooters at the moment of release. Some on the bow end, some on the release end. I'm not an engineer or a physicist so I can't explain why, but typically a slightly high left tear will help minimize the result. It does depend on several other factors like the arrow diameter to FOC relationship and spine. Not so much spine. 

Things you work out by shooting a lot instead of overthinking a lot.


----------



## Mahly

I've always looked at those arrows that "magically" land in the X when you were sure they were a 4 as the result of a "surprise" shot and focusing on the target.
While focusing on the target, obviously, we still see the dot/ring, but it isn't the focus.
The dot/ring does move and once in a while it moves more than we want. If the shot goes off in those times, it's often a miss. Other times, "magically" you drill the X.
My theory on that is that while you did notice you were outside the X, you were still focused on the X. Your brain already started correcting and moving you back to the X. 
By the time the shot fired you were back on the X but didn't have time to see it (not focused on the dot).
It's either that, or I'm REALLY good at making my bow "forgiving"


----------



## thawk

Mahly, I would agree with that somewhat, almost completely, because I believe that is also part of something else that I pm'ed about this morning but that theory will open up another can of worms,
so here is the question, have you had bows that you got more of those surprise points or X's then others, or have you tuned the same bow (weather it be a different arrow, after a string change, new rest, ect) and have it give you more "gifts"?


----------



## nochance

Mahly said:


> If the shot goes off in those times, it's often a miss. Other times, "magically" you drill the X.
> My theory on that is that while you did notice you were outside the X, you were still focused on the X. Your brain already started correcting and moving you back to the X.


I would agree with this as well, I would also add that after 20 pages of debate on whether tuning a bow matters on an intermediate\advanced forum perhaps should be moved elsewhere. can you shoot good groups with an un-tuned bow? Hell yeah,  but why would you not tune your bow as best possible? At this point if you think tuning does not matter then don't do it. What ever gives you the most confidence.


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> I've always looked at those arrows that "magically" land in the X when you were sure they were a 4 as the result of a "surprise" shot and focusing on the target.
> While focusing on the target, obviously, we still see the dot/ring, but it isn't the focus.
> The dot/ring does move and once in a while it moves more than we want. If the shot goes off in those times, it's often a miss. Other times, "magically" you drill the X.
> My theory on that is that while you did notice you were outside the X, you were still focused on the X. Your brain already started correcting and moving you back to the X.
> By the time the shot fired you were back on the X but didn't have time to see it (not focused on the dot).
> It's either that, or I'm REALLY good at making my bow "forgiving"


Ah... the first decent definition of "forgiveness"! I honestly do believe that some setup's are more forgiving than others. I've experienced it as well as many others. Where I part ways is arrow flight having much if anything to do with it. I think confidence is the biggest factor, no matter what provides it.


----------



## duc

Mahly said:


> I've always looked at those arrows that "magically" land in the X when you were sure they were a 4 as the result of a "surprise" shot and focusing on the target.
> While focusing on the target, obviously, we still see the dot/ring, but it isn't the focus.
> The dot/ring does move and once in a while it moves more than we want. If the shot goes off in those times, it's often a miss. Other times, "magically" you drill the X.
> My theory on that is that while you did notice you were outside the X, you were still focused on the X. Your brain already started correcting and moving you back to the X.
> By the time the shot fired you were back on the X but didn't have time to see it (not focused on the dot).
> It's either that, or I'm REALLY good at making my bow "forgiving"



Now we're getting somewhere. The brain works in ways that are sometimes less intuitive then we think.


----------



## EPLC

*Bare shaft tuning*

For the doubters I checked out the tuned version of my TRG8 with some bare shaft shooting. Here are some 30 & 35 yard shots.


----------



## duc

Bobmuley said:


> Can you prove that it doesn't exist in the hands of an actual archer?


I'm asking the question on forgiveness, what do I have to prove?


----------



## Mahly

thawk said:


> Mahly, I would agree with that somewhat, almost completely, because I believe that is also part of something else that I pm'ed about this morning but that theory will open up another can of worms,
> so here is the question, have you had bows that you got more of those surprise points or X's then others, or have you tuned the same bow (weather it be a different arrow, after a string change, new rest, ect) and have it give you more "gifts"?


I have not really noticed a particular bow doing this more often.
Admittedly, I do BS tune all my bows.
I think another way to look at the word "forgiving" as it relates to archer's bows would be "uncompromising".
The bows that fit us best (long ATA, slim grip etc), and work with us the best (less let off) are more "forgiving" as they are not a compromise we are working around.


----------



## EPLC

I then thought it might be a good idea to shoot a 14T field round with 3 fletched and 1 bare shaft. I ended up with a sloppy 260, none of which was due to the bare shaft. If I made the shot it didn't matter which shaft was in the bow. 

Here's the 50, 30, 45, 40 & 15 (orange nocks)


----------



## duc

nestly said:


> Either both of you are being disingenuous, or neither of you are very accomplished archers.
> There's nothing magical that makes an arrow change direction, or score better than it was aimed. Tuning a bow to be forgiving makes the bow less sensitive to shooter error. Let me say it another way so hopefully one of these comments penetrates your force field of skepticism. If you execute a "good shot" while the pin is solidly in the 9-ring, you're probably gonna get a 9 regardless of how well your bow is tuned, no one is saying otherwise. Tuning doesn't help much with "good shots" and that's why shooting machine results are worthless in this regard... .there's no such thing as a "bad shot" with a shooter, only poorly aimed shots. Try randomizing the torque on the handle while conducting the shooter test and you'll find out pretty quickly that tune does matter with regard to group size.
> 
> Will either of you deny that bareshafts are more sensitive to shooter error than fletched? I certainly hope not, and that's the reason nobody competes with bareshafts. All else being equal, fletched are more forgiving than bare. The same is true for "tuning", you can't make the bow shoot better than you do, but you can make it less sensitive to your mistakes. (not aiming mistakes mind you... form mistakes)
> Are we clear yet?


In all this you still haven't explained why when you think you've had a good shot and unexpectedly missed.


----------



## EPLC

Here's the 35F, 80W, 45W, 55 & 25 The 70 was the bare shaft which I made a poor execution.


----------



## Mahly

EPLC, it would appear that you have your bases covered.
If tuning matters, you are covered.
If it doesn't, your at no disadvantage because of your tune.

Again, for me, I can see some logic to tuning as it may lessen the difference between different arrows (what ever degree of difference there is), and may be more consistent in the wind.... But mainly I tune for confidence.
Can't hurt to tune, MIGHT hurt not to.


----------



## EPLC

Here's the 65, 60, 20 & bunny... Very bad 65 & 20 but my shoulder only has so many shots in it. Bare shaft was not a factor at all.


----------



## EPLC

Mahly said:


> EPLC, it would appear that you have your bases covered.
> If tuning matters, you are covered.
> If it doesn't, your at no disadvantage because of your tune.
> 
> Again, for me, I can see some logic to tuning as it may lessen the difference between different arrows (what ever degree of difference there is), and may be more consistent in the wind.... But mainly I tune for confidence.
> Can't hurt to tune, MIGHT hurt not to.


As I've said several times here, if tuning gives you confidence, go for it. I'll still do it, hey who doesn't like to see a bare shaft fly cleanly


----------



## nestly

duc said:


> In all this you still haven't explained why when you think you've had a good shot and unexpectedly missed.


When the "unexpected" happens, it could be a problem with the equipment (ie bad arrow, bad nock, loose fletching, nocking the arrow upside-down, bad cam bearing, rough cable guard, rest failure, etc etc) or it could be an issue with the shooter's form that the shooter is unaware of (ie grip variation, inconsistent anchor, face/string pressure, drifting out of the center of the peep, etc etc) There's always a "reason" why shots thought to be "good" don't land where expected, it may not always be easy to identify what the reason was though.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> I then thought it might be a good idea to shoot a 14T field round with 3 fletched and 1 bare shaft. I ended up with a sloppy 260, none of which was due to the bare shaft. If I made the shot* it didn't matter which shaft was in the bow*


So what are you going to do with all the time and money you're going to save by no longer putting any fletchings on your target arrows?


----------



## Bobmuley

duc said:


> I'm asking the question on forgiveness, what do I have to prove?


That unforgiveness doesn't exist...

You'd have to prove that an untuned setup would hit the same spot, time after time, no matter what in the hands of an archer. 

You can't. No more than those of us on the other side of the fence can prove otherwise. 

Furthermore, most ( maybe some, haven't ran the stats) didn't bring forgiveness into the equation. You've chosen that path because you know it can't be proven instead of the initial debate...does tuning matter. I'd say over a thousand arrow scored it would. Maybe over a hundred arrows it might make a point or more difference. 

That's all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> So what are you going to do with all the time and money you're going to save by no longer putting any fletchings on your target arrows?


I can always find something to spend it on. Unfortunately fletching is one of the more inexpensive archery items. Now if I could just somehow eliminate the arrows and just shoot the fletching... Hmmm


----------



## EPLC

Bobmuley said:


> That unforgiveness doesn't exist...
> 
> You'd have to prove that an untuned setup would hit the same spot, time after time, no matter what in the hands of an archer.
> 
> You can't. No more than those of us on the other side of the fence can prove otherwise.
> 
> Furthermore, most ( maybe some, haven't ran the stats) didn't bring forgiveness into the equation. You've chosen that path because you know it can't be proven instead of the initial debate...does tuning matter. I'd say over a thousand arrow scored it would. Maybe over a hundred arrows it might make a point or more difference.
> 
> That's all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually Bob, that's exactly what started this... and what my tests showed. So there is no confusion on that: With two different bows at 80 yards I saw no measurable difference in POI between a tuned center shot/arrow flight and an un-tuned center shot that was producing a 1/2" tear through paper. I also noticed no difference in L/R impact at short distance without changing my 80 yard sight setting. I also shot both of these bows freehand (field rounds) and noticed no difference in my grouping or scores. While I do support the term "forgiveness" I'm thinking it falls more within the areas of fit and feel than it does in the actual tuning process. That said, archery is probably 95% or more mental so any edge your brain feels is needed is needed. This year has been a real struggle for me due to an non-tuning related injury...

One thing is for certain though: A good set of matched arrows will group in less than ideal conditions where an un-matched set will not. Whether or not this can be improved with tuning is questionable at best.


----------



## erdman41

duc said:


> In all this you still haven't explained why when you think you've had a good shot and unexpectedly missed.


When that happens for me it's an equipment issue. Bad nock, didn't nock arrow correct, cracked blade, ect...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## ontarget7

With all do respect your conclusion IMO is limited to your own shooting ability. More than likely why we differ on our end results from a tuned to none tuned bow. 

For me personally those are way spread out in the pics with all the arrows at varying distances. 

It would make it kind of hard to judge group size at that point when changing the tune slightly. 

I don't mean to say this in a bad way but I can see how you would come to that conclusion now. 

I can only speak for myself but I generally know when my bow slips out of tune by my down range group sizes. I know my ability and where I should be and if I'm not in that range, the bow gets looked over. 
Sometimes I'm the one that needs to be looked over and if that's all in check, I look to the bows tune. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> Actually Bob, that's exactly what started this... and what my tests showed. So there is no confusion on that: With two different bows at 80 yards I saw no measurable difference in POI between a tuned center shot/arrow flight and an un-tuned center shot that was producing a 1/2" tear through paper. I also noticed no difference in L/R impact at short distance without changing my 80 yard sight setting. I also shot both of these bows freehand (field rounds) and noticed no difference in my grouping or scores. While I do support the term "forgiveness" I'm thinking it falls more within the areas of fit and feel than it does in the actual tuning process. That said, archery is probably 95% or more mental so any edge your brain feels is needed is needed. This year has been a real struggle for me due to an non-tuning related injury...
> 
> One thing is for certain though: A good set of matched arrows will group in less than ideal conditions where an un-matched set will not. Whether or not this can be improved with tuning is questionable at best.


There's a couple things I noted along the way. At one point around page 3 or so you talked about tuning gave one good group, but other than that you couldn't repeat the initial groups. 

One could come to the conclusion that tuning makes groups worse based on that.

I also remember a set of 3 good ACGs that grouped like crap out of the machine...why?

I realize resources are limited, time and materials to test, and appreciate you reporting the results of your tests, but I do not come up with the same conclusions that you do.


----------



## EPLC

thawk said:


> No, I did not magically become a better shot the day I switched to ACE's they were simply a better match for my bow and made my entire setup for forgiving.
> You have never got a new bow and shot better with it? Maybe the same length and brace as another bow but it just shot better or had two identical bow but one shot better?
> 
> Why do you think people shoot 140-150 grain points? Because they want slower arrows? No, but somewhere along the lines they found it was more forgiving and they shot better. Do you think someone like Dave cousins couldn't tune his bow 18 years ago when he started winning national championships? But now he shoots more point weight, clocks his arrows, and indexes them different then he ever used to, I'm sure his arrow flight was good then just as it is now but he made changes along the way for a reason, and the reason is to score better.
> 
> No one is saying a bad shot, aimed at the 4 ring will magically hit the 5 or the X or that an arrow will change directions and head to the middle, all that I'm saying is with a bow/arrow combo that is forgiving a small mistake on the archers part doesn't get magnified.
> For some that might be a perfect bareshaft tune, some might be a perfect bullet hole, some might be a high left tear, and for one pro who has won a bunch of big shoots this year the tune ended up being a 2"dead left tear but it's the "most forgiving bow" they ever had.


So what you just said, and correct me if I'm wrong, is forgiveness isn't really a tuning issue. It's a tuchey feelly thing that varies from archer to archer. If that is what you mean, we agree 100%.


----------



## EPLC

EPLC said:


> Here's my 3rd group after the lube was applied. I then turned the nock on the flyer and shot it again. While this was my best group of any of the tests performed so far I was not able to duplicate it again. While I did manage to get the tight 5 arrow group, overall the grouping was not as tight or consistent as the first day I shot the TRG8. I'm not sure if the cam timing issue had a hand in this but that will be taken care of tonight.





Bobmuley said:


> There's a couple things I noted along the way. At one point around page 3 or so you talked about tuning gave one good group, but other than that you couldn't repeat the initial groups.
> 
> One could come to the conclusion that tuning makes groups worse based on that.
> 
> I also remember a set of 3 good ACGs that grouped like crap out of the machine...why?
> 
> I realize resources are limited, time and materials to test, and appreciate you reporting the results of your tests, but I do not come up with the same conclusions that you do.


Yes, the best group I had was after the bow was adjusted for center-shot and was producing a clean hole. The other groups shot in this condition were not as tight as that one but still were in the 5 ring for the most part. I did have some difficulty getting things to settle down but some lube on the grip seemed to help. In general the groups were about the same as before the tune once I got things settled down. That same bow/tune was what I shot today with the bare shaft. I can't verify what reaction a bare shaft would have taken before I tuned the center shot, but I can reasonably assume it would not have had the true flight path it has now.


----------



## thawk

Yes that's what I'm saying. It's also the reason I back nuts and bolts when he says to make fine adjustments to your rest to see if it helps. It might not, but if it does wouldn't we all be stupid to not spend a few minutes trying it.

Trust me when I tell you the pro with the 2" tear is not happy about the tear, but when the tear is a bullet hole the slightest mistake became a miss. I know another pro (senior pro next year) who used to shoot score with all the big names who moves his rest up if he feels he can't steer his arrows enough. When he feels the setup is optimal he never rechecks the tune.

I wish I knew why, could explain how, or had proof that a bow with less then perfect arrow flight could be more forgiving and better scoring for a shooter then one with perfect arrow flight, but I cant. But with hearing the same thing from so many shooters that shoot upper 550 field rounds and having experienced it myself I just can't agree that a perfect tune will always be the best for any given archer.


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> Yes, the best group I had was after the bow was adjusted for center-shot and was producing a clean hole. The other groups shot in this condition were not as tight as that one but still were in the 5 ring for the most part. I did have some difficulty getting things to settle down but some lube on the grip seemed to help. In general the groups were about the same as before the tune once I got things settled down. That same bow/tune was what I shot today with the bare shaft. I can't verify what reaction a bare shaft would have taken before I tuned the center shot, but I can reasonably assume it would not have had the true flight path it has now.


What about the three good ACGs? About as well built of an arrow as they come. More or less a straight-walled X10 or small diameter ACC. Probably in a better spine range for your setup (guessing - going off you saying the XIs were stiff for you) as well. 

Why so crappy?


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> With all do respect your conclusion IMO is limited to your own shooting ability. More than likely why we differ on our end results from a tuned to none tuned bow.
> 
> For me personally those are way spread out in the pics with all the arrows at varying distances.
> 
> It would make it kind of hard to judge group size at that point when changing the tune slightly.
> 
> I don't mean to say this in a bad way but I can see how you would come to that conclusion now.
> 
> I can only speak for myself but I generally know when my bow slips out of tune by my down range group sizes. I know my ability and where I should be and if I'm not in that range, the bow gets looked over.
> Sometimes I'm the one that needs to be looked over and if that's all in check, I look to the bows tune.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Granted, I have issues, been about a year now but it's getting better. I'm also not cherry picking pictures. This has been a difficult season for me as I am coming back from an injury. Still, that doesn't mean I do not know what a good shot feels like. I know when the arrow is going to land when the shot breaks. I also understand tuning and my bare shaft flies like a pin. This isn't my first rodeo.

Also, you can tell a lot from your examples as well. First thing I noticed is that you are not really a target shooter. While you certainly have posted some very impressive 1-3 arrow groups, there's never a target face in sight. No target faces on your practice butts, no target faces at home, none anywhere? Target shooters shoot targets and it would seem you don't. Not question your skill, but why?


----------



## EPLC

Bobmuley said:


> What about the three good ACGs? About as well built of an arrow as they come. More or less a straight-walled X10 or small diameter ACC. Probably in a better spine range for your setup (guessing - going off you saying the XIs were stiff for you) as well.
> 
> Why so crappy?


I have to assume the ACG's were not matched well. This particular set never shot well for me and were retired a long time ago. I only used them because they were sitting there. The X-Impacts grouped about the same regardless of length/spine which surprised me.


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> I have to assume the ACG's were not matched well. This particular set never shot well for me and were retired a long time ago. I only used them because they were sitting there.


They're an awesome consistent arrow. Broke the state record on the field round with them this year...only I was beat by another guy shooting the same arrow so I find it hard to believe that they aren't matched. Great tolerances all around.

Just throwing this out there using a little logic and reason.

Group Size = Arrows + Bow + Archer + Environment + Harmonics

Arrows - variances in dynamic spine, weight, straightness, etc.
Bow - consistency in hysteresis, temperature, setup (strings not creeping, etc), arrow rest bounce, etc. 
Archer - we, in general, are the weak link in the system as we induce both pin movement and torque and inconsistency to both ends of the shooting system
Environment - wind, humidity that influence the arrows path

Harmonics - there's just some things that play better with others whether that be between equipment and the bow, the bow and the arrow, or the archer and the bow. Easily the most debatable of the factors, but I think we've all seen it...explainable or not.


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

Mahly said:


> I've always looked at those arrows that "magically" land in the X when you were sure they were a 4 as the result of a "surprise" shot and focusing on the target.
> While focusing on the target, obviously, we still see the dot/ring, but it isn't the focus.
> The dot/ring does move and once in a while it moves more than we want. If the shot goes off in those times, it's often a miss. Other times, "magically" you drill the X.
> My theory on that is that while you did notice you were outside the X, you were still focused on the X. Your brain already started correcting and moving you back to the X.
> By the time the shot fired you were back on the X but didn't have time to see it (not focused on the dot).
> It's either that, or I'm REALLY good at making my bow "forgiving"



Really? Wiz-oz pretty much said that in the very beginning of this thread if you guys have been paying attention. Most likely your subconcius took over because you were so focused on the X that _you thought_ you were out but in reality you were in.


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

And of course arrows matter. That's why I've been saying tune the _arrow_ itself to the bow. That's why I like a lot of foc. 

Play around, tinker, just do it and see what happens and what works best for you and your set up. 

Haha


----------



## Bobmuley

I also think we need to determine the root cause of imperfect arrow flight.

For instance EPLC has a left tear. A left tear from a bad grip is one thing, under spined arrows, and a left tear from a yoke imbalance or other tuning symptom is another.

Of course, if you never bothered to tune you may never know the difference.


----------



## ontarget7

EPLC said:


> Granted, I have issues, been about a year now but it's getting better. I'm also not cherry picking pictures. This has been a difficult season for me as I am coming back from an injury. Still, that doesn't mean I do not know what a good shot feels like. I know when the arrow is going to land when the shot breaks. I also understand tuning and my bare shaft flies like a pin. This isn't my first rodeo.
> 
> Also, you can tell a lot from your examples as well. First thing I noticed is that you are not really a target shooter. While you certainly have posted some very impressive 1-3 arrow groups, there's never a target face in sight. No target faces on your practice butts, no target faces at home, none anywhere? Target shooters shoot targets and it would seem you don't. Not question your skill, but why?


Hunt starts next week, why would I shoot a target face. 
Besides, you don't like old pics [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

Bobmuley said:


> I also think we need to determine the root cause of imperfect arrow flight.
> 
> For instance EPLC has a left tear. A left tear from a bad grip is one thing, under spined arrows, and a left tear from a yoke imbalance or other tuning symptom is another.
> 
> Of course, if you never bothered to tune you may never know the difference.


I'm a lefty Bob and my bows have no yoke. The left tear was corrected by adding some lean in the cams. This was done with spacers. And you must have missed my bare shaft results. 



ontarget7 said:


> Hunt starts next week, why would I shoot a target face.
> Besides, you don't like old pics [emoji6]
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm not challenging your skill as you have good form and seem to be quite steady, but target archers shoot targets. From the examples that you yourself have provided over some extended period of time I have to assume that shooting target faces isn't your thing. You seem to prefer vertical lines, pieces of orange tape, etc. in favor of an actual target face. Your entire practice range has not a target face to be seen. Sorry just making an observation based on the data you've made available. And you are wrong about old pictures as I happen to really like them. It's just a timing thing in certain situations.


----------



## ontarget7

Target archery to me is any target. 

Here is a few




























Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

ontarget7 said:


> Target archery to me is any target.
> 
> Here is a few
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Great! Welcome to the Target Archery Forum. You seem to be quite good at it. What distance were they shot from?


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> I'm a lefty Bob and my bows have no yoke. The left tear was corrected by adding some lean in the cams. This was done with spacers. And you must have missed my bare shaft results....)


Nope. Didn't miss them. Forgot over the last few years that you were a lefty though... 
Just bringing up the importance of tuning procedures as a diagnostic tool. A left tear can mean many things, some apparently more important than others. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SonnyThomas

ontarget7 said:


> Target archery to me is any target.
> 
> Here is a few
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





EPLC said:


> Great! Welcome to the Target Archery Forum. You seem to be quite good at it. What distance were they shot from?


I think I was down and out and forgot about this thread. Bet I know what distance these targets were shot at...

Shane Chuning, aka ontarget7. Years back he did well at the Utah Summer Games, 2nd place, shot at Vegas and did well (can't find the past Vegas scores any more, removed?), has his own bow tuning business, well noted bare shaft tuner and revered by many in General Archery Discussion....


----------



## ontarget7

SonnyThomas said:


> I think I was down and out and forgot about this thread. Bet I know what distance these targets were shot at...
> 
> Shane Chuning, aka ontarget7. Years back he did well at the Utah Summer Games, 2nd place, shot at Vegas and did well (can't find the past Vegas scores any more, removed?), has his own bow tuning business, well noted bare shaft tuner and revered by many in General Archery Discussion....


LOL, Sonny !

I had someone ask me last week about the first time I went to Vegas. It was a pain in the butt to try and find the standing for 2012 since the changed their website. 
Still loved shooting Vegas and one of these days when I slow down I would love to make a effort every year to compete in that shoot. Just so busy supporting a family and jobs pulling me in all kinds of directions. 

Here are those standing for the 2012 shoot. It was a shoot I will never forget and greatly underestimated the type of pressure in that type of venue. 
Awesome experience and would highly recommend it. It's about the only shooting environment that got the heart pounding like a bugling elk at 15 yards. 












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Padgett

I know that I commented on this thread sometime but i can't remember what I mentioned. I prefer perfect arrow flight and have shot with both and really can't tell a difference in my ability to shoot at my level. 

But

The one thing that I refuse to ignore is my arrows being group tuned to the same hole, To me if I do this with a bow that has perfect or not perfect but decent arrow flight I am good to go and the bow has the ability to perform at its highest level. So many people spend hours and hours trying to super tune their bow but they refuse to learn how to group tune their arrows. 

So, for example. My 3d bow is getting ready to be converted over to a indoor bow, It has been shooting 250 spine 28 inch shaft arrows with 120 grain points all season and I am going to shoot 30 inch 150 spine arrows with 250 grain points out of it. I won't tune my bow to the indoor arrows. This will cause them to have about a 1/2 inch tear with bare shafts at 20 yards but what I will do is shoot the indoor arrows out of the bow at 20 yards and make sure they are still hitting the same hole exact.


----------



## ILOVE3D

Not sure it was this year or not but I was told Terry Ragsdale's bow string was coming apart and the tuning had been changing as the shoot went on. His arrows were purposing on the way down but he still managed to win but with perfect form and only shooting at one distance, on even ground I don't think tuning makes all that much difference. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h1w1idw_5s


----------



## duc

"...I don't think tuning makes all that much difference." Careful Pete, thems fightin' word to some people here.


----------



## Padgett

I love that video of Terry shooting, his shooting form is absolutely perfect and to see him do it with a high grip bow riser is really cool. I have studied that video for years and there are little things such as how he draws the bow that are cool. Also notice how he draws pretty quickly and comes to anchor with no wasted time, then he has a good hold on the target as he aims.


----------



## SonnyThomas

ILOVE3D said:


> Not sure it was this year or not but I was told Terry Ragsdale's bow string was coming apart and the tuning had been changing as the shoot went on. His arrows were purposing on the way down but he still managed to win but with perfect form and only shooting at one distance, on even ground I don't think tuning makes all that much difference.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h1w1idw_5s


Read Robert Ragsdale's articles of bow tuning. Yes, Terry's father...The story of Terry winning Vegas with a paper ripping bow is still told today. Said was the tear about 4" left or right. Robert also tells of this in one of his articles. Terry is just one outstanding individual when it comes to archery. Some one related a couple of years ago of Terry and Terry at this Indoor range. The person offered Terry to shoot his bow and Terry accepted. The person said Terry cracked or busted the first arrow with his second shot. 

No doubt a arrow needs built well to fly it's best, but to be accurate up close out to farther distances something needs done to the bow. You just don't throw a arrow rest on the bow and expect the bow to perform.

I already put forth??? I ain't going back to read. Set up my Hoyt ProElite. Timed, eye balled center shot, set rest height (arrow) with level. Went to the indoor range right out of the bow vice. On paper with first shot. Adjusted sight, 2nd shot closer. Adjusted sight. The 3rd and remaining shots were in the bull's eye for a 298 and a good share of Xs. Does this mean the bow was tuned?


----------



## thawk

Sonny, no it doesn't mean the bow was tuned, nor does it mean you would have shot better if the bow was tuned better. You may have shot worse with a better tuned bow. Many of the pros I shoot with say their bows shoot better when not in perfect tune, some have to have a perfect tune.

I feel it might be a mindset for some, but for me I have had bows that I tuned to a slight tear then something changed with the bow weather it was strings setteling in or what I'm not sure, but the bow seems to be less forgiving. Being stubborn I usually try to "shoot through it" but have rechecked the tune to find a perfect hole at every distance, make a slight adjustment and the bow seems more forgiving again.
I can't explain the whys or how's of it, just what I have found works for me.

I have another buddy who is a world class shooter and won a few national championships who says his bows never seem to shoot their best when he gets them to aim their best, I could never understand this at all because getting a bow to aim is my number one priority then I had it happen to me while trying to set up a BHFS setup.


----------



## EPLC

For me, tuning isn't so much about arrow flight, it's about fit and feel of the bow. With a good set of matched arrows a perfectly fit bow shoots better for me than all the arrow flight tuning in the world. The better the bow holds the better I shoot, regardless of tune. Arrows do matter, fine tuning the flight of them... not so much.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> For me, tuning isn't so much about arrow flight, it's about fit and feel of the bow. With a good set of matched arrows a perfectly fit bow shoots better for me than all the arrow flight tuning in the world. The better the bow holds the better I shoot, regardless of tune. Arrows do matter, fine tuning the flight of them... not so much.


Now, I can agree with this.


----------



## Huedawg

I agree that the tuning is more for the archer than the bow. I like to tune and get everything the best i can with the setup so that 1. It feels and holds well. 2. It is as consistent as it can be. 3. if everything is in tune and i have issues then i know something has changed in my shot routine that i need to work on. Its all about reducing the variables.


----------



## ontarget7

Tuning won't matter at one distance but it definitely matters if you want consistency at varying distances. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Padgett

Hey, ontarget7

I am a perfect arrow flight guy, meaning that my bare shaft produces bullet holes from 3ft all the way to 20 yards. So when I put fletching on my arrows they have nothing do but stabilize perfection. You also know that I group tune my arrows to the same hole in a shooting maching as bare shafts at 20 yds. 

So

My question is do you have anything to maybe explain to me why a bow that has induced poor arrow flight can produce more accurate down range accuracy or even overall accuracy?

This is something that I simply can not accept as truth and one of the archery areas that I struggle understanding why it is promoted.


----------



## Padgett

The only thing I can come up with is based on people not knowing how to use a hooter shooter or not having access to one to group tune their arrows. I just don't think many people do it and so they have to survive with the arrows in condition right out of the box or spine indexed. 

So, with that said.

First hypothesis:

Is that a bow that you tune to perfect arrow flight with one bare shaft has no chance of shooting a non group tuned batch of arrows well. That poorly group tuned batch of arrows will always cause the shooter to struggle with grouping down range and even close range.

Second hypothesis:

The shooter with a bad group tuned batch of arrows will benefit from adding some kind of lateral or vertical bend to the arrow by screwing up the tune of the bow where it produces that slight high left tear that the pro shooters love. 

Why? Because this slight amount of tuning imperfection throws some nock travel into the arrow as the bow fires and it bends every one of the arrows just enough to negate the differences in the spine that every arrow has and since the shooter doesn't have the arrows group tuned by a machine to match all of them perfectly this overrides the effects of not having a group tuned batch of arrows and then allows the grouping to be tighter. 

So, to me in the end if you know how to tune and produce perfect arrow flight and then group tune your arrows perfectly you can shoot accurately with that choice but if you do not have the ability to group tune the arrows perfectly you are going to have to bend the arrows enough to negate the effects of the poorly group tuned arrows and then have good accuracy and groups down range.


----------



## Padgett

I have absolutely no proof of the above post, I simply have nothing after all these years that allows me to mentally accept that poor arrow flight is more accurate than perfect arrow flight. The above thoughts are just one option that might be the reason.


----------



## ontarget7

Padgett said:


> Hey, ontarget7
> 
> I am a perfect arrow flight guy, meaning that my bare shaft produces bullet holes from 3ft all the way to 20 yards. So when I put fletching on my arrows they have nothing do but stabilize perfection. You also know that I group tune my arrows to the same hole in a shooting maching as bare shafts at 20 yds.
> 
> So
> 
> My question is do you have anything to maybe explain to me why a bow that has induced poor arrow flight can produce more accurate down range accuracy or even overall accuracy?
> 
> This is something that I simply can not accept as truth and one of the archery areas that I struggle understanding why it is promoted.


Sorry, won't even attempt to explain it since it's simply not true. 

It's impossible for a bow to perform the same out of a tuned bow vs a untuned bow. 

Now I do feel when you get on a pro level there is wiggle room to play. Meaning you can have bows slightly out of tune to accommodate ones shooting style. 

However, if guided in the right direction I feel that archer would even be better than they already are with a perfect tune. 

There are some ways you can tweak things to your advantage and shooting style, while still maintaining a perfect tune. The window however is not as big as you think it might be. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Padgett

Cool, that is how I feel about it also. I just can't mentally accept some of the things that are part of archery, if they don't make sense to me I don't commit to them just because.

Those things you mentioned above are many of the reasons that I choose to use point of impact very precisely. I do not use point of impact with my tuning of arrow flight at all, I tune my bow to have as good of pure bare shaft arrow flight as I can manage. I use point of impact with my arrow grouping of the bare shafts out of my bow after it has been tuned by one of the bare shafts. That bare shaft becomes the control arrow and I turn the nocks as I shoot the other bare shafts out of the hooter shooter. This allows all of the arrows to hit the same hole as a group of the arrow that I tuned the bow with. 

It took me a while to see this order of doing things, I had to separate out things and look at them and see the logical order of events.

For example my stabilizer weights and the setup has nothing to do with point of impact either. I went to 50 yards and laid out my 50 or so ounces of weight and I aimed at a 12 ring and just shot and watched my float pattern and other things like the bow wanting to drop out the bottom or rise out the top. After a couple weeks of testing and narrowing down my top three combinations one of them stood out as a top contender as the weight combination that gave me the best overall hold. 

So I see tuning as a multi part job and looking at them correctly can make a nice setup.


----------



## thawk

Padgett said:


> The only thing I can come up with is based on people not knowing how to use a hooter shooter or not having access to one to group tune their arrows. I just don't think many people do it and so they have to survive with the arrows in condition right out of the box or spine indexed.
> 
> So, with that said.
> 
> First hypothesis:
> 
> Is that a bow that you tune to perfect arrow flight with one bare shaft has no chance of shooting a non group tuned batch of arrows well. That poorly group tuned batch of arrows will always cause the shooter to struggle with grouping down range and even close range.
> 
> Second hypothesis:
> 
> The shooter with a bad group tuned batch of arrows will benefit from adding some kind of lateral or vertical bend to the arrow by screwing up the tune of the bow where it produces that slight high left tear that the pro shooters love.
> 
> Why? Because this slight amount of tuning imperfection throws some nock travel into the arrow as the bow fires and it bends every one of the arrows just enough to negate the differences in the spine that every arrow has and since the shooter doesn't have the arrows group tuned by a machine to match all of them perfectly this overrides the effects of not having a group tuned batch of arrows and then allows the grouping to be tighter.
> 
> So, to me in the end if you know how to tune and produce perfect arrow flight and then group tune your arrows perfectly you can shoot accurately with that choice but if you do not have the ability to group tune the arrows perfectly you are going to have to bend the arrows enough to negate the effects of the poorly group tuned arrows and then have good accuracy and groups down range.


I think your second hypothesis sounds as good as any explanation I have ever heard. It makes total sense and something I have never thought of. I always thought it was more to reduce the imperfections of the shooter not the arrow but that really gives me something else to think about.


----------



## nestly

thawk said:


> I think your second hypothesis sounds as good as any explanation I have ever heard. It makes total sense and something I have never thought of. I always thought it was more to reduce the imperfections of the shooter not the arrow but that really gives me something else to think about.


More of an observation than a question. Are those who generally recommend slightly high-left generally shooting fixed launcher/blade style rests, or drop-away/limb driven. Seems to me there's a perfectly obvious reason to have the back of the arrow rise up slightly as it passes over a fixed blade, which isn't a concern with drop-away/limb driven rests.


----------



## Padgett

Thawk, please make sure that you realize it is only a thought that I have. I just have no explanation for all the pro shooters and amateurs who make the claim that a little tear gives them better scoring or grouping. 

The reason I really think this whole little high left tear thing got started is that blade rests and the old prong rests along with the bows from the age during the 70's 80's 90's were just not as good at producing good nock travel produced high tears in the paper tuner or bare shaft results. I know that I started with drop aways and shot with them for years and the minute I got my first blade rest my efforts to tune the bow to get rid of high tears got significantly more difficult. 

So, being a solid pro shooter back then you had to live with a slightly high tear left or right and had to convince yourself that you could get the best possible results out of your shooting with it there. 

We as amateurs listen to the pro shooters and for the most part they are still shooting blade rests and the current pro's learned from the generation that all this was their only reality. 

I am seeing way more pro shooters in indoor and 3d using jerk down rests such as hamskea on their bows so more than likely this high tear thing will pass with time. Right now I hear so many pros do their little pod casts and videos where they talk about tuning a bow and they actually try and make a bow do that right from the start and see that high tear because they believe in it so much.


----------



## thawk

When it was explained to me was somewhere around 1996, I was at Randy Ulmers house and we were all talking about tuning at that point. Randy took a pencil out of a cup on his desk and balanced it with one finger, he then said "if this is perfect when I remove my finger it will stay straight up"
He removed his finger and it fell, he repeated this a few times and each time it fell a slightly different direction. He then said "that is what a perfect bullet hole is like for your bow, any slight difference from you and the arrow comes out of the bow different" 

Now keep in mind I have been competing for six years, had just turned pro, was at Randy flipping Ulmers house, he cooked dinner, we shot for a couple hours, I was standing on his desk to measure one of his elk earlier, and he had invited me to join him on a hunt, at that point my man crush was about an 11 on a 1-10 scale, he probably could have told me a low right tear was best and I would have tried it.

But to this day that is the only reason that has ever made any sense to me as to why my bows seem more forgiving with a slight tear.
Till now that is, your thought process seems very legit, and although I can't test Randy's theory, I can tune my bow perfect and test it then barrow a shooter and tune the arrows perfect and see if it makes a difference.

I love it when you read something that makes you think.
Thanks


----------



## bigHUN

I am competing on large scale for about eight years and my dream was always to go fully pro but can't justify over my mechanical engineering job...
on other hand I built myself equipment for tuning to microns and btw spent some time with this topic extensively to finally give up with shooting paper at all. I don't believe I can benefit investing any more attention. 

We are talking paper tear. Asking now how much paper tear is acceptable to you - me - us?
The best I can do about 1/4" tear high right on any given distance between 1 meter incrementally to maybe 8 meters, beyond is a clear hole.
My setup is a spring steel rest set to minimum clearance I believe about 50% of my shaft is french kissing the V. Meaning that my d-loop is very very centered between the cams (and I don't care where is a berger hole)

*** I must mention that I spine index my shafts before fletching L helical and the mark will be on top when the arrow resting on the blade. Also we know that the arrow shaft will bent in the moment of the rear force just before the point start moving...In my case the arrow will start bending upward meaning the nock will jump over the blade tip when passing. I am coming back to this a bit later.

I see I shall explain my findings more pictorially:

Let say, I will eliminate any tear on paper, bullet hole on any given distance 1-10M;
then I go outside and creep tune, I usually do it at 50 meters, when I got down to very last half twist on cables I like to have the arrow hit about 1" higher when creeping;
also when there I like to double check by shooting couple bareshafts with fletched arrows, I keep 4-5 bareshafts in my box all time, for first aid.
then I go inside doing the paper test, it tears....I fix that again
then I go outside again creep tune @50 and nfg...fix it again and just give up spending more time with the bs
So I stay with my creep tune what means about 1/4" tear. BTW I check this maybe once a year only for reason people asking me question, otherwise completely out of my life.
Ending up having a perfect cam timing, almost perfectly flat line nock travel, the nock jumps over the blade, my arrow will stabilize after about 12-14 meters...I am more than happy 

Now, to compare what some people claiming that the mechanical rests can eliminate any tear...I am sure that comes with a great price! Forcing the arrow not to tear?!
I will leave that to their own judgment if they happy that floats they're boat...
but really questioning did any of them creep tuned that bow?
next question is, taking in the consideration what I already sad earlier **** where comes to play the x amount of arrow bend ? If you eliminate all the "must" variables in justice of something what have no value at all...
Not asking this to average Joe's but the top performers, do they still have any attention how much their arrows tear?

Bottom line is, me personally believe some amount of tear must be there for best performance in the game.


----------



## EPLC

Oh those subtleties! I've been struggling recently with unexplained high shot placement on shots that felt pretty good. I've suspected my sight tape was a little slower than the bow but because of laziness and other assorted excuses I hadn't really felt like dealing with it. I thought I could just compensate and shoot around it. Earlier this week I actually checked it and as I had suspected it was slow, in fact 2+ yards slow at the longer distances. So I changed the tape to one that's right on and bingo... no more unexplained high misses. 

Here's what I believe was happening. Because my sight tape was off, my subconscious was fighting to aim low and my conscious was fighting to center. The result was the low shots were going in and the centered shots were high. I had the feeling that my best shots were missing and those that were less than perfect were in the center. I was concerned about my grip as it seemed I was tweaking those high shots. I tried different grip angles on my Podium to no avail. I tried to relax more on the shot as well as a host of other things with no luck. I was still tweaking those high shots... or so I thought. 

I've started several threads concerning equipment vs. mental, arrows, tuning, etc. It would seem that anything and everything that feeds the subconscious is important. When there is confidence in something, real or imagined, it helps. When there is a lack of confidence in anything, such as a sight tape, it can and will impact your execution in some negative way. 

So, does arrow flight really matter? It does if you think it does. Archery is like that.


----------



## Rick!

thawk said:


> When it was explained to me was somewhere around 1996, I was at Randy Ulmers house and we were all talking about tuning at that point. Randy took a pencil out of a cup on his desk and balanced it with one finger, he then said "if this is perfect when I remove my finger it will stay straight up"
> He removed his finger and it fell, he repeated this a few times and each time it fell a slightly different direction. He then said "that is what a perfect bullet hole is like for your bow, any slight difference from you and the arrow comes out of the bow different"
> 
> Now keep in mind I have been competing for six years, had just turned pro, was at Randy flipping Ulmers house, he cooked dinner, we shot for a couple hours, I was standing on his desk to measure one of his elk earlier, and he had invited me to join him on a hunt, at that point my man crush was about an 11 on a 1-10 scale, he probably could have told me a low right tear was best and I would have tried it.
> 
> But to this day that is the only reason that has ever made any sense to me as to why my bows seem more forgiving with a slight tear.
> Till now that is, your thought process seems very legit, and although I can't test Randy's theory, I can tune my bow perfect and test it then barrow a shooter and tune the arrows perfect and see if it makes a difference.
> 
> I love it when you read something that makes you think.
> Thanks


No disrespect intended but maybe this needs a look at from a different perspective.

We're talking about compound bows since this isn't the field forum, just to make sure were on the same page.

BS tuning lines up the powerstroke behind the center of the arrow, right? 

When a baseball player hits a home run, does he try to hit it as square as possible or just a little off center?

Does a golfer try to hit the ball in the perfect sweet spot on the club face or just a bit off center? 

How about the tennis player hitting a 130+mph first serve? Is the racket aligned to hit the ball in a dead straight line or angled a bit?

When you hit a nail with a hammer, what drives the nail most efficiently, and accurately - hit flush and square or a bit off center?

To me, it makes more sense to drive the arrow as purely down its middle as possible. With the examples above, why would one want to drive the arrow 
with a slightly eccentric (off center) force?

Fundamentally, you're trying to make every arrow bend the same upon release - every time. Given that the bow is a dumb machine and the arrow is an elastic beam, it stands to reason the system will repeat outcomes nearly every time. What we still don't know is the size of window there is for a "tuned" system before repeatability is compromised. It seems that the window is rather large and a lot of energy is put into a "tune" without a commensurate reward
of incrementally improved scores. For me, I work way more on missing smaller by convincing myself that I know (or should know) how to shoot rather than working on equipment.


----------



## cbrunson

Put some english on a que ball Rick! It will still go straight down the table.


----------



## duc

Rick! said:


> No disrespect intended but maybe this needs a look at from a different perspective.
> 
> We're talking about compound bows since this isn't the field forum, just to make sure were on the same page.
> 
> BS tuning lines up the powerstroke behind the center of the arrow, right?
> 
> When a baseball player hits a home run, does he try to hit it as square as possible or just a little off center?
> 
> Does a golfer try to hit the ball in the perfect sweet spot on the club face or just a bit off center?
> 
> How about the tennis player hitting a 130+mph first serve? Is the racket aligned to hit the ball in a dead straight line or angled a bit?
> 
> When you hit a nail with a hammer, what drives the nail most efficiently, and accurately - hit flush and square or a bit off center?
> 
> To me, it makes more sense to drive the arrow as purely down its middle as possible. With the examples above, why would one want to drive the arrow
> with a slightly eccentric (off center) force?
> 
> Fundamentally, you're trying to make every arrow bend the same upon release - every time. Given that the bow is a dumb machine and the arrow is an elastic beam, it stands to reason the system will repeat outcomes nearly every time. What we still don't know is the size of window there is for a "tuned" system before repeatability is compromised. It seems that the window is rather large and a lot of energy is put into a "tune" without a commensurate reward
> of incrementally improved scores. For me, I work way more on missing smaller by convincing myself that I know (or should know) how to shoot rather than working on equipment.


The system (bow) is always repeatable. The archer isn't. We need to make it easier for the archer to to shoot his bow so SMALL mistakes mistake (mostly hand placement or torque) don't influence the flight of the arrow. For want of a better word we give "forgiveness" to the archer. Hello Andy


----------



## Mahly

In reply to Rick (because I didn't want to quote all that LOL).

To the point of the elastic beam and theoretically always doing the same thing with the same input. I believe that is accurate, but you can/will have a different result if there is any difference in the arrow.
Perhaps not significant enough to notice, but then again the opposite could be true as well.
The better tuned the bow is, the less effect the variances in arrow should be... especially any inconsistency due to spine.
If your power stroke is not lined up, different arrows will behave quite differently. If it IS lined up perfectly. The arrow spine consistencies will not be as noticeable as there will be little if any side forces on the arrow.

As most, I have not conducted experiments to prove it, but it makes sense to me 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mahly

cbrunson said:


> Put some english on a que ball Rick! It will still go straight down the table.


Put a lot on, and you can masse' the ball around others.

That said, I've never been a big fan of analogies 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## cbrunson

Mahly said:


> Put a lot on, and you can masse' the ball around others.


Yes, but that requires driving it into the table. If using straight English, with a forward power stroke, the ball will travel straight until is hits a rail. The point being that the que doesn’t have to hit perfectly center on the ball. The “forgiveness” in that scenario is built into the tip of the que. It bends and grips to account for misalignment. Every one of those other examples have built in forgiveness attributes as well. The golf ball flattens at the point of contact. (There are some cool videos showing it in slow motion). The bat and ball both flatten at the point of contact. Etc.

What makes those “forgiveness” traits relative, is simply the fact that there are those traits, either inherent, or designed to counter mechanical inconsistencies in a system that is intended to be repeatable. Obviously, the more of those inconsistencies you can eliminate mechanically, the greater your chances of ruling out equipment as the cause of your failures, but your greatest limiting factor is not going to be mechanical, and many people spend the majority of their time looking for it there.


----------



## Bobmuley

cbrunson said:


> ... your greatest limiting factor is not going to be mechanical, and many people spend the majority of their time looking for it there.


 No doubt about that.


----------



## Rick!

cbrunson said:


> Yes, but that requires driving it into the table. If using straight English, with a forward power stroke, the ball will travel straight until is hits a rail. The point being that the que doesn’t have to hit perfectly center on the ball. The “forgiveness” in that scenario is built into the tip of the que. It bends and grips to account for misalignment. Every one of those other examples have built in forgiveness attributes as well. The golf ball flattens at the point of contact. (There are some cool videos showing it in slow motion). The bat and ball both flatten at the point of contact. Etc.
> 
> What makes those “forgiveness” traits relative, is simply the fact that there are those traits, either inherent, or designed to counter mechanical inconsistencies in a system that is intended to be repeatable. Obviously, the more of those inconsistencies you can eliminate mechanically, the greater your chances of ruling out equipment as the cause of your failures, but your greatest limiting factor is not going to be mechanical, and many people spend the majority of their time looking for it there.


Finally, I get it. 

This "forgiveness" that archers always speak of is what engineers call "compliance". It's a deviation from a "stiff" system. So, it's like a semantics thing and not a magic power that is installed in archer's equipment. :archery:


----------



## EPLC

Forgiveness is a result of belief in something. A bow will repeat time after time regardless of the state of tune. Add a matched set of good arrows and that same repeatability will produce good groups. Add an archer with a high degree of confidence in that system and that archer will produce groups as well. Add or subtract various degrees of confidence in that archer and the group size will reflect that variable. Is there anyone here that doubts that?


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Oh those subtleties! I've been struggling recently with unexplained high shot placement on shots that felt pretty good. I've suspected my sight tape was a little slower than the bow but because of laziness and other assorted excuses I hadn't really felt like dealing with it. I thought I could just compensate and shoot around it. Earlier this week I actually checked it and as I had suspected it was slow, in fact 2+ yards slow at the longer distances. So I changed the tape to one that's right on and bingo... no more unexplained high misses.
> 
> Here's what I believe was happening. Because my sight tape was off, my subconscious was fighting to aim low and my conscious was fighting to center. The result was the low shots were going in and the centered shots were high. I had the feeling that my best shots were missing and those that were less than perfect were in the center. I was concerned about my grip as it seemed I was tweaking those high shots. I tried different grip angles on my Podium to no avail. I tried to relax more on the shot as well as a host of other things with no luck. I was still tweaking those high shots... or so I thought.
> 
> I've started several threads concerning equipment vs. mental, arrows, tuning, etc. It would seem that anything and everything that feeds the subconscious is important. When there is confidence in something, real or imagined, it helps. When there is a lack of confidence in anything, such as a sight tape, it can and will impact your execution in some negative way.
> 
> So, does arrow flight really matter? It does if you think it does. Archery is like that.


How could good arrow flight not matter? No one I know of wants a "fish tailing" or "porpoising" arrow. Years back and even today some prefer a bit nock high and a bit nock left or right, but mostly through wanting the arrow to correct it's self the same way each and every time. By some this "correction" is usually in place by around 15 yards. 

I was really surprised that "clocking" didn't come up in this thread... Though proved a arrow comes out of the bow rotating one way and the vanes correct the rotation around 18 feet I don't believe it matters which way a arrow is fletched. By the article and proving it to myself, one should be fletching left offset or left helical.


----------



## cbrunson

Rick! said:


> Finally, I get it.
> 
> This "forgiveness" that archers always speak of is what engineers call "compliance". It's a deviation from a "stiff" system. So, it's like a semantics thing and not a magic power that is installed in archer's equipment. :archery:


When you've exhausted all feasible calculations to identify and incorporate compliance variables into your designed system without achieving the desired results, you can rest assured that somebody has been there before and decided that the greater benefit is in gluing on some brightly colored fletching to straighten it out, and then putting your ass to work behind the string.




EPLC said:


> Forgiveness is a result of belief in something. A bow will repeat time after time regardless of the state of tune. Add a matched set of good arrows and that same repeatability will produce good groups. Add an archer with a high degree of confidence in that system and that archer will produce groups as well. Add or subtract various degrees of confidence in that archer and the group size will reflect that variable. Is there anyone here that doubts that?


I think you're in La La Land Paul. Without every single technological advancement that ultimately led to what we have today, you'd be left with a stick and string, a warped wood arrow, and feathers tied on with horse hair. Accuracy has always been the driving factor behind technological advancement. Accuracy and penetration/speed. Long stabilizers with intentional weight distribution make a bow more "forgiving". A correctly spined arrow is more "forgiving" with imperfect nock travel. Etc. There are limits to what both "forgiveness" and confidence can do for you, and those limits directly correlate with the amount of work you put into both of them.


----------



## duc

EPLC said:


> Forgiveness is a result of belief in something. A bow will repeat time after time regardless of the state of tune. Add a matched set of good arrows and that same repeatability will produce good groups. Add an archer with a high degree of confidence in that system and that archer will produce groups as well. Add or subtract various degrees of confidence in that archer and the group size will reflect that variable. Is there anyone here that doubts that?


We can shoot a bare shaft to be spot on at 10m but you couldn't shoot it at 90 and hit the target so we put vanes on the shaft that give it more "forgiveness". We put a little bias in the power stroke of the bow for the same reason. Like the balancing act with the pencil, we give it a bias so it falls the SAME way EVERY single time. More consistently if that's how you want to see it.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> Forgiveness is a result of belief in something. A bow will repeat time after time regardless of the state of tune. Add a matched set of good arrows and that same repeatability will produce good groups. Add an archer with a high degree of confidence in that system and that archer will produce groups as well. Add or subtract various degrees of confidence in that archer and the group size will reflect that variable. Is there anyone here that doubts that?


Absolutely disagree. I don't know when you started shooting, but when I became interested in competitive archery, compound bows were 48", had highly deflexed riser, and round wheels. Over the years, endeavers to make them faster lead to shorter bows, reflexed risers with short brace heights, long overdraws, and "hard" cams. There was absolutely no doubt that these changes made bows more touchy to shoot. Both types of bow had essentially the same components, only the geometry of the components was different. (Aluminum was the only viable arrow shaft material for target shooters except ACE and ACC) On a shooting machine, I expect both bows would have been equally accurate... in the hands of an archer, not so much. "Forgiveness" was real then, not imagined.... just as it is today.


----------



## nestly

As for the pencil thing, there's no way to get the mass of a pencil so perfectly centered above the point that it will stand on it's point. So the answer to the pencil question is that the pencil will fall in the direction external forces influence it to go when it's released. ie it's doubtful a human can make a pencil vertical within 1/100th of an inch, much less 1/1000th or less, and even if they could, they could not remove their finger(s) from it without moving it from it's previous alignment, so it's either already going to be "leaning" when the finger(s) are removed, or the act of removing the finger(s) is going to impart some momentum on it.

As that relates to an arrow being launched from a bow, whether an arrow is leaving tail left, tail right, tail high, or is aligned with the power stroke, there is still x-amount of shooter inconsistency that will produce roughly the same amount of inconsistency in the amount of tail left, tail right, etc as if the arrow was tuned for bullet holes.


----------



## duc

nestly said:


> Absolutely disagree. I don't know when you started shooting, but when I became interested in competitive archery, compound bows were 48", had highly deflexed riser, and round wheels. Over the years, endeavers to make them faster lead to shorter bows, reflexed risers with short brace heights, long overdraws, and "hard" cams. There was absolutely no doubt that these changes made bows more touchy to shoot. Both types of bow had essentially the same components, only the geometry of the components was different. (Aluminum was the only viable arrow shaft material for target shooters except ACE and ACC) On a shooting machine, I expect both bows would have been equally accurate... in the hands of an archer, not so much. "Forgiveness" was real then, not imagined.... just as it is today.


You can mitigate some inaccuracies of the shooter with bow setup but at the end of the day it's ALL entirely up to the shooter to get rid of their inaccuracies. And I see far to many shooter not do this. To much seems to be placed on equipment because people don't want to accept that they are the problem.


----------



## Mahly

Real world end game.
We all shoot with some sort of fletching.
The fletching will eventually have the arrow pointing directly at the target (though you may hit the target before this happens).
A "tuned" bow will minimize how long this will take.
Different arrows will also affect how long that will take.
The more out of tune, the greater affect the variables in the arrows will have.
I would rather minimize the effect those variables have.
So I shoot the best (not always most expensive) arrows I can afford. And tune my bow as best I can.
I can see no reason not to do either of those things.
If in the end all I get is confidence, who doesn't want that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Rick!

nestly said:


> As for the pencil thing, there's no way to get the mass of a pencil so perfectly centered above the point that it will stand on it's point. So the answer to the pencil question is that the pencil will fall in the direction external forces influence it to go when it's released. ie it's doubtful a human can make a pencil vertical within 1/100th of an inch, much less 1/1000th or less, and even if they could, they could not remove their finger(s) from it without moving it from it's previous alignment, so it's either already going to be "leaning" when the finger(s) are removed, or the act of removing the finger(s) is going to impart some momentum on it.
> 
> As that relates to an arrow being launched from a bow, whether an arrow is leaving tail left, tail right, tail high, or is aligned with the power stroke, there is still x-amount of shooter inconsistency that will produce roughly the same amount of inconsistency in the amount of tail left, tail right, etc as if the arrow was tuned for bullet holes.


With all due respect, most shoot the arrow from the "eraser" end and not the pointy end. I believe it is easier to keep the cg of the arrow aligned with the powerstroke the same way it gets easier to send the arrow down the middle more often than not (once a requisite skill level is achieved.)

With the only constant input of misalignment being the cable guide and the shooter's correction for it, there could be an argument for a purposeful misalignment of the powerstroke. I would be very interested in an explanation that doesn't include the term forgiveness.

When you throw in the former PSE shooter from the last century, it could be difficult to defend the purposeful misalignment thing. I'm referring to the 2" tear rig that won a championship that turns into a 4" tear on an aussie forum and then finishes with a 5" tear in Bernie's book...

But, since we should be talking more in terms of the average I-A shooter, let's put forth some evidence or data that the "high left tear" is in fact conducive to better repeatibility. I don't have this evidence as I don't paper tune. I just bs tune mostly to get nock height proper for indoor and then create the same POI for my outdoor stuff.

How about we expand on Bernie's statement: "The Paradox of Tuning - Tuning can only be relevant if you have consistent form.....and if you have consistent form, tuning then becomes irrelevant....The secret is that , if you duplicate each shot, so will the bow......tuned or untuned." 

This has been thrown around here before but without much analysis or conversation for that matter.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> Absolutely disagree. I don't know when you started shooting, but when I became interested in competitive archery, compound bows were 48", had highly deflexed riser, and round wheels. Over the years, endeavers to make them faster lead to shorter bows, reflexed risers with short brace heights, long overdraws, and "hard" cams. There was absolutely no doubt that these changes made bows more touchy to shoot. Both types of bow had essentially the same components, only the geometry of the components was different. (Aluminum was the only viable arrow shaft material for target shooters except ACE and ACC) On a shooting machine, I expect both bows would have been equally accurate... in the hands of an archer, not so much. "Forgiveness" was real then, not imagined.... just as it is today.


I'm referring to today's modern compound bow that fits the archer properly as a starting point. Forgiveness certainly does exist, especially when comparing various shooting systems in the hands of various archers. Some setups will be more forgiving than others for each individual. I have no doubts in that area. The forgiveness I'm addressing is the same one that I was addressing when I started this thread. "Will fine tuning my bow improve groups, or does the arrow have more impact?" I believe it is the latter. My testing has validated this. 

All this considered, confidence IMO is more important than any other factor. A good set on matched arrows would be right up there as well. I see it in my own shooting all of the time. This is a mental game and no amount of tuning can fix that. That said, if you believe in tuning it will help or hurt you depending on your confidence in the tune. "If" you don't it won't really have much impact, if any at all. But like I've said all along, if you believe it... it is true.

After 23 pages and well over 500 posts nobody has posted anything more than opinion. Provide a test that proves tuning was the root cause of better grouping vs confidence in the tuning process.


----------



## erdman41

Does a bow with a small high left tear have the same poi as a bow with a small high right tear?

Will a bow with a half inch high left tear vs a 1/4" high left tear have the same poi? 

Which one of the above would have the smallest varience in poi?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

cbrunson said:


> I think you're in La La Land Paul. Without every single technological advancement that ultimately led to what we have today, you'd be left with a stick and string, a warped wood arrow, and feathers tied on with horse hair. Accuracy has always been the driving factor behind technological advancement. Accuracy and penetration/speed. Long stabilizers with intentional weight distribution make a bow more "forgiving". A correctly spined arrow is more "forgiving" with imperfect nock travel. Etc. There are limits to what both "forgiveness" and confidence can do for you, and those limits directly correlate with the amount of work you put into both of them.


No La La Land, you are not addressing the original question. There's no question that various equipment will be more or less forgiving in the hands of different archers for various reasons. But can a bow that fits the archer properly be made more forgiving by simply fine tuning arrow flight? I think not.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> I'm referring to today's modern compound bow that fits the archer properly as a starting point. Forgiveness certainly does exist, especially when comparing various shooting systems in the hands of various archers. Some setups will be more forgiving than others for each individual. I have no doubts in that area. The forgiveness I'm addressing is the same one that I was addressing when I started this thread. "Will fine tuning my bow improve groups, or does the arrow have more impact?" I believe it is the latter. My testing has validated this.
> 
> All this considered, confidence IMO is more important than any other factor. A good set on matched arrows would be right up there as well. I see it in my own shooting all of the time. This is a mental game and no amount of tuning can fix that. That said, if you believe in tuning it will help or hurt you depending on your confidence in the tune. "If" you don't it won't really have much impact, if any at all. But like I've said all along, if you believe it... it is true.
> 
> After 23 pages and well over 500 posts nobody has posted anything more than opinion. Provide a test that proves tuning was the root cause of better grouping vs confidence in the tuning process.


It's illogical to me that you can make the statement highlighted above about "forgiveness" between a bow and the archer, but then discount the "forgiveness" phenomenon if it includes an arrow shaft. I have maintained throughout this topic that your tests only validated the shooting machine part of the test, and I don't disagree with your conclusion that more consistent shafts equal more consistent accuracy. You readily point out that confidence plays a significant role in accuracy, but then seem to discount the possibility that confidence in your machine tests may be influencing your shooting during the handheld portion. If you believe that someone can shoot better simply because they believe their tuned bow "should" shoot better, then it's also true that someone could actually shoot better with an untuned bow, if that's what they believe "should" happen. The handheld portion of test has to be a blind test to be valid. As it stands, you are basically saying that everyone should disregard everything they've learned about the affects of tuning over the years in favor of a test conducted by a single person during a relatively short test period.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Recently I've started an experiment to understand if tuning is really the most important factor in establishing the best accuracy from my setups. At this point I'm not so sure if it really even matters. The pictures below typically represent many groups I've shot from my shooter at 80 yards out of two different bows, bows that are not in the best of tune. *Both bows are getting a 1/2" tear unless I move center shot to 5/8", which I refuse to do. Each have a center shot of 3/4"-13/16". *Today I received a cam spacer kit from Mathews in order to fine tune my center shot. *The question that I'm looking to answer is will the bow group better when tuned properly? *Since the groups I'm getting are very good now, I have some doubt whether it will make a difference. I have decided that my X-Impacts are very evenly matched and have very consistent spine. I've shot them from two different bows that have slightly different DL and poundage yet they both group equally. I've also shot these arrows with lengths of 25.5" to 29" out of these bows without impacting group size.





EPLC said:


> No La La Land, you are not addressing *the original question*. There's no question that various equipment will be more or less forgiving in the hands of different archers for various reasons. But can a bow that fits the archer properly be made more forgiving by simply fine tuning arrow flight? I think not.


One thing I refused to do is paper tune or check paper tears for some one else. It wasn't just me not trusting the owner of the bow. It was also my paper tear may not be the best for the owner of the bow. And you're saying that 1/2" tear isn't good arrow flight? I don't trust paper tears, but shoot through paper to see if how things are and mainly that of not accepting a low tear. Given center shot by any bow company is given in terms of a "good starting point.," not exact. Tell a bow company your center shot is off 1/16" from their spec and they tell you it's nothing to worry about. If center shot was off 1/8" and getting good results I wouldn't complain and doubt even then a bow company would say that something is wrong. 

Fact is, if a bow groups arrows well and groups well at varying distances the bow is tuned properly regardless of paper tears. Arrows are nothing but a personal preference. I shot several different arrows out of several of my bows and had great accuracy throughout. Just recently I switched arrows for my hunting bow. I had been using old Virtues by Muddy Outdoors, .355" diameter in .400 spine and .001" straightness and 80 gr glue-in points for target (great accuracy out to 60 yards) and for hunting 47 gr inserts and 100 gr broadheads (great accuracy out to my imposed 40 yard limit for hunting. This year I went with CE 250 Maximas, .295" diameter in .404 spine and .0025" straightness with CE inserts and screw-in 100 gr points (great accuracy out to my imposed 40 yards max for hunting). Grouping and accuracy is outstanding I think considering a 33 1/2" ata bow. Dead on out to my imposed 40 yard limit and grouping two inches and even getting arrow slapping groups. It did this with the bow set to 50 pounds and did the same set to 55 pounds (367 gr arrow at 279.2 fps average , 63.4 ft lbs). The only change to the bow was raising the arrow rest for this thinner diameter arrow....

For hunting I want my first shot to be the one to count because I probably won't get a second shot.
Morning of 10/17/16. 30 yards. No warm ups, just hauled back and shot. Fixed pins and 1/8" diameter Fletcher peep. First shot was so good I took another. Arrows were not spine indexed. They were fletched just to make them look the same.


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> It's illogical to me that you can make the statement highlighted above about "forgiveness" between a bow and the archer, but then discount the "forgiveness" phenomenon if it includes an arrow shaft. I have maintained throughout this topic that your tests only validated the shooting machine part of the test, and I don't disagree with your conclusion that more consistent shafts equal more consistent accuracy. You readily point out that confidence plays a significant role in accuracy, but then seem to discount the possibility that confidence in your machine tests may be influencing your shooting during the handheld portion. If you believe that someone can shoot better simply because they believe their tuned bow "should" shoot better, then it's also true that someone could actually shoot better with an untuned bow, if that's what they believe "should" happen. The handheld portion of test has to be a blind test to be valid. As it stands, you are basically saying that everyone should disregard everything they've learned about the affects of tuning over the years in favor of a test conducted by a single person during a relatively short test period.


Not saying that at all, in fact I agree with much of what you say. The problem is apples vs oranges. What I have been trying to say, perhaps badly, is tuning isn't as important as some folks make it out to be and confidence has more impact than perfect arrow flight.


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> Not saying that at all, in fact I agree with much of what you say. The problem is apples vs oranges. What I have been trying to say, perhaps badly, is tuning isn't as important as some folks make it out to be and confidence has more impact than perfect arrow flight.


Confidence comes from hitting the spot. You hit the spot because all factors are in your favor. The better tuned bow, the better arrow should hit better and more consistently. The more consistent your hits the more confidence comes to bloom. Confidence comes just as much from realizing what it takes by the person to make those good hits. Look at it as a vicious circle. Pros don't stop looking for that little bit to give them the edge, whether equipment, technique or mentally. Evidently they know their weakness or they wouldn't go to hypnotist, take meds to calm their nerves, and meds that help their eye sight.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> No La La Land, you are not addressing the original question. There's no question that various equipment will be more or less forgiving in the hands of different archers for various reasons. But can a bow that fits the archer properly be made more forgiving by simply fine tuning arrow flight? I think not.


That reply wasn't in response to your "original" question. It was a reply to the post where you said it is all confidence regardless of the way the bow is tuned. 

You're looking for absolutes in a system that has none. If it did, it would be unique to the individual, and the individual would have to have absolutes in consistency that humans simply do not have. Albeit some would seem to be very close, but even among the top few you won't see two bows set up the same.


----------



## SonnyThomas

^^^ This


----------



## EPLC

I am getting ready for the indoor season but have not decided on which bow I will use. Currently I am working with a podium 40 and a Vantage Elite. Both bows are reasonably tuned and fit me properly. The Podium is set at 48# and the Vantage is 44#. 

When I started shooting this morning I found the Vantage to be more reactive to error than the Podium. Therefore the Podium started out more forgiving than the VE. After shooting for a while the Podium became less forgiving as fatigue set in. At that point I switched back to the VE which ended up being the more forgiving bow in a more fatigued state. 

Tuning can mean a lot of things... proper balancing, draw length, loop length, nock height, tiller, etc. All of these and more fall into what I call fitting the bow to the archer. These steps do help provide forgiveness but do not represent the point of my contention. That contention is with the value of fine tuning arrow flight.


----------



## nestly

If you're fatigued or otherwise not holding the pin in the center or executing good shots, no amount of tuning or dollars spent on arrows is going to help much

BTW...I'm also in the process of setting up for indoor and trying to decide between my Podium and HyperEdge


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> If you're fatigued or otherwise not holding the pin in the center or executing good shots, no amount of tuning or dollars spent on arrows is going to help much
> 
> BTW...I'm also in the process of setting up for indoor and trying to decide between my Podium and HyperEdge


Absolutely true...


----------



## boncollector

Arrows that group are essential

Sent from my LG-H900 using Tapatalk


----------



## RCR_III

nestly said:


> If you're fatigued or otherwise not holding the pin in the center or executing good shots, no amount of tuning or dollars spent on arrows is going to help much
> 
> BTW...I'm also in the process of setting up for indoor and trying to decide between my Podium and HyperEdge


You could always throw in a monkey wrench and go with a Prevail ;-)


----------



## EPLC

boncollector said:


> Arrows that group are essential
> 
> Sent from my LG-H900 using Tapatalk


I agree with this 100%. There are those that believe "tuning" can make a poorly matched set of arrows perform; I do not share that fantasy.


----------



## nestly

EPLC said:


> I agree with this 100%. There are those that believe "tuning" can make a poorly matched set of arrows perform; I do not share that fantasy.


Virtually every arrow on the market will shoot "groups" small enough to win any type of tournament out there. Arrow tolerances are but one factor in how well arrows "group", and it's just as foolish to think that "matched" arrows will improve your shooting as thinking that "tuning" will. "Groups" are the product of the arrow, bow, and archer with the latter being by far the most important. We can continue to argue over whether arrows or tuning has a larger minor affect, but it's kinda pointless. If you expect to perform at an elite level, you can't afford to ignore either.


----------



## Mahly

I think we have all had "that one arrow" that won't group with the others.
Not to speak for anyone, but I read that as having all of your arrows hitting the same POI vs POA.
Some arrows may need more culling than others, some might just need a nock rotated to get there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> Virtually every arrow on the market will shoot "groups" small enough to win any type of tournament out there. Arrow tolerances are but one factor in how well arrows "group", and it's just as foolish to think that "matched" arrows will improve your shooting as thinking that "tuning" will. "Groups" are the product of the arrow, bow, and archer with the latter being by far the most important. We can continue to argue over whether arrows or tuning has a larger minor affect, but it's kinda pointless. If you expect to perform at an elite level, you can't afford to ignore either.


"If" you work a set to perform, cull out the bad ones I agree to a point. If you are talking 20 yards I also agree. If you are talking long distance I do not believe all arrows will perform the same. My tests have shown differences in POI with different shafts shot from a machine.


----------



## nestly

Never meant to suggest that arrows tolerance is irrelevant, but what's the "worst" machine shot groups you experienced? Probably still good enough to beat any world record shot by any person using the very best arrows money can buy... right? In other words, even cheap arrows still have better "tolerances" than the best humans.


----------



## nestly

BTW, the same goes for tuning.... if you take the human out of the equation, every world record would be shattered, whether or not the bow was "tuned". 
Bottom line is to pay attention to your equipment, but most of all, pay attention to yourself because we are the weakest link


----------



## Padgett

No no no, until you get your hands on a hooter shooter and learn how to use it you are not going to believe how bad many arrows are. Last year I watched my buddy Donnie shoot his new x27's from easton and brag on them over and over about how awesome aluminum was and how it was better than carbon for indoor. 

Then

We set up the hooter shooter and within minutes he saw with 4 inch helical offset vanes shoot a baseball sized group at 20 yards. Yes we did turn the nocks and get them shooting the same hole but the fact is that they were horrible.

I saw softball sized groups with my carbon express x-jammer pro's as fletched arrows also back the first year I used a hooter shooter.

Most of the time with the arrows I test fletched arrows will either hit the same hole as a group without any turning of the nocks or shoot golf ball sized groups. 

Gold tip arrows have never shot bigger than a racket ball sized group as bare shafts for me and most of the time it is golf ball sized groups for the bare shafts at 20 yards. I group them to the same hole as bare shafts and then fletch them. 

Once they have been fletched I have never seen gold tips not shoot the same hole at 20 yards.


----------



## Padgett

Usually with a group of arrows there will be some that already hit the same hole without any help so out of a group of 8 you will have anywhere from 2 to 5 arrows that will hit the same hole and then the other ones need some help by turning the nock and it will move over to the hole.


----------



## iceman14

All I know is when I started numbering arrows and tracking their POI with ArcherZUpshot, there definitely was a pattern and nocks were turned. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

nestly said:


> Never meant to suggest that arrows tolerance is irrelevant, but what's the "worst" machine shot groups you experienced? Probably still good enough to beat any world record shot by any person using the very best arrows money can buy... right? In other words, even cheap arrows still have better "tolerances" than the best humans.


My tests, although not extensive, showed a significant difference in group size at 80 yards with different arrow sets. I assure you no world records would be in jeopardy with some. My best grouping came from my X Impacts. Spine indexing those did improve grouping slightly but center shot tuning showed no noticeable improvement.
I would also add that I do fine tune my equipment and arrows. Confidence is a fragile commodity and I want nothing to stand in its way, regardless on what my tests have shown.


----------



## SonnyThomas

So many good arrows available. For the bow set up and built correctly they should perform very well and equally.

No arrow company makes glue-in points for every arrow. I'm thinking hard about going back to a insert where I can choose from many weights of screw-in points, as light as 55 grs and up through 250 grs (Saunders). The right point weight can make all the difference in the world.
That I use a fairly light glue-in point and the call for them is darn near non-existent had to switch to Fat Boy points. Well, they aren't all made to add weight to. I don't shoot real long distance, 40 yards my max in ASA. Some can't believe the accuracy I have with 80 gr points, 6.04% FOC. One reason I use such a light point is speed. 50 pounds of draw weight doesn't shove a arrow all that fast. I'm getting 269 fps as is and just lucky enough to guess decent in unknown yardage..


----------



## bigHUN

quiet here lately


----------



## duc

All's been said.


----------



## SonnyThomas

duc said:


> All's been said.


No, not all has been said or corrected....


----------



## FeelMyWrathSHO

Definitely going in circles here.

I don't think archery will ever be mastered, at least in any of our lifetimes. But feel free to elaborate, correct or say more.


----------



## duc

FeelMyWrathSHO said:


> Definitely going in circles here.


Yep.


----------



## duc

I'm going commit sacrilege here. The arrow doesn't matter, period. The shooter is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of the equation period. Kid yourself all you like, you need to learn to shoot like a Hooter Shooter. PERFECT REPARTITION, OVER AND OVER. Shoot and score over time, a LONG time. AND, then think, are YOU IMPROVING by changing your arrows or are you improving because of what you are doing and are becoming better because of it. The human brain is usually NEVER what you hope it to be. We are notoriously stupid when we try and draw conclusions from no data. Intuitiveness doesn't cut it. Neither does shooting half a dozen groups. We do mislead ourselves terribly. We do and think in many ways to satisfy and appease our egos, very rarely coming to the correct conclusion. A study in psychology will show you this. False positives and placebo yada yada yada......
FLAME AWAY.


----------



## whiz-Oz

duc said:


> The arrow doesn't matter, period. The shooter is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of the equation period.


I hope you're not serious. You should have thrown some cash in for that research project. There will likely be a peer reviewed paper published on that. All the contributors including myself have added some considerations to what we'll be doing in future.


----------



## duc

Come on Andrew, you know what I'm eluding to. People put to much faith into arrow selection at the expense of training and consistency. Didn't Jim do a test to show how little dramatically different spined arrows group. Pretty much all the same I believe.
I know arrow quality and consistency matters but I don't think spine matters anywhere near as much. I think you may have said the same yourself. Feel free to correct me.


----------



## whiz-Oz

duc said:


> Come on Andrew, you know what I'm eluding to. People put to much faith into arrow selection at the expense of training and consistency. Didn't Jim do a test to show how little dramatically different spined arrows group. Pretty much all the same I believe.


Yep. But his doctorate only came from doing arrow testing and accuracy stuff. What would he know?




duc said:


> I know arrow quality and consistency matters but I don't think spine matters anywhere near as much. I think you may have said the same yourself. Feel free to correct me.


Consistency is everything. 
All other accuracy and marksmanship practices on the planet revolve around it. 

"Forgiveness" is a term which ONLY exists in archery. How about that?


----------



## duc

I believe in golf as well. That magical club that forgives all those slices into the scrub. I think myths are in most equipment intensive sports. I tried pistol shooting once and heard the same talk about grips and side plates there as well. And don't get me started on fly casting........


----------



## Rick!

duc said:


> I believe in golf as well. That magical club that forgives all those slices into the scrub. I think myths are in most equipment intensive sports. I tried pistol shooting once and heard the same talk about grips and side plates there as well. And don't get me started on fly casting........


"Fold the newspaper up and stick it between your elbow and your side - if it keeps falling out, consider archery. Don't start forward until you feel the weight of the line on the rod. Let the forearm lean out a little so you don't have to remove flies from your ear. If all else fails, roll cast." Works the same whether it's fiberglass, bamboo or carbon.


----------



## duc

I like the "softness" of bamboo. I'm to sloppy with carbon. My flys land more like a shot duck then a butterfly on a flower.


----------



## bigHUN

duc said:


> ...People put to much faith into arrow selection at the expense of training and consistency. Didn't Jim do a test to show how little dramatically different spined arrows group. Pretty much all the same I believe. I know arrow quality and consistency matters but I don't think spine matters anywhere near as much....


I left this thread months ago about half way down and seeing somewhere somebody told you this :mg:, just to let you know both are wrong unless you throw darts @ 18 :thumbs_do


----------



## Bobmuley

whiz-Oz said:


> Yep. But his doctorate only came from doing arrow testing and accuracy stuff. What would he know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consistency is everything.
> All other accuracy and marksmanship practices on the planet revolve around it.
> 
> "Forgiveness" is a term which ONLY exists in archery. How about that?


Forgiveness is just a word, but I think that shooting pretty much equal groups over a 0.2 spine range out of a hooter shooter gives Duc's conclusion a lot of weight. 

However, there is harmonics. We can strive to be that hooter shooter; some have but most of us haven't. Perhaps those harmonics of one's particular style of shooting better matches one of those arrow spines towards the stiffer or noodlier ends of that spine range...is that more "forgiving"? 

What JP has shown over the years is that wind can be cheated with the right selection, precision in the equipment is all there, and that the weak link in hitting X's exists in the lump of flesh, blood, and bones standing on the line. We need more practice.


----------



## EPLC

duc said:


> I'm going commit sacrilege here. The arrow doesn't matter, period. The shooter is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of the equation period. Kid yourself all you like, you need to learn to shoot like a Hooter Shooter. PERFECT REPARTITION, OVER AND OVER. Shoot and score over time, a LONG time. AND, then think, are YOU IMPROVING by changing your arrows or are you improving because of what you are doing and are becoming better because of it. The human brain is usually NEVER what you hope it to be. We are notoriously stupid when we try and draw conclusions from no data. Intuitiveness doesn't cut it. Neither does shooting half a dozen groups. We do mislead ourselves terribly. We do and think in many ways to satisfy and appease our egos, very rarely coming to the correct conclusion. A study in psychology will show you this. False positives and placebo yada yada yada......
> FLAME AWAY.


Wrong answer. Two sets of arrows shot from a bow shooter that are not equal will not produce equal results. To expect two archers of equal skill levels to perform equally with these same arrows is fantasy.


----------



## duc

Four different spined arrows shot from a shooting machine DID INDEED shoot the same size groups. The only difference was WHERE the group was, not with the size.


----------



## bigHUN

duc said:


> Four different spined arrows shot from a shooting machine DID INDEED shoot the same size groups. The only difference was WHERE the group was, not with the size.


Please tell us what distance you talking about?
I buy you a case of beer if you can duplicate that what you just sad @ 80 or 90 meters....

this is a 90 target with selected good arrows only, anything 1"+ away from this group is nfg for long range shooting


----------



## duc

18 mt I believe the test was done. But don't quote me as the threads disappeared from Archery Forum after the forum was compromised. There was a lot of info there. Didn't EPLC do similar tests over a greater distance or was it just a test on centre shot? Have you got pics of different spined arrow groups at 90mt?


----------



## bigHUN

duc said:


> ...Have you got pics of different spined arrow groups at 90mt?


I usually do a full testing every year at the season start, no really time or patience for pictures
I have tested these 4 dozen arrows in several steps (over several days) and ended up with 32 grouping to my liking
The first picture is from first group test , same 400 spine shafts but different lenght tubes and different L-R helical steering, 
I've chose that group in the middle to go forward and refletch all the arrows for next step group test what the result was the second picture















what doesn't group well just separate, I don't do nock turning, these may be good enough for practice and shorter distances


----------



## duc

Beautiful. There should be more of this info available. I know there are many people with Shooters that don't seem to want to post pics.


----------



## EPLC

duc said:


> Four different spined arrows shot from a shooting machine DID INDEED shoot the same size groups. The only difference was WHERE the group was, not with the size.


My testing showed spine doesn't change group size. I shot several different arrows and found not all are created equally. Arrow grouping (IMO) is dependent on good arrow matching. The best groups I experienced were with Black Eagle X-Impacts. Various lengths were shot with group size remaining unchanged at 80 yards.

duc & bigHUN; you both seem to be talking apples and oranges, spine vs matching. You both are correct.


----------



## bigHUN

duc said:


> Beautiful. There should be more of this info available. I know there are many people with Shooters that don't seem to want to post pics.


My findings as follows:
- not related to speed but more the powerstroke of the cams, I have tested the same arrows shot from couple bows into a same Domino target block (shown in the pictures), some high speed bows didn't penetrate the same arrow as deep as a calculated speed and energy efficiency cams. The speed is relevant at the riser, the FOC and KE is more important @ 40-50-60-70-and so on;
- step one: spine indexing, no nock turning afterwards, we want to make sure all the arrows leaving the launcher in same pattern;
- step two: different spine arrows but precisely calculated tube lengths can work up to certain distances, but thankless to expect different "out of spine range arrows" have the same size grouping on longer distances, won't happen, do not expect;
- step three: no matter what is a fletching length can't fix the precision if the arrows leaving the launcher with error, better not to load heavy vanes on rear of the shafts, these supposto steer the arrows only and not to fix the spine issues; 
- step four: it makes a difference L-R fletching helical or offset, no just a random fletching will work the same, not on long distances;
- step five: same spine arrows tube length cut to different sizes will not have the same grouping on long distances;
I need to leave from home now unexpectedly, no time to summarize if I left out some more important things most likely, but all these steps good to have a machine to help with learning curve...


----------



## EPLC

bigHUN said:


> My findings as follows:
> - not related to speed but more the powerstroke of the cams, I have tested the same arrows shot from couple bows into a same Domino target block (shown in the pictures), some high speed bows didn't penetrate the same arrow as deep as a calculated speed and energy efficiency cams. The speed is relevant at the riser, the FOC and KE is more important @ 40-50-60-70-and so on;
> - step one: spine indexing, no nock turning afterwards, we want to make sure all the arrows leaving the launcher in same pattern;
> - step two: different spine arrows but precisely calculated tube lengths can work up to certain distances, but thankless to expect different "out of spine range arrows" have the same size grouping on longer distances, won't happen, do not expect;
> - step three: no matter what is a fletching length can't fix the precision if the arrows leaving the launcher with error, better not to load heavy vanes on rear of the shafts, these supposto steer the arrows only and not to fix the spine issues;
> - step four: it makes a difference L-R fletching helical or offset, no just a random fletching will work the same, not on long distances;
> - step five: same spine arrows tube length cut to different sizes will not have the same grouping on long distances;
> I need to leave from home now unexpectedly, no time to summarize if I left out some more important things most likely, but all these steps good to have a machine to help with learning curve...


Actually, my findings for your step 5 were different. X-Impact 500's consistently grouped the same at lengths of 25 1/2" to 29". After tuning the bow to these arrows I was able to get a bare shaft flying with the group out to 80 yards. These arrows were shot both from my machine and freehand. While my freehand groups are far from my machine groups, I did not see any difference in group size based on length of arrow. See this post http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4094626&p=1092513633#post1092513633


----------



## EPLC

I would also like to point out that there are some fundamental differences in the machines used in this thread. The machine design I prefer has a separate axis for aiming that contains the bow. The bow does not pivot at the grip to adjust elevation and windage, the entire unit moves with the bow in it, up down, left right. Many DIY shooters are designed with the pivot point of aiming being the grip of the bow. While this design may be good enough for some, I believe the basic design is flawed because it is constantly changing grip position and pressure as the bow is aimed.


----------



## bigHUN

my portable machine in the making and testing and changing and testing again and again






























still want to change little things and I may have a winter long enough to finish


----------



## EPLC

While the workmanship is outstanding in your shooter, it only has one axis making the bow pivot at the grip when making sight adjustments. I believe this design may produce a lot of false positives/negatives. What results do you get shooting a single arrow over and over?


----------



## Rick!

EPLC said:


> While the workmanship is outstanding in your shooter, it only has one axis making the bow pivot at the grip when making sight adjustments. I believe this design may produce a lot of false positives/negatives. What results do you get shooting a single arrow over and over?


I see two tripods with a spherical joint atop each. Each tripod's height can be independently adjusted to facilitate getting the appropriate elevation without rotating the bow about the grip.

The X-Y gizmo for the release looks like it's primary purpose is for aligning the draw to an individual bow. Maybe it's also used for slight windage adjustments, not too much unlike a Hooter Shooter. 

He's also stated prior that he can induce bow torque into his rig to understand that aspect, albeit not as fancy as the Hooter Shooter bow holder.

I really like the data acquisition he's got on that shooter. 

There are a few folks that are skilled enough with a Hooter Shooter to put the same arrow in the same hole. I would surmise Big Hun's machine can do the same at reasonable distances given his demonstrated archery and engineering prowess.


I still think your longer X-Impacts group tighter than the short ones. The pic that you linked shows the bottom horizontal group is 26 pixels wide 
while the top group is almost 48 pixels wide even though it looks nicer in the bullseye. Throw away what appears to be a bounce out and it's still 36 pixels wide.
On a 65cm face, that would be about .066" per pixel.

Maybe experimenting with nocks on the ACG's would render a different grouping - it might keep them out of the circular file.

/thread


----------



## Topper1018

I'll keep this simple. Any pro will tell you archery is 90% mental. That leaves 10% of the game divided between physical ability (physical performance) and equipment ability(bow performance). I see a trend in how pros "tune" their bows and I would bet none of them spend more than a short time with initial set up. Eye balling a start point, send it thru paper and make some small adjustments. An hour or two out of the box perhaps. Then it's about getting connected with the bow and feeling what makes you perform better WITH it. 

In short, keep spending hours and hours or dollars super tuneing or chaseing a perfect "tune". Ima be on the range trying to make
ME better


----------



## Bobmuley

Topper1018 said:


> I'll keep this simple. Any pro will tell you archery is 90% mental. That leaves 10% of the game divided between physical ability (physical performance) and equipment ability(bow performance). I see a trend in how pros "tune" their bows and I would bet none of them spend more than a short time with initial set up. Eye balling a start point, send it thru paper and make some small adjustments. An hour or two out of the box perhaps.* Then it's about getting connected with the bow and feeling what makes you perform better WITH it. *
> 
> In short, keep spending hours and hours or dollars super tuneing or chaseing a perfect "tune". Ima be on the range trying to make
> ME better


I find it hard to believe that Reo and Jesse both just set their arrow rests significantly above the berger hole during setup on their Podiums. I don't think that Reo set his arrow rest out on the edge of the shelf during a quick setup on his Elite last year. 

Why don't those pros and you just shoot it straight out of the box? How come nobody set's their centershot 5/8" off the riser? I really have a hard time with the bolded part, maybe because I've shot for so long that I don't want to connect with the bow, I want the bow to connect with me. 

What falls under the realm of "tuning". Is fitment tuning? Is matching equipment to an individual's preference tuning? Is getting the best arrow flight to cut through the wind tuning? Is setup tuning? Is trying different vanes tuning? Is swapping cams to get different feel tuning? Is nock turning tuning? I guess it depends on where you draw the line.


----------



## Topper1018

It would seem in an effort to keep it simple I failed to communicate the point. Listen to jesses podcast or watch reos tuning your bow YouTube vid. They both seem to put less emphasis on tuneing the bow to perfection and more on performance based adjustment. They spend more time practiseing and feeling out what the bow needs to influence their grouping or target face in a positive manner. Versus say, chaseing a bare shaft to split nocks. 
I would say the way their podiums were set up initially began from prior knowledge of how that type of bow should work for them. Take mike schloesser, ever see how low his rest is set? I'd say it's probably down there based on influence to his aim or feel, not so much what it influences in "tune". 
Not sure if I'm still communicating the point properly here but I'm trying.


----------



## Bobmuley

So where do we draw the line as to what is and isn't tuning?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Topper1018

No need for a line. We need start with a good initial set up and then put the focus on ourselves. The "tune" will come more as the game improves and one can feel out what is necessary, and what actually has an impact on our over all game. 

I guess seeing all these guys chaseing bareshaft perfection or screwing with this that or the other thing just makes me uneasy. Especially when such a thing is such a small part of the over all game.


----------



## duc

Very good Trooper. Love your reasoning and logic. Archery is simple, point and shoot. People make it so much more difficult then it should be.


----------



## cbrunson

Topper1018 said:


> No need for a line. We need start with a good initial set up and then put the focus on ourselves. The "tune" will come more as the game improves and one can feel out what is necessary, and what actually has an impact on our over all game.
> 
> I guess seeing all these guys chaseing bareshaft perfection or screwing with this that or the other thing just makes me uneasy. Especially when such a thing is such a small part of the over all game.


Excellent post. 

It's almost like there is a mindset that the equipment isn't performing for me so I need to adjust it to perform, when I haven't ever really discovered what a good shot is to begin with. 

I will however concede that people are going to get out of it what they enjoy. If a guy takes pride in his ability to build perfect arrows, or get a bow tuned as close to perfect as possible, but can't compete with the physical or mental aspect of the game, then it still holds some value. Confidence in your equipment is just as important as confidence in your ability. At some point however, we have to realize there are no competitions for the best tuned bow, or straightest dozen arrows.


----------



## nestly

Topper1018 said:


> Listen to jesses podcast or watch reos tuning your bow YouTube vid. *They both seem to put less emphasis on tuneing the bow to perfection and more on performance based adjustment*. They spend more time practiseing and feeling out what the bow needs to influence their grouping or target face in a positive manner. Versus say, chaseing a bare shaft to split nocks.


I don't believe for one moment that Jesse and Reo, neglect any aspect of tuning. To the contrary, I imagine they are very precise and picky about getting the bow/arrow set up just the way the want it. The difference is that they've completed the "chasing their tail" phase long ago, so they don't necessarily need to spend a lot of time getting the bow "tuned" before they can move on to "tuning" themselves. 

I understand the point is that the archer needs to spend the majority of their time working on themselves, not fiddling with their bow, but I don't think you can point to the pros as examples why tuning isn't important.


----------



## bigHUN

Hm, you can agree with me or not but this is my standpoint:
- from bow complete tear down, riser-limbs-cams-string all laying on the table, I will put it together to a decent tune within some 1-2 hour time. Again how many times we will tear down each bow? Maybe one or two times a year...
- set the rest, maybe 30 minutes
- set the sight, maybe 30 minutes
- set the stabilizers, maybe 30 minutes
- fletch the arrows, well I am ready to work on this maybe 3-4 hours total including couple times refletching if brand new and unknown arrows
- start shooting, relaxed
- all the rest of the tuning in the fly
- group tuning a single dozen arrows will for sure take 2-3 hours per dozen shooting from a machine
I believe this is good enough for a "rough start" the season. The entire season - or maybe the lifetime of the bow or lifetime of the arrows...I sad.
Some people will stop here but the high end 3-5% keeps going 

Now, we have some feel for the timing.
From here we start how much time you doing "archery"?
2-3 hours per week? 
Or maybe 10 hours per week, 
or maybe 1000 shots per week? 
30-50 thousand shots per year? 
What more you shoot the initial setup time of maybe 3-5 hours total is --- f*ing nothing

My standpoint is, the real tuning is happening in the fly, all the way I train or practice for the big shots for the tournament days.
Nobody, I sad nobody can expect that the tune will stay just perfect shooting 1000 per week or by weakly or for a month time. 
There is a fatigue in the material, my form is clearing out of errors I am ready to go to next step, the weather - humidity or temperature, indoors or outdoors - all these playing huge contrasts with the equipment.

Now, what tuning or what part of tuning some talking about and so afraid of?


----------



## SonnyThomas

Is there a "tiresome" button?


----------



## Topper1018

cbrunson said:


> Excellent post.
> 
> It's almost like there is a mindset that the equipment isn't performing for me so I need to adjust it to perform, when I haven't ever really discovered what a good shot is to begin with.
> 
> I will however concede that people are going to get out of it what they enjoy. If a guy takes pride in his ability to build perfect arrows, or get a bow tuned as close to perfect as possible, but can't compete with the physical or mental aspect of the game, then it still holds some value. Confidence in your equipment is just as important as confidence in your ability. At some point however, we have to realize there are no competitions for the best tuned bow, or straightest dozen arrows.



I agree, do what you enjoy. I've always said tho, what's more fun than hitting the middle?


----------



## EPLC

bigHUN said:


> I usually do a full testing every year at the season start, no really time or patience for pictures
> I have tested these 4 dozen arrows in several steps (over several days) and ended up with 32 grouping to my liking
> The first picture is from first group test , same 400 spine shafts but different lenght tubes and different L-R helical steering,
> I've chose that group in the middle to go forward and refletch all the arrows for next step group test what the result was the second picture
> View attachment 5269161
> 
> View attachment 5269297
> 
> 
> what doesn't group well just separate, I don't do nock turning, these may be good enough for practice and shorter distances
> View attachment 5269313


My procedure was different with different goals. It was not intended to cull out large numbers of arrows. My test was intended to discover if fine tuning arrow flight and spine would make any difference in group size at distances out to 80 yards over a tune that was not perfect. I shot the same arrows over and over to accomplish this goal. My findings were that group size was not effected by arrow flight. What did impact grouping was arrow quality. With the X-Impacts I could repeat the same group size time and time again shooting two different bows in various states of tune (to clarify, I'm not talking radically out of tune). During this process I actually bare shaft tuned the bow to achieve accuracy out to 80 yards. My original group size did not improve as a result. In the spring I will be testing a set of Nano Pro's to see if the group will improve. I'm thinking it should, but who knows?

With regard to bow fit tuning procedures: While important they were not intended as a part of this discussion. With regard to human factors and variables: Also important but not intended as part of this discussion.


----------



## bigHUN

EPLC said:


> My procedure was different with different goals....


I am not going to discuss your way, you chose it and so you follow it.
I have designed a process for my way of thinking, how can I add 1+ extra point to my score (instead of loosing it), 
how can I ? beat the guy shooting beside me and he look like a better natural talent then me :wink:. 


fyi and fmi as well, I am admitting that I am not a natural talent like Reo or Jesse or whatever is he's name, I have to work my ars off to get to some decent tournament level
and please, whenever somebody mentioned those big-big names doing "this and that" you have no idea what a natural talent means...you just don't try to copy what they sad


----------



## erdman41

No such thing as natural talent. Actually I bet it is pretty insulting to those individuals to say they are as good as they are not because of hard work but "natural talent".

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## bigHUN

erdman41 said:


> No such thing as natural talent.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


c'mon, you have not seen enough
I know a guy learned to play a guitar (like a math) and he doesn't know how to sing he doesn't hear himself, my younger son learned to play a violin (like a math) at he's 22 because "he just wanted to do that", I can give my older son any instrument he is going to play with it right there...I know some folks playing cards, we know some women driving cars...you tell me to cook for you something decent....some things just won't happen and on the other side some things running smooth like a butter !!!!
I have over 400 members in my archery club, 99% will never learn to shoot...and definitely not to score...
I may be a better chess player and you a dance teacher.....
that is a natural talent
Now some folks are fortunate enough somebody told them where to go and what to do, the rest of us...catch up with archery as a hobby ... but some folks still dreaming about a bright future that unfortunately will never come on its own :zip:


----------



## erdman41

Well if you want to self impose a limit on yourself because you don't have "natural talent" go right ahead. Archery as a sport probably has one of the most level playing field for everyone. Don't have to be tall, strong, or even have great eyesight to shoot spots (3d different story). Look down a Pro line sometime and the only thing in common is a strong mind and dedication. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## bigHUN

erdman41 said:


> Well if you want to self impose a limit on yourself because you don't have "natural talent" go right ahead. Archery as a sport probably has one of the most level playing field for everyone. Don't have to be tall, strong, or even have great eyesight to shoot spots (3d different story). Look down a Pro line sometime and the only thing in common is a strong mind and dedication.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Ah no, I am free minded, 
I can shoot at least 25K per a single string every season, 
and I can still pissoff the pro every time he see's me, (I know what is it there, he called me back in 08 to go together pro but I could not justify the $$$, my wife would just divorce me, and I just had my 30'th this year now all happy)...
and I am really enyoing my day at the range same as any other


----------



## SonnyThomas

"Natural talent" exists be it physical or mental. Those with natural talent and desire pick up stuff so easily and hard work has them become great where the "other" person with outstanding desire has to work their butt off just to be good or just feel good about whatever they take on.


----------



## cbrunson

The natural talent BS is just that. You have no idea the amount of time those guys put into this sport. I know one of those mentioned is shooting a minimum ten Vegas games every day right now. That is what it takes to shoot that good, no matter who you are. Nobody, and I mean nobody that can shoot worth a ---- cares how well you can tune a bow or cull arrows. If you can't shoot the damn thing, all the tuning and testing arrows is worthless. Shooting well, is a product of hard work. As soon as you start telling yourself you can't compete because those other guys are just "gifted" or whatever, you have already lost.

With my own game, I can knock a few Xs off my average just by dropping one day per week off my practice schedule. It is that simple. 

One thing's for sure though. You guys will be set if there is ever a hooter shooter division at Nationals.


----------



## nestly

No it's not all BS. Some people have to work harder than others to shoot at a given level....and some will never be able to compete at a high level regardless of how much time and effort they put into it. Not everyone has the same physical or mental abilities.

One of the top pros (I believe it was Levi) said there are times when he barely shoots at all between tournaments. Im not suggesting he didn't work his backside off to get to that level but he's got more going for him than just hard work.


----------



## bigHUN

A "friend" of my, he was that natural talent when he went pro = meaning he left a very good paying job, and started shooting full time = meaning full working hours every day. Every day at the range or make a deal with some farmer where he can hide to work things out. 
If I remember well after some good 3 years he's hard work started paying back, he got to that world class level, got to the top 10 we are watching now they travel all over the world. 
Ah that traveling, must be lot of fun meeting countries and people, all that food and drink and other thinks most of us never imagined exists...
But turns out, that is one of a job as well, you can not late or can not skip the day or can not have sick days as much you want, must be polite all the time, do paperwork and taxes, and finally a family is expecting you put something on the table as well. And after 5-10 and plus years running around some may start tiring that life, same as any other job we do for a while.
Talent or not but getting tired, burning out, slowing down, giving room for new talents, this game is just going on and on


----------



## EPLC

erdman41 said:


> No such thing as natural talent. Actually I bet it is pretty insulting to those individuals to say they are as good as they are not because of hard work but "natural talent".
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


As good a shooter that you are I'm surprised your position on this. Natural talent is very real but does not eliminate the hard work that brings out the best in someone that has it. I have 3 grandsons. Each has their own unique skill sets. One has the unique skill of being able to mimic physical movements by watching others. His sister started martial arts classes and he watched. At home he would do the moves perfectly. He later became involved and ended up a black belt. His instructor's said he had a special gift. He is also a natural athlete, you want to see him swing a bat. 
To assume everyone starts with the same hand and can reach the same level of performance is not realistic.


----------



## cbrunson

You can bet there are people that will never make it, even with hard work, but that says nothing about those that HAVE made it. You can't use your inability as an excuse for other people's success. If you do, you take away all motivation to work hard. The nature of competition is to work hard to reach peak performance. Otherwise it isn't a competition, it's a circus where freaks display their talents. 

The problem is people want to find performance in a box, or in a recipe, but no matter how many things you buy, or articles you read, you aren't going to get there without the hard work. It is an insult to those who put in the hard work to have someone suggest that they are just naturally talented.


----------



## cbrunson

EPLC said:


> As good a shooter that you are I'm surprised your position on this.


Do you have any idea how hard he has worked the last couple years to get to the level he is at? I'm pretty sure I do. I know exactly why he takes that position.


----------



## SonnyThomas

SonnyThomas said:


> "Natural talent" exists be it physical or mental. *Those with natural talent and desire pick up stuff so easily and hard work has them become great* where the "other" person with outstanding desire has to work their butt off just to be good or just feel good about whatever they take on.





cbrunson said:


> The natural talent BS is just that. You have no idea the amount of time those guys put into this sport. I know one of those mentioned is shooting a minimum ten Vegas games every day right now. That is what it takes to shoot that good, no matter who you are. Nobody, and I mean nobody that can shoot worth a ---- cares how well you can tune a bow or cull arrows. If you can't shoot the damn thing, all the tuning and testing arrows is worthless. Shooting well, is a product of hard work. As soon as you start telling yourself you can't compete because those other guys are just "gifted" or whatever, you have already lost.
> 
> With my own game, I can knock a few Xs off my average just by dropping one day per week off my practice schedule. It is that simple.
> 
> One thing's for sure though. You guys will be set if there is ever a hooter shooter division at Nationals.


So I have to ask.....To who were you reply to?

League Of Their Own; "It's suppose to be hard. If it was easy everybody could do it."


----------



## nestly

cbrunson said:


> Do you have any idea how hard he has worked the last couple years to get to the level he is at? I'm pretty sure I do. I know exactly why he takes that position.


Point is that hard work alone often isn't enough. Experience should make that more evident, not less.


----------



## whiz-Oz

Actually, you guys should not be insisting that "natural talent" exists. 

All the investigation has been done and it's been comprehensively proven to not exist. 

Everything resolves to dedicated practice time spent. 

At this point, someone will pull some half assed anecdote out and say "But I saw...." which means you witnessed the tip of an iceberg without knowing anything else. 

If you want to actually become educated about the state of the art in terms of how to train and gain expertise, start with:

https://www.amazon.com/Peak-Secrets-New-Science-Expertise/dp/1531864880

Then read anything else by the same author. 

https://www.amazon.com/K.-Anders-Ericsson/e/B000APB8AQ/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

Then you'll actually know the answers to every single argument that everyone without a clue is happy to stand behind.


----------



## nestly

whiz-Oz said:


> Actually, you guys should not be insisting that "natural talent" exists.
> 
> All the investigation has been done
> 
> blah blah blah.


I call your google search on the phrase "natural talent" and raise you an internet search on "aptitude" LOL


----------



## erdman41

EPLC said:


> As good a shooter that you are I'm surprised your position on this.


And the ones that are better than me have either worked harder, smarter, longer, or any combination of the three. I'm ok with that. Pretty liberating way to think about it. I'm the one in control of how good I can be. I'm also responsible if I don't reach my goals. There are days where I know I should practice but don't. The ones that beat me have fewer of those days.

I've set goals for myself in archery so I have to do as much as I need to do to accomplish them. Others have set higher goals so they are doing what they need to do.

Is it coincidence that every sport every team's best player is always said to be the hardest worker. First to show up last to leave. Only exception I can think of for that is Bo Jackson.

Barkley thought he was a hard worker until he played with Jordan in the Olympics.

But again this is archery probably one of the most level playing fields along with golf and bowling there is.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly

erdman41 said:


> And the ones that are better than me have either worked harder, smarter, longer, or any combination of the three. I'm ok with that.


Sorry, but no. There are limitless examples of a relative novices in practically any activity imaginable outperforming others that have been training for years. Hard work improves your chances of success, it does not guarantee it.


----------



## SonnyThomas

erdman41 said:


> But again this is archery probably one of the most level playing fields along with golf and bowling there is.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Level only in that just about everyone can enjoy and not even be good.....


----------



## cbrunson

nestly said:


> Point is that hard work alone often isn't enough. Experience should make that more evident, not less.


Experience makes more evident the fact that people need excuses for failure that make them feel better about losing.


----------



## nestly

cbrunson said:


> Experience makes more evident the fact that people need excuses for failure that make them feel better about losing.


If everyone in archery was under the illusion that they could be world champions if only they quit their jobs, hired the best coaches, and practiced vigilantly, the world would be full of disappointed and penniless archers, not world champions. 

My question to you is do you think you'd be happy with the fame and fortune that Levi Morgan or another archer has attained? If so, why don't you just go kick them off their thrones... after all, all it takes is hard work....right?


----------



## Bobmuley

cbrunson said:


> You can bet there are people that will never make it, even with hard work, but that says nothing about those that HAVE made it. *You can't use your inability as an excuse for other people's success. If you do, you take away all motivation to work hard. *The nature of competition is to work hard to reach peak performance. Otherwise it isn't a competition, it's a circus where freaks display their talents.
> 
> The problem is people want to find performance in a box, or in a recipe, but no matter how many things you buy, or articles you read, you aren't going to get there without the hard work. It is an insult to those who put in the hard work to have someone suggest that they are just naturally talented.


...or, you can use your inability as motivation to go ahead and beat those with more natural talent, but with less desire/discipline, than yourself.

We had a kid here shoot an 899 in Vegas. His first two 300 games that year happened at that venue. Still, he doesn't have the desire to practice much, or stick with competition. He has the natural talent, but that's it. He's beatable in spite of his natural ability. They all are.


----------



## erdman41

Thought this was a repeat.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2254571

Glad to see I had the same opinion back when all I could muster were 50x games. 

Also I'm glad I didn't listen to the natural talent crowd as I had what I thought at the time was working hard and smart on my shooting. Could have just chalked it up to those beating me being these mythical beings born to shoot bows and arrows.

Instead I pushed on completely started over on my shot on more than one occasion until I found what worked for me to get me where I wanted to go.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## cbrunson

nestly said:


> If everyone in archery was under the illusion that they could be world champions if only they quit their jobs, hired the best coaches, and practiced vigilantly, the world would be full of disappointed and penniless archers, not world champions.
> 
> My question to you is do you think you'd be happy with the fame and fortune that Levi Morgan or another archer has attained? If so, why don't you just go kick them off their thrones... after all, all it takes is hard work....right?


I wouldn't suggest for a minute the road to the top is the same for everyone, only that YOU choose where you get off.


----------



## nestly

erdman41 said:


> Thought this was a repeat.
> Glad to see I had the same opinion back when all I could muster were 50x games.


No one is saying that practice and dedication don't pay off, but it's still ridiculous to suggest everyone begins at the same level, or makes the same progress for the same amount of effort.

Also, if anyone is listening to the Levi Morgan BowJunky podcast, pay attention to how many times Levi references, natural talent and God-given ability....along with hard work.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Bob, stuff like that happens all over. B's boy, unreal at shooting Trap, won more Trophies, shotguns and prizes than I could count. People were amazed at the boy even at the Grand (don't know the Grand you just flunked shotgun). Only thing was, B had to drag his kid to a Trap Shoot. Kid got out from under dad and has never shot again....


----------



## Bobmuley

SonnyThomas said:


> Bob, stuff like that happens all over. B's boy, unreal at shooting Trap, won more Trophies, shotguns and prizes than I could count. People were amazed at the boy even at the Grand (don't know the Grand you just flunked shotgun). Only thing was, B had to drag his kid to a Trap Shoot. Kid got out from under dad and has never shot again....


I agree. Only those with the extra desire to succeed...will. Those at the top get there by many paths. Some with talent do it with minimal drive, folks with moderate talent combined with discipline can get there too, folks heavily weighted with desire do what's necessary to close the gap.

The gap can be overcome, especially indoors...a 900 is a 900, a 120x is a 120x. 

Being born with natural talent doesn't ensure success (think Ryan Leaf, Jamarcus Russell for you football fans). 

Lack of natural born talent is not a deterrent for a competitor...its a challenge.


----------



## erdman41

nestly said:


> No one is saying that practice and dedication don't pay off, but it's still ridiculous to suggest everyone begins at the same level, or makes the same progress for the same amount of effort.
> 
> Also, if anyone is listening to the Levi Morgan BowJunky podcast, pay attention to how many times Levi references, natural talent and God-given ability....along with hard work.


Not sure where you came up with me saying everyone begins at the same level or makes the same progress with same effort.

But the different starting point is probably easiest and quickest to overcome.

The people that accomplish what they set out to do work as hard as they need to so they get there. They don't complain or make excuses they just do it.

Levi is a very religious and humble person. Would be weird if he didn't thank god. He also said he was practicing from sun up til sun down after his first year getting his but kicked.

As far as why doesn't everyone become a champion. Reo is shooting 10 vegas games a day TEN. Cousins last year did the 300 for 30. 300 arrows a day for 30 days. I can't imagine two full field rounds and then have another 76 arrows to go. And then you are still not guaranteed of anything but a chance.

Now I love to shoot but I don't love it that much. That's the part some people just can't seem to accept. I can accept that I'm only going to be as good as the amount of effort I put into it. People that put more into are going to be better.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## erdman41

Some good nuggets in that other thread. 





ex-wolverine said:


> A lot of you guys hit the nail on the head with your comments
> 
> I'm real good friends and build strings for folks that are close and shoot with reo and Logan ...I'm also good friends with Steve Anderson who of which I have built strings and helped along the way
> 
> I can tell you they spend less time dicking around with equipment than most ...and spend more time with shot execution like absolute archer mentioned
> 
> I see people on here day after day messing with their bows looking for the majic bullet or tune
> 
> I just want to scream somtimes and say just shoot your damn bow and get good with it ...lol
> 
> An untuned bow will put an arrow in the same spot so long as you do your part
> 
> A tuned bow won't do you any damn good if you don't do your part
> 
> To answer the OP post
> Bottom line , they shoot more and tinker less than we do...
> 
> You can't have time behind the string if your bow is In the press all the time


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## erdman41

Another one. This one I remember even paraphrased in this thread. Helped my mental game a bunch.





dua lam pa said:


> Accepting instead that great athletes / artists are made and not born has two results, one very sobering and the other liberating:
> 
> It means that we are all responsible for our own levels of achievement - at least to a larger extent than we might feel comfortable admitting. That's sobering, because if we're not very good at what we do then we have to take responsibility for that state of affairs ourselves.
> 
> But at the same time it's liberating, because it means that we also have the power to change it.
> That's the position I will take in life.
> 
> Talent , "god given talent " " born with it" are all basically "catch phrases " / excuses that people who are not willing to commit use to describe people who put forth the correct amount of efforts to become champions - If you truly hold this is truth then why would you ( any person ) not blessed with talent even try ?
> Most sucked at one point - If Reo was such a natural why did he battle target panic ? He was however born with his father being an amazing shooter and great teacher.
> How des one explains the likes of Mat Stetzer ?
> Approach Braden G , Reo , Jesse , Levi or any other top shooter and explain to them the reason they are great is because they were born with it , see how that works out for ya.
> Approach the same group of people and tell them how much you admire their total commitment to the sport and the amount of WORK they put in.


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

cbrunson said:


> Do you have any idea how hard he has worked the last couple years to get to the level he is at? I'm pretty sure I do. I know exactly why he takes that position.


That's right and the same would go for you as well. Two years ago he was a 50X shooter. Knowing that you have only been at this for a relatively short period of time, where were you two years ago, a 50X shooter? I would ask what was the starting point for each of you? I'll bet it was higher than most. Not to diminish all the hard work, some of you may be taking for granted what some folks would love to have. 

The single most ability in archery is overlooked by those that have it. To assume everyone can rise to the levels achieved by the top archers is a fantasy. Why is there only one Tom Brady? (and yes he works hard, but so do a lot of others)


----------



## nestly

erdman41 said:


> Not sure where you came up with me saying everyone begins at the same level or makes the same progress with same effort.


If two people attempt the same activity with no previous experience or similar experience, and one is better at it than the other, I attribute that to one having more "natural talent" for that particular task than the other. Is there a different phrase or term that you'd prefer to describe that situation since you seem to have a strong aversion to the term "natural talent"

Post #623



erdman41 said:


> No such thing as natural talent. Actually I bet it is pretty insulting to those individuals to say they are as good as they are not because of hard work but "natural talent".


Near the end of today's podcast, Levi attributed his archery success to a natural talent for shooting bow and a father that pushed him (in that order). I'm paraphrasing so feel free to listen and post the exact quote if you feel that's not an accurate representation of his sentiment. He also described Jesse Broadwater has a natural talent for archery. I hardly think he was degrading himself, or Jesse.

Post #638



erdman41 said:


> And the ones that are better than me have either worked harder, smarter, longer, or any combination of the three.


There are absolutely archers that can consistently shoot higher scores than you that haven't worked as hard as you, aren't smarter than you, and haven't been doing it as long as you. Again, that's pretty much the text book definition of "natural talent" (see below) I don't understand how on one hand you concede that not everyone begins at the same skill level or progresses at the same rate, but also insist the only archers better than you are those that have worked harder/smarter/longer. It can't be both.

_Definition: Natural talent is an innate or inborn gift for a specific activity, either allowing one to demonstrate some immediate skill without practice, or to gain skill rapidly with minimal practice._


----------



## SonnyThomas

EPLC said:


> The single most ability in archery is overlooked by those that have it. To assume everyone can rise to the levels achieved by the top archers is a fantasy.


But it doesn't stop us older pups from trying, does it EPLC?


----------



## Lazarus

So I guess Matt Stutzman was born with exceptional "natural talent" in some of you folks eyes. Since he is exceptional at what he does, it had to be partially due to a "gift" that just dropped out the blue clear sky called "natural talent." 

For the "natural talent" camp, a question; What "natural talent" was Matt born with that allows him to compete at the level that he does?


----------



## Garceau

I guess its all subjective - 

Natural talent, god given, etc - to me has its limits.....if one truly believes full on that natural talent exists then I would suggest they have never picked up a bow and then rattled off 30X on vegas their first time.

I think some people are wired a little differently - those that I see get the most out of their "natural abilities/talent/tendencies" do it from a mental aspect. Some are wired to handle pressure differently. Some flat out don't care, some relish in it and others like myself crumble from it.


----------



## Bobmuley

Lazarus said:


> So I guess Matt Stutzman was born with exceptional "natural talent" in some of you folks eyes. Since he is exceptional at what he does, it had to be partially due to a "gift" that just dropped out the blue clear sky called "natural talent."
> 
> For the "natural talent" camp, a question; What "natural talent" was Matt born with that allows him to compete at the level that he does?


Success is not exclusive due to talent...as has been repeated over and over. 

Steve Anderson has only been at this a few short years...well short of meeting any 10,000 hour quota...and is quoted as not practicing all that much due to schedule. What allows him to compete at the level that he does? 

Matt's natural talent is effort and mental strength.


----------



## iceman14

Garceau said:


> I think some people are wired a little differently - those that I see get the most out of their "natural abilities/talent/tendencies" do it from a mental aspect.


I can agree with this. I shoot with a guy who hadn't shot in like 6 months, slapped his target bow together, and shot 29 x's first game, 28 the next. He's dropped 2 nines so far all year. He has the mindset and ability to be pro if he wanted to work at it no doubt. You'll see people falling apart around him and he tells them "just hold steady and aim". Lol. It's easy for him. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Garceau

iceman14 said:


> I can agree with this. I shoot with a guy who hadn't shot in like 6 months, slapped his target bow together, and shot 29 x's first game, 28 the next. He's dropped 2 nines so far all year. He has the mindset and ability to be pro if he wanted to work at it no doubt. You'll see people falling apart around him and he tells them "just hold steady and aim". Lol. It's easy for him.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



When I ask my one buddy whom has been doing this his whole life, owned the entire state in 3D for many years - I ask him about his shot process, aim, float and everything else. He responds "just put the pin there and shoot the *****"

LOL


----------



## erdman41

Bobmuley said:


> Success is not exclusive due to talent...as has been repeated over and over.
> 
> Steve Anderson has only been at this a few short years...well short of meeting any 10,000 hour quota...and is quoted as not practicing all that much due to schedule. What allows him to compete at the level that he does?
> 
> Matt's natural talent is effort and mental strength.


Here's what he has to say about it.

“The other reason,” he added, on why he is known as the Man of the People, “is because I’m just some regular guy who decided to play this game and found a way to do well in it after struggling, not unlike many people who shoot today.” Anderson commented that anybody can be good at archery if they work hard enough: “I truly believe that most anyone can work their way into competitive form."

http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...hy-Archery-is-the-Greatest-Sport-in-the-World

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mahly

I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between.
Physical dexterity, balance etc etc will play a part, and so will hard work.

I don't believe anyone is born a champion, nor do I believe everyone that tries hard can be champion.
Those that we might call "naturals" would likely excel in similar sports... I don't think there is an archery gene.

To dismiss champions as naturals is a cop out. To suggest all you need to do is put in a lot of work is disingenuous.

I do know EVERYONE can be beat, but not everyone can win.

Back to the topic, I think it was said early on (paraphrasing) 
Does tuning matter?
If you think it does, yes
If you don't think it does, maybe.


----------



## nestly

Lazarus said:


> So I guess Matt Stutzman was born with exceptional "natural talent" in some of you folks eyes. Since he is exceptional at what he does, it had to be partially due to a "gift" that just dropped out the blue clear sky called "natural talent."
> 
> For the "natural talent" camp, a question; What "natural talent" was Matt born with that allows him to compete at the level that he does?


Haven't you argued vigorously that archery is primarily mental? Regretfully, I admit that I know relatively little about Matt, but I've certainly never limited "natural talent" to being only physical abilities.


----------



## Bobmuley

Henry Bass. 

Giving tuning some acknowledgement. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EPLC

SonnyThomas said:


> But it doesn't stop us older pups from trying, does it EPLC?


No, it doesn't. I think for my next goal I'll become the next Albert Einstein. With the proper training and dedication I should be able to do that... right? I had an old friend that put it this way; "Yes, all men are created equal, just some are created more equal than others"


----------



## EPLC

Bobmuley said:


> Henry Bass.
> 
> Giving tuning some acknowledgement.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And that proves? I'll bet that he could do the 28X thing (or better) with a left or right tear as well. I'll also bet that those arrows are a matched set. Any takers?


----------



## Lazarus

nestly said:


> Haven't you argued vigorously that archery is primarily mental? Regretfully, I admit that I know relatively little about Matt, but I've certainly never limited "natural talent" to being only physical abilities.


I have. 

It may happen, but I don't ever recall anyone saying "man, that kid is really gifted in his mental game, he has a natural mental talent."


----------



## Bobmuley

EPLC said:


> And that proves?


That it makes him feel good and confident in his equipment. Nothing more, nothing less. Results are not the result of mechanical activities...except for your hooter shooter.

Who's gonna tell Henry to go work on himself instead of spending time at the tuning rack? Ya'll are way too defensive.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Lazarus said:


> So I guess Matt Stutzman was born with exceptional "natural talent" in some of you folks eyes. Since he is exceptional at what he does, it had to be partially due to a "gift" that just dropped out the blue clear sky called "natural talent."
> 
> For the "natural talent" camp, a question; What "natural talent" was Matt born with that allows him to compete at the level that he does?


Can't say born with anything, but he seems to possess a desire and will beyond...Wonder who or what instilled his desire and will or was he born with it?


----------



## SonnyThomas

Back to tuning and the arrow thing...I've been gnawing on the hinge...or it gnawing on me. Anyway, I've shucked some arrows down range and ran low on pin bushings. My arrows with a 15 gr pin bushing at best have a 6.04% FOC. So yesterday I had to resort to some 28 gr pin bushings. 13 gr more heavier in the tail end sure didn't add to my FOC. Still, the arrows find the X ring, don't go flip flopping down range. Granted, 20 yards, but...Shot again today and the arrows still find the X. Will check FOC tomorrow....


----------



## EPLC

Actually I think I'll scrap the Einstein idea and go for being an MMA World Champion. Or perhaps an NBA professional. Hmmm... the possibilities are endless.


----------



## Mahly

Provided you have the time to put in the effort 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## whiz-Oz

nestly said:


> If two people attempt the same activity with no previous experience or similar experience, and one is better at it than the other, I attribute that to one having more "natural talent" for that particular task than the other. Is there a different phrase or term that you'd prefer to describe that situation since you seem to have a strong aversion to the term "natural talent"


Yes. It's called a Transferable skillset. 

But you'd know this if you actually read all that research that I pointed at. And you'd never mention "natural talent" again. 
You'd know about all the situations that explain everything that you and other people perceive to be some sort of magical ability.


----------



## SonnyThomas

Again...


SonnyThomas said:


> "Natural talent" exists be it physical or mental. Those with natural talent and desire pick up stuff so easily and hard work has them become great where the "other" person with outstanding desire has to work their butt off just to be good or just feel good about whatever they take on.


We call it that and I don't care how some text book, how some doctor, how some biologist, how some scientist tries to tear apart the term "natural talent." Who of us could be another Michael Jordon even if taken back to our younger selves to start training? How about Albert Einstein or John Nash? Who in here could "train" to have the brain power to equal either one of them? I suppose I could throw in teenager Frank Abagnale Jr. 

And we were to return to the subject of this thread?


----------



## Topper1018

EPLC said:


> Actually I think I'll scrap the Einstein idea and go for being an MMA World Champion. Or perhaps an NBA professional. Hmmm... the possibilities are endless.


Your first idea is the pinnacle of what truely hard work can get you. Myself or anyone that ever beat me to the gym or stayed later than me would never acknowledge natural talent as something that could be used to beat me, whilst wiping sweat from their eyes.


----------



## Bobmuley

Andy....is that you?


----------



## cbrunson

Does it really make you guys feel better about your own inability to perform by arguing that those who dominate this sport are just more naturally talented than you are, in spite of the hard work they have put in to get there?

I don't want to see any of you old timers blaming millennials for the participation trophy craze.


----------



## Bobmuley

cbrunson said:


> Does it really make you guys feel better about your own inability to perform by arguing that those who dominate this sport are just more naturally talented than you are, in spite of the hard work they have put in to get there?
> 
> I don't want to see any of you old timers blaming millennials for the participation trophy craze.


Not at all.

Just saying work harder. 

Aptitude is not enough. Desire is not enough. Hard work is not enough. Mental strength is not enough. You have to have all four parts of the pie chart to succeed at this. Not all pie pieces will be the same size for everyone. It'll work out though as long as you fill your circle.


----------



## nestly

cbrunson said:


> Does it really make you guys feel better about your own inability to perform by arguing that those who dominate this sport are just more naturally talented than you are, in spite of the hard work they have put in to get there?
> .


Absolutely not. I shot regularly in national tournaments for several years. I worked my tail off to get to the point where i was a legitimate contender to win every time i showed up. I beat people that i know were putting in more time than me....and i know i was often beat by those who I'm sure were not putting in nearly the effort i was. I accomplished the majority of my goals but ultimately decided not to continue traveling to those events because the rewards were not worth the amount​ of time and money it required of me. Never once did I then, nor do i now, feel jealous, envious, or bitter towards anyone else for their accomplishments. NONE of that has any thing to do with the fact that some people just have greater natural abilities than others.


----------



## Mahly

So, back to tuning, arrows, and their effect on shooting....
Make a new thread if you wish to discuss "natural talent" vs hard work


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## cbrunson

Mahly said:


> So, back to tuning, arrows, and their effect on shooting....
> Make a new thread if you wish to discuss "natural talent" vs hard work
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It is very much related. Just like any topic, there will be tangents that develop where people get hung up on details, but that does lend to the grand scheme of things in a very applicable way.

To delve a little deeper into that is a good thing.

Take for example culling arrows. I have many times pulled shafts that didn't seem to want to behave, only to shoot them again later and find absolutely nothing wrong with them. The same as I have shot a 28x Vegas game on Tuesday night and can't get comfortable on Thursday night enough to get 25. I shoot enough, have enough experience and knowledge to know that how everything fits and feels from one day to the next changes. Sometimes dramatically. Last night I had to move my sight six clicks right and four up from where I was the day before in just two ends of practice to get it in the middle and ended the first game with a 27x. (Vegas)

My suggestion is that the endless search for the perfect arrow or the perfect tune is holding some people back. Maybe not those that have resolved to heckle from the peanut gallery, but any newcomer reading this stuff is going to think that he or she needs to spend countless hours at the press, or the hooter shooter to even begin to have a chance, and that is wrong. Neither is most important because in the actual sport of archery, both are very small in the grand scheme of things. Especially when you are talking 90 yard hooter shooter groups, or 1/16" DL adjustments.


----------



## Bobmuley

When shooting out of a machine tuning don't mean diddly...


----------



## ILOVE3D

SonnyThomas said:


> Back to tuning and the arrow thing...I've been gnawing on the hinge...or it gnawing on me. Anyway, I've shucked some arrows down range and ran low on pin bushings. My arrows with a 15 gr pin bushing at best have a 6.04% FOC. So yesterday I had to resort to some 28 gr pin bushings. 13 gr more heavier in the tail end sure didn't add to my FOC. Still, the arrows find the X ring, don't go flip flopping down range. Granted, 20 yards, but...Shot again today and the arrows still find the X. Will check FOC tomorrow....


You Sonny just proved that having perfectly tuned arrows to the bow is not as important as actual talent. Talent I believe comes from two different disciplines, physical as well as mental. Having all the muscle in the world is not going to do you any good at punching X's if you don't have the actual know how to put and hold the pin there and none of that is going to do you any good if you don't have the mental discipline to let down and start over again if the shot does not feel 100% before you let it go. I do believe that tuning is more critical in different disciplines of archery like 3d or even fita then say an indoor 18 meter vegas or 5 spot shoot. You can give someone a perfectly tuned setup, bows and arrows but if it not's tuned to their draw length and style then it's not really tuned and makes absolutely no difference. I believe that to preform ones best you need all three, a well tuned setup, physical talent and the mental fortitude to bring it all together. I also believe that the mental aspect is probably the most important part of those three. Just my two cents.


----------



## Lazarus

So has the best brand of hooter shooter been discussed on this topic? Just trying to catch up on the important aspects of a good archery discussion here. If it's already been discussed, my apologies. :cheers:


----------



## EPLC

Bobmuley said:


> When shooting out of a machine tuning don't mean diddly...


While I agree with this statement, I'd take it one step farther. Tuning arrow flight doesn't matter either so long as the arrows are a decent match. Now if you expand the definition of tuning to include fit and comfortably we are talking a whole different matter.


----------



## EPLC

Lazarus said:


> So has the best brand of hooter shooter been discussed on this topic? Just trying to catch up on the important aspects of a good archery discussion here. If it's already been discussed, my apologies. :cheers:


The two machines discussed in this thread are both DIY machines with different design logic. That design logic has been touched on but briefly.


----------



## SonnyThomas

SonnyThomas said:


> Back to tuning and the arrow thing...I've been gnawing on the hinge...or it gnawing on me. Anyway, I've shucked some arrows down range and ran low on pin bushings. My arrows with a 15 gr pin bushing at best have a 6.04% FOC. So yesterday I had to resort to some 28 gr pin bushings. 13 gr more heavier in the tail end sure didn't add to my FOC. Still, the arrows find the X ring, didn't go flip flopping down range. Granted, 20 yards, but...Shot again today and the arrows still find the X. Will check FOC tomorrow....


The arrow used is a .400" spine arrow, not spine indexed, but .001" for straightness.



ILOVE3D said:


> You Sonny just proved that having perfectly tuned arrows to the bow is not as important as actual talent. Talent I believe comes from two different disciplines, physical as well as mental. Having all the muscle in the world is not going to do you any good at punching X's if you don't have the actual know how to put and hold the pin there and none of that is going to do you any good if you don't have the mental discipline to let down and start over again if the shot does not feel 100% before you let it go. I do believe that tuning is more critical in different disciplines of archery like 3d or even fita then say an indoor 18 meter vegas or 5 spot shoot. You can give someone a perfectly tuned setup, bows and arrows but if it not's tuned to their draw length and style then it's not really tuned and makes absolutely no difference. I believe that to preform ones best you need all three, a well tuned setup, physical talent and the mental fortitude to bring it all together. I also believe that the mental aspect is probably the most important part of those three. Just my two cents.


Well, I believe my bow is tuned pretty good and I stayed with the same arrow only with a lighter FOC. I checked the FOC with the heavier pin bushing, but the FOC didn't go down all that much. Perhaps due to the longer length point (still 80 grs) and the longer length pin bushing. Still, .0525% FOC is a long way from a Indoor target arrow or Field arrow for that matter. Now, the was 20 yards. Reasonably tuned bow and doing what you're supposed to be doing can get so-so in the X ring at 20 yards. I've shown quite few that removing a vane still had the arrow find the X ring. I've fletched arrows backwards and the arrow found the X ring and as far back as 30 yards and reliably.
This is sort of a Frankenstein. It's a 2012 MarXman with LS3 2016 cams. And the bow is turned down to 55 pounds to stay within the allowed ASA speed limit of my class, 280 fps +3% for error. Last time I checked the chronograph showed 285 fps. 

Going the other way, either this thread or in this forum I've posted of X ring accuracy from 20 to 30 yards (Indoors) with a arrow starting with a 80 gr glue-in point and up to a 47 gr insert and 145 gr screw-in point. The only thing I had to do to get in the X ring was to adjust elevation for arrow drop.
Again, this arrow was a .400" spine arrow not spine indexed, but .001" for straightness.

How these arrows would have performed beyond 50 yards might be another story....And I ain't all that brave with a hinge yet to be finding out...


----------



## Rick!

Lazarus said:


> So has the best brand of hooter shooter been discussed on this topic? Just trying to catch up on the important aspects of a good archery discussion here. If it's already been discussed, my apologies. :cheers:


This one. Holds 1 1/2 ox of aiming fluid.


In all seriousness, a mechanical shooter can sort out arrow/nock/vane contact issues in short order and only costs the same or less than a target bow. 
Since it doesn't take natural talent or hard work or a PhD to operate one, I bet even a cave man could do it. 

You guys keep at it, I'm going to the range.


----------



## bigHUN

Rick! said:


> ...In all seriousness, a mechanical shooter can sort out arrow/nock/vane contact issues in short order and only costs the same or less than a target bow.
> Since it doesn't take natural talent or hard work or a PhD to operate one, I bet even a cave man could do it.  ...


Well, I have to say something here. 
Having a mechanical shooter means nothing if you don't understand what it does, and what and how to read from it.
You must do your own preparations and must know before start what to look for to get you to your own end results you would be pleased with. 
For some people the money is not an issue they've got the machine or just paid for these services, some folks built diy, but for many the machine won't help s*...t. For some more talented folks no need for machine at all. 
I had the original hooter shooter for couple years but somewhere in earlier days I realized some limitations and finally I've sold it... only to build my own machine as per my best knowledge and preference. Works for me, I need it to support my own confidence level.


----------



## EPLC

Rick! said:


> This one. Holds 1 1/2 ox of aiming fluid.
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, a mechanical shooter can sort out arrow/nock/vane contact issues in short order and only costs the same or less than a target bow.
> Since it doesn't take natural talent or hard work or a PhD to operate one, I bet even a cave man could do it.
> 
> You guys keep at it, I'm going to the range.


There's actually more to this than you would expect. That said; good luck at the range.


----------



## bigHUN

Wasn't that old saying something like this:

_Ask yourself what the bow is doing you don't like or what it's not doing that you want it too. 
If you can't answer those questions, then it's just not going to matter. It really is that simple_

:cheers:


----------



## duc

Ask yourself this. If a Shooter can group consistently group consistent arrows REGARDLESS OF SPINE then why can't you? What is the machine doing that is different to you? I think I know the answer.


----------



## bigHUN

duc said:


> Ask yourself this. If a Shooter can group consistently group consistent arrows REGARDLESS OF SPINE then why can't you? What is the machine doing that is different to you? I think I know the answer.


Duc, I don't think you know the answer without trying first,,,
If you don't know yet then I can tell you that you won't group your arrows "REGARDLESS OF SPINE" @ 70-80 yards or 90 meters.
Second, to play a single Field tournament season you may need to maintain *at least* 2 dozen shafts fully group tuned, a full FITA season would need about the same but can not really use the same arrows.
Third, have you run into a situation that almost every weekend there is somewhere one tournament? One Field then 2-3 FITA, then 2-3 Field, and so on? (and weekdays we work, right? need a money to feed them all)
So we have a volume of arrows to maintain, with the machine is faster and more reliable. The machine is Reliable because doesn't feel a fatigue, it is not emotional or pi**d today, it have a constant mental, and I need those arrows checked for ... tomorrow. Because tomorrow I will go to tournament with piece in mind that at least my bow and arrows are ready...
So, the machine is a tool, a very good value tool, it can help a lot especially at times when we not riding the waves...
Capisce?


----------



## EPLC

My machine shooting X-Impact 500's at lengths of 25.5 to 29" grouped the same out to 80 yards from two different bows. So... your claim that that can't happen is mistaken.


----------



## bigHUN

EPLC said:


> My machine shooting X-Impact 500's at lengths of 25.5 to 29" grouped the same out to 80 yards from two different bows. So...your claim that that can't happen is mistaken.


if that floats your boat...


----------



## EPLC

:fish2:


----------



## Bobmuley

Alex Wifler bareshafting. 

He's pretty good. Not saying it's because he tunes, but because it gives him confidence. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bigHUN

I believe some can score a perfect 20y game shooting just bareshafts,
a jump between 300 and 350 is reasonable on these short distances and I believe also it was done for testing purposes because the calculated best match would be about 320-330?
the game for up to 50y is different, for 80y is again even more different, without some deeper preparation don't expect this result
it is only up to you/us what games we play and we prepare for those games as much possible
for people don't shoot tournaments all this what we spoke throughout these 20+pages is absolutely irrelevant, but for those who regularly travel around it hurts if a competition wins that big price for a single point...happened to me couple times...
only then we realize "did we do a homework good enough or what that other guy did better then me?"
now needless to say I don't want to talk about mental or physical preparation the OP is about equipment,
here is only my simple advise - please don't sit in the car if you not ready....or shall we just leave you to burn yourself (just a littlebit here and there) as a best education?


----------



## EPLC

Unfortunately I can no longer upload pictures for some unknown reason.

I've been struggling shooting the same arrows (Black Eagle X-Impact 500's) from a different bow than I originally used for this testing. Just recently I broke out my shooter for the first time this summer only to find that the groups I was getting out of my TRG's would not duplicate out of my Supra EXT. The Supra puts out more energy than the TRG's at the same poundage and DL. I've been suspicious that these arrows may be too weak for the Supra but I've had some health issues this summer (all better now) that prevented me from getting too involved in finding a solution. The Supra group was improved by going to a Nano Pro 500. Apparently the Supra doesn't like under spined shafts while the TRG's seem to have limitless spine forgiveness.


----------



## EPLC

EPLC said:


> Unfortunately I can no longer upload pictures for some unknown reason.
> 
> I've been struggling shooting the same arrows (Black Eagle X-Impact 500's) from a different bow than I originally used for this testing. Just recently I broke out my shooter for the first time this summer only to find that the groups I was getting out of my TRG's would not duplicate out of my Supra EXT. The Supra puts out more energy than the TRG's at the same poundage and DL. I've been suspicious that these arrows may be too weak for the Supra but I've had some health issues this summer (all better now) that prevented me from getting too involved in finding a solution. The Supra group was improved by going to a Nano Pro 500. Apparently the Supra doesn't like under spined shafts while the TRG's seem to have limitless spine forgiveness.


I should also add that the TRG7 still groups regardless of tune (within reason) and/or arrow spine. I cannot make this claim for the Supra.


----------



## Patrik Clifford

"The vast majority of the world's archers depend on myths so that they will never have to take responsibility for their own performance"


This is my new tagline ha ha


----------

