# Are the Easton Spine Charts Too Stiff?



## Warbow

I've heard a lot of people say the Easton Charts are too stiff. Are they?

At 29", Easton recommends a 1914 for my 28# recurve; however, a 1716--two spines weaker--with 125 grain points is still almost too stiff to tune to. What is up with the Easton Charts? They are experts with all sorts of measuring methods, high speed video and expertise. Why is there such a disconnect?


----------



## limbwalker

No, they are not. If folks understood proper tuning, they would find that the Easton charts for recurves are almost always spot on. But I've found that most folks shooting recurves don't understand proper tuning, so... 

John.


----------



## spangler

Warbow said:


> I've heard a lot of people say the Easton Charts are too stiff. Are they?
> 
> At 29", Easton recommends a 1914 for my 28# recurve; however, a 1716--two spines weaker--with 125 grain points is still almost too stiff to tune to. What is up with the Easton Charts? They are experts with all sorts of measuring methods, high speed video and expertise. Why is there such a disconnect?


This is almost always in the shooter, and the release, and how they tuned. People always think their releases are awesome and that clearly the charts must be wrong. *shrug*

Some others on here will tell you that the charts are always too stiff...

Everyone can believe what they like. I've found them accurate for shooters who are good.

-Andrew


----------



## Warbow

limbwalker said:


> No, they are not. If folks understood proper tuning, they would find that the Easton charts for recurves are almost always spot on. But I've found that most folks shooting recurves don't understand proper tuning, so...
> 
> John.


What do you think some of people's biggest mis-perceptions are? That is, what are the kind of things that might make me think that a 1716 barely tunes to my 28# bow when, by the Easton Charts, it should be several spines too weak? I tested bare shaft vs. fletched arrows had to really move the plunger in a lot to bring the two groups together. The arrows generally seemed way too stiff on that basis.

@ spangler,

I'm pretty sure my release is not awesome


----------



## gig'em 99

*Easton Charts*

I've bought dozens of arrows using the Easton charts, and I've always been able to tune the arrows. I'll take a stab at some of the misconceptions too:

1. Shaft length - nock groove to end of cut shaft. I know many people that that think the entire length to the end of the point is the shaft length. So that can easily bump you up into the wrong stiffer bracket.

2. Put a unibushing in your arrow, and you stiffen it.

3. Add some nice 3 to 4" feathers to the end of your arrow, and you stiffen it.

4. A bit too tight on the nock groove and you stiffen it.

For everything that you do, you must realize the impact, and account for it accordingly. You must also know that when you are right in between to brackets, chances are your choice in arrow is going to be either slightly weak or slightly stiff, and your decision on shaft will impact what you'll need to do to the point weight, button, nock locator, string, brace height, etc. Tuning is tricky, and takes a lot of time to get right. And Easton can not account for all of these variabilities.

Gig'em


----------



## Viper1

WB - 

Yes they are by at least two steps for aluminum. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## Warbow

Uh, oh. This can't be good. Viper and John disagree by two spine weights...

So far, I've only shot Aluminum arrows, and the spine chart's seem too stiff. I know Viper's been shooting for ages and has set up tons of Aluminum arrows for spine. And John is a top level Olympic competitor, who has to be able to tune his arrows to shoot at his level. I'm wondering if John was, perhaps, just speaking to Carbon arrows? Or if there is some other way they can, perhaps, both be right?


----------



## Viper1

WB - 

I'm sure John's form is a lot better than mine, but with my bareshaft testing and the folks I shoot with and have shot with, Easton went ballistic on their ALUMINUM spine charts around 1983. Their recommendations changed around that time. Oddly enough, bows haven't gotten that much faster or tuning techniques that much more precise in the last 26 years. 

Bottom line is YOUR tuning data. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## b0w_bender

Two more obvious stiffening factors
- arrow wraps also stiffen the arrow. 
- Lighter points stiffen the arrow


----------



## Warbow

Viper1 said:


> WB -
> 
> I'm sure John's form is a lot better than mine, but with my bareshaft testing and the folks I shoot with and have shot with, Easton went ballistic on their ALUMINUM spine charts around 1983. Their recommendations changed around that time. Oddly enough, bows haven't gotten that much faster or tuning techniques that much more precise in the last 26 years.
> 
> Bottom line is YOUR tuning data.
> 
> Viper1 out.


Indeed, it would be good to know if Easton's recommendations for carbon are of a different nature than those for their carbon arrows. I'm re-working my rig and I'd hoped hoped to lighten the tips of my existing arrows and spine match them to the new rig to get a good estimate of what carbons to buy by comparing the spine classes, but if Easton has radically different standards for carbon recommendations than aluminum, that might not work so well...


----------



## Seattlepop

The charts are good for a ballpark pick, if you like to play in a ballpark that is 2 or 3 times larger than normal. 

The "groups" are 1" in length and 5 lbs in weight variable. That could easily be a one spine difference and as much two.

Do folks actually use the arrow length calculation that the chart uses instead of draw length? If you input your draw length into the chart you are likely to be 3/4" too long. This alone can lead to selecting a shaft that is too stiff.

I also think you need to know your pt wt. For me, that is the first thing to know going in. Second is draw length and/or arrow length (charts vs software which uses both), third is wt on the fingers. The charts are silent on pt wt. and I find that to be a critical omission as far as their usefulness. 

So sure, if you know how to tune you can tune an arrow you select off the charts, but I could see how you could easily end up with an arrow that is an inch too long with a 60gr pt for 90m (or too short and not enough pt wt available, etc). 

3c


----------



## Warbow

Seattlepop said:


> Do folks actually use the arrow length calculation that the chart uses instead of draw length? If you input your draw length into the chart you are likely to be 3/4" too long. This alone can lead to selecting a shaft that is too stiff


Well, I used the chart to look for spine appropriate arrows in the length I currently shoot, which are 29" to back of point. Of course, I could go a little longer, but only if the uncut shafts are available longer. In 1716, 29" is the maxim shaft length. It is hard to find low spine weight arrows in long shaft lengths. It is a market that Easton does not serve well. They apparantly think that only kids or people with short draw lengths shoot light bows. For my set up, the Easton chart says 1914. My bare-shaft tuning says 1716, with 125 grain points, which is two spines down, and is also mirrored by the little dynamic spine calculator found at http://leatherwall.bowsite.com/TF/lw/thread2.cfm?forum=23&threadid=189164&messages=38&CATEGORY=9


----------



## Dave T

I came back to archery after a 25 year lay-off and was what today is referred to as a "trad" shooter. The Easton charts were way too stiff. When I started taking my barebow recurve shooting more seriously I sometimes could find an arrow on the chart but it wasn't a sure thing. As I learned more about form, back tension and release the charts seemed to get better. Last year I really started paying attention to alignment, in addition to the other elements of shot execution. The Easton charts seem to be a box weak now.

Do you suppose there's a little "cause and effect" in my tale?

Dave


----------



## Seattlepop

Warbow said:


> Well, I used the chart to look for spine appropriate arrows in the length I shoot, which are 29" to back of point. Easton says 1914. My bare-shaft tuning says 1716, with 125 grain points, which is two spines down, and is also mirrored by the little dynamic spine calculator found at http://leatherwall.bowsite.com/TF/lw/thread2.cfm?forum=23&threadid=189164&messages=38&CATEGORY=9


The chart wants to know what your arrow length is at 1" beyond the plunger (it says forward-most point of the rest) at full draw. Is that where 29" falls? If not, the results may be off.

Also, I'm going to guess that you are in a tuning death spiral regarding the 1716's. With 125gr pts those should be horribly weak at 29" per TAP, even at 28# holding. Its been discussed before, false reading from arrows that are too weak.


----------



## Warbow

Dave T said:


> I came back to archery after a 25 year lay-off and was what today is referred to as a "trad" shooter. The Easton charts were way too stiff. When I started taking my barebow recurve shooting more seriously I sometimes could find an arrow on the chart but it wasn't a sure thing. As I learned more about form, back tension and release the charts seemed to get better. Last year I really started paying attention to alignment, in addition to the other elements of shot execution. The Easton charts seem to be a box weak now.
> 
> Do you suppose there's a little "cause and effect" in my tale?
> 
> Dave


It is certainly interesting, and it aligns with John's claims. Of course, I'll still have to get arrows that work for **my** technique, regardless of how fabulous it is or isn't. But the plural of anecdotes isn't data. So while I believe your tale, I don't know quite what to do with it at the moment.


----------



## Warbow

Seattlepop said:


> Its been discussed before, false reading from arrows that are too weak.


I haven't heard of this before, what is it? I did try 70 and 100 grain points, and they spined way too stiff. Keep in mind that these are Platinum Pluss indoor arrows with unibushings and 4 inch feathers...I don't have a PC right now (or an Intel Mac), so none of the archery programs are an option.




> The chart wants to know what your arrow length is at 1" beyond the plunger (it says forward-most point of the rest) at full draw. Is that where 29" falls? If not, the results may be off.


Hmm...I hadn't realized that. The description isn't clear to me in the chart and Oly archers keep their arrows so short that many would seem not to follow this suggestion. So, they recommend 1916's for my bow, based on 30 inches...Hmm...


----------



## Landed in AZ

We noticed the chart is a little weak for the 900CX limbs. It hasn't caught up to the speed of the limbs. We were able to work it out but the arrows that Kiley is shooting should be too stiff for her lbs and draw length based on the Easton chart. She is shooting X10s.


----------



## rgauvin

so far it has been pretty golod for me. my ACE and 2315's fly well and the bareshafts are right in there with the fletched arrows.


----------



## Seattlepop

Warbow said:


> I haven't heard of this before, what is it? I did try 70 and 100 grain points, and they spined way too stiff. Keep in mind that these are Platinum Pluss indoor arrows with unibushings and 4 inch feathers...I don't have a PC right now (or an Intel Mac), so none of the archery programs are an option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...I hadn't realized that. The description isn't clear to me in the chart and Oly archers keep their arrows so short that many would seem not to follow this suggestion. So, they recommend 1916's for my bow, based on 30 inches...Hmm...



See Vittorio's comments in this thread: 

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=740858


----------



## Seattlepop

Landed in AZ said:


> We noticed the chart is a little weak for the 900CX limbs. It hasn't caught up to the speed of the limbs. We were able to work it out but the arrows that Kiley is shooting should be too stiff for her lbs and draw length based on the Easton chart. She is shooting X10s.


What pt wt does she use? How did you select shafts, ie., did you select the shaft based on draw length or arrow length and holding wt and then back into the pt wt?


----------



## Jim C

1) the charts are based on the wide range of archers


2) When I first started back in FITA Recurve I was shooting about 42 pounds with 470 arrows. They tuned pretty good. I was shooting 1000-1090 FITAS


3) I went up to 49-50 pounds, they still tuned well. I was shooting high 1100's and sometimes a bit higher.


4) I had a shoulder surgery in 05-dropped down to 44 pounds. Those 470's were WAY STIFF. I had gone to 550X10 and then 600. I consulted the most knowledgeable two people I knew Darrell and Don Rabska. Don noted that my release and most importantly alignment was alot better in 05 than it was in 98 or 99. Don noted that if you hit a nail solidly it won't bend but if you hit it from an angle it will. In other words-good alignment and a good release is going to make the arrow act stiffer than a crappy plucked release and poor alignment.

5)My chart says 600 X10 for arrows I cut at 28.5 holding around 44. They tune very well. On the CTMII I use 650-straight shafts with a given spine, tune stiffer than the barrelled stuff btw with the same listed static spine.


----------



## Viper1

WB -

You hit on a VERY important point. The arrows have to be correct for the shooter as well as the equipment (as in "equipment in a vacuum"). Even if the current Easton ALUMINUM charts are fine and dandy in a lab setting or for certain shooters, there's enough evidence to at least imply that they are too stiff for a number of people. That certainly has been my experience. 

BTW - my "form" bow is 33# at 29" and throws a perfectly (baseshaft) tuned 1716/NIBB'ed arrow at 180 fps. I haven't tried at at 70M, but I'm quite content with the results at 20 yds.

Anywho - again, the shooter is part of what's being tuned. 

Viper1 out.


----------



## limbwalker

Hey, what do I know? I shoot Carbon Express Nano's and CXL2's these days anyway...  And I created the recurve chart for the Nano's, so everyone is subject to my test results for those shafts. Ya'll know who to blame now if you buy the wrong size Nano's... 

But I will qualify my statement - the Easton charts are spot-on for a well tuned bow shooting carbon or A/C arrows. Not sure about the aluminums. I'll have to go back and check. Viper may be correct there...

John.


----------



## Vittorio

Easton chart is average one size stiffer for Wood/Fiber limbs, and close to reality with modern top level limbs. Tested thousands of times.

CE and CT requires +100 average spine related to Easton chart. Also tested several times. 

Main parameter lacking on Easton chart for today limbs is any relationship their efficiency. From top level limb down to an Agulla or Winstorm limb (not to mention T-Rex type very low level limbs) you can get up to 2 spine size differencies for the same poundage.


----------



## Xcreekarchery1

to throw something else in there. when i swiched to an inno all my arows were stiff and i had to go a spine weaker. then i switched back to my x-factor and they were weak again  somthin else to ponder in that mix


----------



## Vittorio

Xcreekarchery1 said:


> to throw something else in there. when i swiched to an inno all my arows were stiff and i had to go a spine weaker. then i switched back to my x-factor and they were weak again  somthin else to ponder in that mix


Chart has to be used with real measured poundage, of course.
But if poundage in your case was same, then the other factors influencing the spine are:
- Riser geometry - If a riser is deflex, like Fiberbow, it weekens the arrow
- Riser mass - if riser and therefore overall setup is lighter, like any carbon riser, it weekens the arrow. 

Weekening means to read a bare shaft position as weeker in comparison to previos set up.

Finding arrow stiffer on the Inno in comparison to Xfactor means that there are other parameter involved, like a wrong tuning made with fake alignement of the limbs, not exactly equivalent draw lenght (grips are quite different) , etcetera...


----------



## Floxter

It's always been 1-2 sizes too stiff for me on aluminums and almost one size too stiff on carbons.


----------



## limbwalker

> Finding arrow stiffer on the Inno in comparison to Xfactor means that there are other parameter involved, like a wrong tuning made with fake alignement of the limbs, not exactly equivalent draw lenght (grips are quite different) , etcetera...


I usually find issues like this that are the culprit. Can't tell you how many folks brought me a bow and arrows that were "untunable" and within 30 minutes I had them tuned. It just takes attention to detail and knowing the "rules" of proper tuning. Then knowing how to "trick" the system in all the various ways... 

John.


----------



## bradd7

I agree with both Viper and John.

The chart is about 2 spines too stiff for aluminum, and you have to know how to work the system. I am still learning, it ain't that easy at first but worth the time and effort. Here are some of my recent findings...

As most know, we can't just throw on some fancy wraps and 5" feathers, because the arrows will look cool, or want a longer length or different point weight, then expect the chart to be right. It's based on simply factors...like a 100-125 gr point (it doesn't say anything about an insert), measured from nock to shaft end (not length without nock-about a 1/4" difference), and probably based on 3" vanes with no wrap.

If you are strictly shooting off the shelf, you have to know how to build it out, and how to tune the bow using only the string and nock point - put some string silencers on and the arrow shoots stiff...don't have the brace height right and the arrow nips the shelf and the arrow 'shows' stiff...pluck the string or not hand the hand lined up properly an the string nips the end of the tab -guess what?...the arrow goes left, 'showing stiff' - -it throws a bareshaft nock right flying sideways down the lane! We also have to 'know' our Self and have confidence in a really solid anchor before tuning makes real sense. An inconsistency of 1/8th less draw length/anchor can make the arrow shoot stiff by about 3" at 20 yards. Of course, even though a rest and plunger make a difference, you still have to know how to tune it properly and have the arrow close enough to be able to tune it beforehand. 

Here's a quick tip...you are shooting off the shelf and tune inside where it's warm. You go outside where it's a few degrees cooler/damper and the arrow shoots stiff...check your brace height because the brace changes/lowers with the temp! BEEN THERE AND HAD A HECK OF A TIME FIGURING THAT ONE OUT!

The free trial of OnTarget Spine Match tab did a good job for me with carbons...after I finally figured out how to use it and what it was saying...and it saved a lot of time and energy testing out different combination of point weights, lengths and fletch. It shows how much velocity and KE the arrow will have with different combination. With one push of a button, it also shows all of the other manufacturers arrows that will match with the one you are thinking of using in aluminum or carbon. Now I am working with the ballistics/trajectory tab and finding that very useful...just gotta figure out how to read it properly!...lol


----------



## Viper1

John - 

I will certainly defer to you on A/C composits and even plain carbons for that matter 

Viper1 out.


----------



## Jason22

It would be nice if Easton included the point weight they are using to calculate their charts. There is an interactive spine chart online that allows you to specify point weight beyond 100gr which is very useful for aluminum shafts. 

http://home.att.net/~sajackson/eastonchart.html

I wish Easton offered a chart like this because so many people shoot 125gr or more in the point indoors, and with ACE and X10 the point could vary by 35-50 grains easily.

*Does anyone know if the charts for X10 assume you're using 125gr tungsten points or are they closer to 100gr points?


----------



## Warbow

Vittorio said:


> Main parameter lacking on Easton chart for today limbs is any relationship their efficiency. From top level limb down to an Agulla or Winstorm limb (not to mention T-Rex type very low level limbs) you can get up to 2 spine size differencies for the same poundage.


Hmm...I think this may be a key factor for me. I'm shooting T-Rexes right now, which, I think, have been fine for my level of shooting except for distance. I plan to get a low/midrange set of carbons, so perhaps that will change the way the charts work for me. I still find tuning to be one of the more intimidating aspects of archery.


----------



## Greg Bouras

Easton Chart bareshaft tune heavy for most the majority of the bows I set and shoot. Inno bow is one exception and chart is OK for ACE.

I have not found my situation to be typical though. When using the chart in helping set-up others equipment has not been a problem.


----------



## Mika Savola

Take a close look at the chart's spine values: Usually barreled shafts work as expected with recommended point weights, but if you compare for example box #4 that has ACE 720 and 1914 with 0,658 spine it is clear that the alu shaft will not tune... :set1_thinking:

However, 1716 with 125 gr point should be way too weak...


----------



## engtee

I am obviously an exception to the rule-the chart says I should use 660 Navigators, but my 610's with 90 or 100 gr tune fine. The chart says I should use 650 X10's, but my 600 X10's with 100 gr tune fine. The chart says I should use 670 ACE's, but could not get them even close to tuning with 90 or 100 gr-too weak! This tuning was done with bareshafting at 50 and 70 meters.
I am using a 25" X-factor with 40# medium Xpression limbs (cranked all the way), 16 strand 8125 string with served nock points. Arrows are approx. 27" + point for my 27/27.25" draw.


----------



## skybowman

*all weights not equal?*

I've found when setting up bows for youth with light poundage, shorter draw setups that the charts appear too stiff. Doesn't happen in every case, but in many.


----------



## Jim C

skybowman said:


> I've found when setting up bows for youth with light poundage, shorter draw setups that the charts appear too stiff. Doesn't happen in every case, but in many.


true


----------



## Oldmantime21!

spangler said:


> This is almost always in the shooter, and the release, and how they tuned. People always think their releases are awesome and that clearly the charts must be wrong. _shrug_
> 
> Some others on here will tell you that the charts are always too stiff...
> 
> Everyone can believe what they like. I've found them accurate for shooters who are good.
> 
> -Andrew


My release is inconsistent and I know it. If peoples releases were more consistent they would also be since most problems derive from that.


----------



## TER

Yuck Warbow. Sure don't miss that troll.


----------



## chrstphr

depends on your shot and release. Easton Charts were always two spines weak for me. 

Arrow charts are usually just a starting point. 


Chris


----------



## c_m_shooter

Warbow said:


> I've heard a lot of people say the Easton Charts are too stiff. Are they?
> 
> At 29", Easton recommends a 1914 for my 28# recurve; however, a 1716--two spines weaker--with 125 grain points is still almost too stiff to tune to. What is up with the Easton Charts? They are experts with all sorts of measuring methods, high speed video and expertise. Why is there such a disconnect?


Most of the manufacturers charts are too stiff by 1 or 2 spines. The calculator in the Victory site is good. The 3 rivers calculator is good IF you enter centershot correctly. It would be more user friendly for most if the centershot defaulted to .125" or .065".


----------



## Hikari

I have found in my limited experience, the Easton spine charts to be close if not a touch on the weak side for their recurve recommendations. As stated above, I think the archer form is a factor on how accurate the spine chart will be. I figure it is a starting point. 

One thing I have found as an archer shooting lots of Easton arrows in a session, _*I*_ feel weak and stiff at the same time...


----------



## Seattlepop

Just thinking out loud, but I wonder if people are using the full arrow length for their measurements. The instructions say to the end of the shaft, not including the point. Measuring full length arrows would cause overdrawing relative to the charts which would call for a stiffer arrow.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

Hikari said:


> I have found in my limited experience, the Easton spine charts to be close if not a touch on the weak side for their recurve recommendations. As stated above, I think the archer form is a factor on how accurate the spine chart will be. I figure it is a starting point.
> 
> One thing I have found as an archer shooting lots of Easton arrows in a session, _*I*_ feel weak and stiff at the same time...


But that’s barebow and 3-Under or Stringwalking, right?


----------



## BigXX78

Easton's charts seem accurate to me. I really wish they'd load up a user friendly interactive software program that would allow users to plug in all arrow models and variable weights for each and every component and point weight. They're charts are overly complicated to use and give far too broad a range of bow DWs. Their little interactive selector has far too few options offered.

This was one more reason I switched to Victory for carbons.


----------



## Hikari

FerrumVeritas said:


> But that’s barebow and 3-Under or Stringwalking, right?


Yes.


----------



## FerrumVeritas

Hikari said:


> Yes.


I find that needs a stiffer arrow than Olympic, which is what the charts are presumably designed for


----------



## limbwalker

the charts work for some people. No charts work for everyone. People need to just dispense with the idea that there is a one size fits all formula for arrow spine selection.


----------



## ButchD

I'm thinking that the charts work best for archers with good form, shooting aces and x-10s. For the rest of us, with sketchy follow throughs and less consistent form, one to 2 spine groups stiff.
Butch


----------



## BuzzMA

ButchD said:


> I'm thinking that the charts work best for archers with good form, shooting aces and x-10s. For the rest of us, with sketchy follow throughs and less consistent form, one to 2 spine groups stiff.
> Butch


Except there is no asterisk on "Our Target Selection Chart will help you find the perfect match for your bow-quickly & easily." stating that you need to be a world class shooter to use it.

Ever since I purchased my "first" set of carbon arrows using the "Chart" that tended to fly into the next lane when bare shaft tuning, I've used the 3Rivers/Stu Miller app which has proven to be adequate enough to get very close! I was fortunate to have decided to use Victory VAPs which are in the list of arrows.

If I were to use the 3Rivers app for an X7 with all Easton components and my parameters I would require a 2014 (T6) to tune well. The "Chart" says that for a 31" arrow and 40# on the fingers I should choose a 2212 or 2312 (T8 or T9).

I'd love to see a more comprehensive spine selection app form Easton but I'm not holding my breath. I'm not sure I can see what incentive they have to create one.


----------



## limbwalker

Myself and Butch both used 2312's indoors in '04-05 and we were shooting in the mid to upper 40's with 31-32" arrows. But I've always tuned a weaker arrow than most for whatever reason.


----------



## abrennan

BigXX78 said:


> user friendly interactive software program that would allow users to plug in all arrow models and variable weights for each and every component and point weight


Like this? vApeldoorn - Arrows


----------



## BigXX78

abrennan said:


> Like this? vApeldoorn - Arrows


I just tried it. It doesn't even show my VAPs or VAP TKOs in the data base nor does it give me a spine recommendation. Do I have to upgrade to the premium version for it to even work at all? That's kind of negative marketing, if so. I see no reason to pay for information I already know. Victory's spine calculator has always worked perfectly for my bows.


----------



## BigXX78

BigXX78 said:


> Easton's charts seem accurate to me. I really wish they'd load up a user friendly interactive software program that would allow users to plug in all arrow models and variable weights for each and every component and point weight. They're charts are overly complicated to use and give far too broad a range of bow DWs. Their little interactive selector has far too few options offered.
> 
> This was one more reason I switched to Victory for carbons.


TER
I noticed your 😲 in response to my comment. So, to be fair, I switched to Victory, primarily, because they were making VAP's with 50 grain inserts with standard threads at that time. If they'd made the 4 mm Axis Long Range at the time, with other than Deep Six inserts, I might have bought them. Still, both their online calculator and their chart only offer a draw weight range option of 301-340 speed IBO rating for selecting spines. IMO, for a 100 year old, mostly US made, archery giant company, this is far too broad of a speed range to be very helpful. They've had ample time to bring their site info into the 21st century. I make comments like this, hoping CEOs might read it, since archery is all about striving for perfection.
Easton could easily give consumers really top quality, user friendly shaft selector software on their website--like Gold Tip, Black Eagle, Victory and others already do


----------



## TER

BigXX78 said:


> TER
> I noticed your 😲 in response to my comment. So, to be fair, I switched to Victory, primarily, because they were making VAP's with 50 grain inserts with standard threads at that time. If they'd made the 4 mm Axis Long Range at the time, with other than Deep Six inserts, I might have bought them. Still, both their online calculator and their chart only offer a draw weight range option of 301-340 speed IBO rating for selecting spines. IMO, for a 100 year old, mostly US made, archery giant company, this is far too broad of a speed range to be very helpful. They've had ample time to bring their site info into the 21st century. I make comments like this, hoping CEOs might read it, since archery is all about striving for perfection.
> Easton could easily give consumers really top quality, user friendly shaft selector software on their website--like Gold Tip, Black Eagle, Victory and others already do


I just re-read your post I "wowed" at and realized I misread your post, so I misunderstood it. Now that I actually understand what you were saying, I agree. Sorry about misunderstanding you. Thanks for giving me a chance to look again and correct myself. Most people nowadays would have just instantly attacked. So thanks for the second chance. 

P.S. I have a couple sets of VAPS and like them a lot.


----------



## BigXX78

TER said:


> I just re-read your post I "wowed" at and realized I misread your post, so I misunderstood it. Now that I actually understand what you were saying, I agree. Sorry about misunderstanding you. Thanks for giving me a chance to look again and correct myself. Most people nowadays would have just instantly attacked. So thanks for the second chance.
> 
> P.S. I have a couple sets of VAPS and like them a lot.


No problem. I didn't take it negatively. I was just unsure of how it came across to you, so I wanted to be clear about my meaning.


----------



## limbwalker

TER said:


> Yuck Warbow. Sure don't miss that troll.


That comment tells me more about you than it does about them.


----------



## BigXX78

I just realized this thread is 13 years old. I was still shooting Easton aluminums back then, and their chart was fine for those...🤣


----------

