# I Just Got "SCHOOLED" On B50/B55 Dif's...



## JParanee

Her husband made me my first custom recurve 

Real nice people


----------



## LBR

> "They are both 100% polyester fibers with the only difference being that the B55 strands are slightly smaller in diameter than the B50 strands and that the only reason for and benefit of the B55 strands being slightly smaller in diameter....and the way that came about was...as replacement string material for pre-fast-flight compounds where they needed to fit X amount of strands in the narrow grooves of the wheels on high poundage compounds and that's the only difference between the two."


Miss Brackenbury is mistaken about B-55 on several counts. 

When it came on the market, maybe 2 years ago, it was not developed for "pre-FF" compound bows. When is the last time compounds used polyester strings? Not 2 years ago. It's advertised use (on the label) is for "traditional bows and older crossbows".

B-55 is not a small strand. Getting a good nock fit is not a problem with 12 strands.

B-55 is 100% polyester, but manufactured in a way that makes it more durable, plus it has less stretch and creep than B-50 or B-500.

I suggest that if anyone has questions about B-55, contact BCY. Phone and e-mail contacts are on their site, www.bcyfibers.com .


----------



## MrSinister

Now you got another 20 bucks worth of string info and it didn't cost a dime. Amazing how different every other story is these days. One almost needs needs a pass to the files at the NSA to get a straight story on about any subject these days.


----------



## rickstix

School is always open…and I’ll just take my seat and listen. If I were to pause on any of the details…I wouldn’t take “replacement strings” to mean original equipment. But who’s to say what floats around before a new creation, that didn’t exist a minute prior, drops out of the test tube…and by the time it has a name and goes to market.

It’s all more food for thought (…or should I say an interesting twist) and I can appreciate all of it. I enjoyed being a child before knowing the agony and ecstasy that went into making me…and I still don’t feel the need to hear all the particulars of that evening.

When I started making my own strings it was B50 for my older bows…so I still have a bunch on hand and intend to use it all. My strings all settle in to a final length (…well-with reason, anyhow) and it’s not like I’m gonna set the timer to decide which type of string gets there faster. It is what it is, just like all the B numbers that my bow strings were made of before they got to number 50. Sooo…many of these conversations just make me smile.

That said there’s a warm spot in my heart for anything Brackenbury…I had a recurve built by Jim, even drove cross country so the bow could return home for a visit…but I arrived just too late. Also watched the Martin family grow, from afar…and I guess having Terry stop by the other day is just helping to stir such memories…it’s all priceless.

Bottom line is the Jinkster will be crankin’ up another bow shortly…I’ll tune back in for the show. Enjoy, Rick.


----------



## LBR

A book could be written about the fables, misconceptions, and old wife's tales concerning strings and string materials. This is just a topic where I have better than average knowledge, at least concerning BCY materials. But again, I suggest contacting BCY with any questions about their materials. The internet is the best and worst place to get answers.


----------



## JINKSTER

LBR said:


> But again, I suggest contacting BCY with any questions about their materials.


Chad...with all due respect...wouldn't that be like calling up the Mars Corp. to ask if their Dove Chocolate tastes better than a Hershey Bar?...I mean what are they going to say?..buy the other guys cause our string material sux? :laugh:

I'll agree that it's very possible that Mrs. Brackenbury has some misconceptions but all in all?...she still shocked me with what seemed to be a surprising amount of knowledge regarding strings...enough to give me a warm fuzzy...and I might presume her late husband may have been a dedicated Brownell's loyalist the way she said...."We Use Brownell's Products Only."

And maybe that stems from the fact that Brownells B50 has been around since 1944....where B55 wasn't dubbed such until about 4 Decades after my '65 Bear Polar left the factory....and the 49 year old original string that came with it?...I'm thinking it's probably B50.

Either way?...this '65 Polar and I have no upcoming Olympic events to attend so?...I think Mrs. Brackenburys B50 strings will fair just fine. 

But?....if you would like for me and the polar to do a "Stretch/Creep" test?...pitting one of your B55 strings against Mrs. Brackenbury's B50?....I'm game.


----------



## Bender

JINKSTER said:


> Chad...with all due respect...wouldn't that be like calling up the Mars Corp. to ask if their Dove Chocolate tastes better than a Hershey Bar?...I mean what are they going to say?..buy the other guys cause our string material sux? :laugh:


Yes, that's right. In my line of work whenever I need technical specifications on a Ford I always check with Chevy, Dodge and Nissan first.


----------



## JINKSTER

Bender said:


> Yes, that's right. In my line of work whenever I need technical specifications on a Ford I always check with Chevy, Dodge and Nissan first.


Bender...here's what BCY has to say about their B55 string material...

_"B55 Bowstring:
100% polyester similar to Dacron but with better durability and very low stretch"_

My question is better durability and very low stretch over what?...they don't seem to advertise that but they do list the following at the bottom of their "String" page...

*Dyneema is a registered trademark of DSM
Dacron is a registered trademark of Dupont
Fast Flight is a registered trademark of Brownell & Co. *

and?...they've were founded and in business since 1990...off their home page.

Now here's what Brownell's says about their B50...

_"B-50
Synthetic superiority with excellent abrasion resistance. Durable and consistent it has been the standard for Traditional bows since 1944. .018 diameter."_

Notice how Brownell's gives the strand diameter of .018?...but BCY doesn't...and since both string materials are Dacron and both claim being 100% Polyester Fibers...how is it that either can claim as being better than the other in any way shape or form?...unless of course one sports a larger diameter...yet one does say it has better durability and very low stretch...but what they don't say is "over what"?

Slick move by the marketing dept. but....where's the proof?...I contend there is none...but they're legally safe to do so because how can there be when they not even saying what it's better than? :laugh:

What I'm seeing is that Dacron is Dacron...which is just a Trademark name that Dupont put on it's 100% polyester fiber material...Brownells then specs it at .018 diameter and calls it B50 for 70years now...BCY specs it at a different unlisted diameter 10 years ago and calls it B55....with the added claim that it's somehow better.....than....what? :laugh:

Now I will admit that I can see this happening....as with smaller diameter strands?...they will bunch together tighter with less interstitial area (air space) between strands from strand too strand...which would do 3 things....

1. Make it less elastic.

2. More stretch resistant 

Note: Both of the above due to more friction/binding with closer seated smaller strands.

3. And Slightly Faster cause smaller strands of the same material simply weigh less string mass wise.

I dunno man....but I bet even the best would be hard pressed to see a dif between the two...it's the same stuff.


----------



## JINKSTER

JParanee said:


> Her husband made me my first custom recurve
> 
> Real nice people


That's cool Joe...and yes...she seemed like real nice people to me...gotta be...

I mean who else charges $9 for a custom ordered bow string?


----------



## MAC 11700

JINKSTER said:


> Bender...here's what BCY has to say about their B55 string material...
> 
> _"B55 Bowstring:
> 100% polyester similar to Dacron but with better durability and very low stretch of"_
> 
> My question is better durability and very low stretch over what?...they don't seem to advertise that...
> 
> I dunno man....but I bet even the best would be hard pressed to see a dif between the two...it's the same stuff.


Sure they do.....it's similar to dacron but has better durability with less stretch....they are speaking of dacron 

The best would be able to tell the difference between them easily. .since they would be looking under a microscope at the fibers..

My advice. .call the companies. .ask if they are similar or different. .see what they say. .Don't ask which is better..

Different blends of materials, as different fibers,have different characteristics. ..

Mac


----------



## Bender

Considering that DuPont Trademarked the name Dacron in 1951 I fail to see how they were making strings from Dacron in 1944.


----------



## Arrowwood

DuPont bought the US rights in 1945, they didn't invent PET

http://www2.dupont.com/Phoenix_Heritage/en_US/1950_detail.html


----------



## BarneySlayer

JINKSTER said:


> That's cool Joe...and yes...she seemed like real nice people to me...gotta be...
> 
> I mean who else charges $9 for a custom ordered bow string?


not me. hats off to her. let us know what you think of it.


----------



## LBR

Saying that B-55 and B-50 are the same because they are both polyester is like saying a Bear Tamerlane and a Bear Kodiak Magnum are the same. Someone who doesn't understand bows could use the same argument--they are made from the same materials. You can even take it a step further--those were made by the same company, therefore they must be identical. Right?

B-55 isn't Dacron and isn't advertised as such. It's advertised as similar, but better.

B-55 isn't near 10 years old.

Again, contacting the company that actually makes it is much more accurate than uninformed speculation and heresay.


----------



## bwd

JINKSTER said:


> "They are both 100% polyester fibers with the only difference being that the B55 strands are slightly smaller in diameter than the B50 strands..."


And to think that I have read, in several places, there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the two, and the reason B-55 didn't stretch as much was because it's strand size was slightly larger. Can't beat the good ole i-net for accuracy.:mg:


----------



## Fury90flier

here is a link that someone did some testing on b50 and b55

http://piratesofarchery.net/bb/viewtopic.php?p=131293


----------



## MrSinister

All of her knowledge? She spun you a complete and total fairy tail about the materials and that is wowing you with information. What ever it proves perception is far more important than reality.


----------



## LBR

I stand corrected on the time B-55 has been on the market. Looks like it's been out over 3 years now...man time flies.


----------



## Bender

There is one thing that most don't know about these synthetic fibers. They are long chain polymers. When the raw fibers (its called "yarn" at that initial stage.)are made there are a couple of different ways to do it. Those differences create the differences in the material properties. If the process spits out the raw yarn in such a manner that the polymer chains are longer than previous production methods, and more of them are parallel to each other, with fewer of them folded in half, or crossing over each other the subsequent strands spun from that yarn will be stronger with less stretch, creep, and a higher yield strength. So a company can make a polyester that is, strictly speaking, a polyester that is chemically identical to everybody else's polyester, yet the finished product comes out measurably stronger. This is also part of how we wind with differences in some of the HMPE materials.

B-55 IS a polyester. It is NOT "identical" to B-50.


----------



## Bowjack

Bill, I'm sure Mrs. Brakenbury will make you two fine strings for the Polar. Shoot the bow and enjoy it. Jack


----------



## Pikkuhannu

I just make b50 flemish string for my longbow.
Much better to shoot than orginal ff endless string.

I may lost few fps, but if i want speed, i buy new compound.


----------



## 4nolz

God forbid if that bow blows up! Of course a 30# bow shouldnt be under that much stress unless arrows are too light.


----------



## FORESTGUMP

LBR said:


> I stand corrected on the time B-55 has been on the market. Looks like it's been out over 3 years now...man time flies.



LOL, and you thought it was ten years. Sometimes three does seem like ten I guess. I bought two spools of b-55 about three years ago and it was implied that it was the latest and greatest, hot off the press, at the time.


----------



## Dave V

MrSinister said:


> All of her knowledge? She spun you a complete and total fairy tail about the materials and that is wowing you with information. What ever it proves perception is far more important than reality.


This is what I got from her reply. This is a sideline for her. She doesn't do this professionally or she would have multiple types and colors at her disposal as well as jigs for making up endless loops. It seems this is something she can do to pass the time without requiring any major investment on her part.

Is that bad? Not necessarily. As long as you know what you're getting and don't ask for something outside those parameters, I'm sure her strings are just fine.


----------



## Rick Barbee

I have no clue how many B50 & B55 strings I've built, but it's a lot.

Straight off the spool, the B55 has a little less stretch & creep than B50, but not a lot.
A better way to put it might be - the B55 stretches & creeps slower than the B50, but winds up about the same in the end.

Properly built, stretched & conditioned, I can tell no difference between the two in the finished product, 
except B55 seems to hold it's colors a bit better than B50 over time.

Both are excellent materials for those who don't want to use low stretch stuff on their bows.

Rick


----------



## md7

FORESTGUMP said:


> LOL, and you thought it was ten years. Sometimes three does seem like ten I guess. I bought two spools of b-55 about three years ago and it was implied that it was the latest and greatest, hot off the press, at the time.


Just to set it straight: LBR mentioned "2 years" in one of the earlier posts.

Here's what I'm getting out of this thread. Our Vulcan MC rider fellow member will be getting a pair of B-50 strings. Although they aren't the B-55 (which is better than B-50 material) that he had initially wanted, there's good evidence (based on the company's reputation) that the B-50 strings will still be good strings. So, in the end, all is good for Jinkster; and for the other readers of this thread (at least for me), I now know more about B-55 and B-50.


----------



## BarneySlayer

Dave V said:


> This is what I got from her reply. This is a sideline for her. She doesn't do this professionally or she would have multiple types and colors at her disposal as well as jigs for making up endless loops. It seems this is something she can do to pass the time without requiring any major investment on her part.
> 
> Is that bad? Not necessarily. As long as you know what you're getting and don't ask for something outside those parameters, I'm sure her strings are just fine.


Same here. I'm impressed with anybody who has their process down, and their reputation established, enough to actually do that as a viable means for an income. The end products from legitimate, equal value suppliers can vary quite a bit, and generally, you get what you pay for, it would seem. There's a guy on ebay who sells strings for like $6 or $7, made from B-50. I bought one to check it out. It looks like it was twisted up just fine. It also looks like if you put it on a bow, eventually it would settle in and lose its excess wax, and work just fine too. I think for the price, it's a fantastic bargain. To me, though, it's not a finished string. On the other end of the spectrum, you can pay a lot more to somebody like Chad or Rick, and get a String that has a lot more put into it, in terms of attention to construction, and additional process. For a lot of people, in my opinion, equally fantastic value. 

I make strings because I like making strings. Having it setup as a business begins to offset the costs of materials, in turn letting me play with more materials, different colors, etc., as well. Theoretically, it should eventually turn profitable as a whole. But, so far, I've got hundreds and hundreds of dollars of string material in a variety of colors and flavors, more wax than I can ever use by myself, and have made maybe 1/3 of that amount back, though since the shop I made strings for has gone out of business, and I only do referral work now, the rate of return will slow. That's alright, I've got a broken house to fix 

I can rationalize that I make a bit of money, gross profit, if I simply subtract the materials cost, the excise tax, and the shipping, for each string, but the reality of it is that if the goal were just to make money, I'd be better off standing on the corner at Home Depot with the other high-gumption fellows who don't speak english so well.

Real truth is, I just like making really nice strings at my leisure, rather than knitting, and charging enough so that it isn't simply an expensive hobby. 

I'm sure you can make fine strings with B-50. B-55 may be a slightly better material, though really, it isn't in the realm where I'm personally inclined to care. I got a full set of colors in B-50, and it's not important enough in my mind to change over. If you're looking to get the last bit of performance out of a bow, and the particulars of Dacron are of significant limitation, it's time for a different bow. 

What's more, as Rick pointed out, we who take the time to do so, stretch the Bejezus out of the things before they ever see a bow, so that most of what is going to happen has already happened.

I understand and respect Chad's general position that he'd rather use the best materials he can get for the purpose, if only out of principal. I think that says good things about him, and his strings. I'm just not sold on it in this case.

If anybody really wants a particular material/color combination, and they're willing to either buy the spools, or order enough strings to offset my cost on the spools, or can convince me that I might personally want the same material, I'm happy to make them anything their heart desires. If somebody expresses an interest in pursuing a particular goal, I'll give them whatever information I might have, and refer them elsewhere if it doesn't look like our interests can align.

So, I hope Jinks likes his strings. Is all good if he's happy about it.


----------



## FORESTGUMP

md7 said:


> Just to set it straight: LBR mentioned "2 years" in one of the earlier posts.
> 
> Here's what I'm getting out of this thread. Our Vulcan MC rider fellow member will be getting a pair of B-50 strings. Although they aren't the B-55 (which is better than B-50 material) that he had initially wanted, there's good evidence (based on the company's reputation) that the B-50 strings will still be good strings. So, in the end, all is good for Jinkster; and for the other readers of this thread (at least for me), I now know more about B-55 and B-50.



I guess that since I didn't put the little wink eye thingy in there, you didn't realize that I was pulling his leg a little bit. Pretty sure he gets it though.
And, you are absolutely right that most of us learned some things from the thread. LBR and Rick Barbee together represent about fifty years of string making experience. Great sources of information to learn from.


----------



## LBR

Thanks md7. FG, honestly my first thought was "did I say 10? Crud! Another typo!" Glad it was just you messing with me.

My experience with using pounds and pounds of B-55, plus feedback from customers and of course BCY's own testing says B-55 is a better material than B-50. Tougher, less stretch, less creep. Even saw where one fellow (and he's certainly no fan of mine) was comparing it to Dynaflight '97. I think that's over the top, but it seems most folks feel it's noticeably better than B-50. I have a stretching jig, where I can apply enough force to break the string. On my jig B-55 doesn't stretch nearly as much as B-50 or B-500--seems the fellow in that other thread who tested it got the same results as I.

That said, it's still polyester. It's not magic. It's still going to have a lot more stretch and creep than your average HMPE material, and be less durable. 

For bows not rated for HMPE materials, it's the best choice. It's not a giant difference, but it is the best available for those bows at this time.

For me, the difference was enough for me to swap from B-500.


----------



## JINKSTER

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread...with lots of great thoughts, opinions and information as it pertains to B50/B55 Dacron/Polyester string material...I had a very busy day at work but did drop in to read what was being said several times throughout my work day...just kind of taking it all in and smiling...as whether it was passed on misinformation or homespun opinion?...I thought it very kind and considerate of her to try an make me feel better about what was an ignorant blunder on my part as I didn't realize that the trade names of B55 or B50 (for that matter) were proprietary to either company and really didn't care who made it and it was I who didn't catch on to her claim that she/they only use Brownell Products in their string making.

But I did know enough to mention at the end of my OP that...

*"anyways...true or not...I think I'm in good hands there and I'm certain that the B50 will work out just fine"*

as there is so much thoughts, opinions and misinformation out there that gets passed on as though it were the gospel but...I also can't help but notice that there seems to be a penchant amidst the old schoolers to stick with what they've known for so many decades as it seems to me that many of the more humble types who have been around for awhile seem to have a preference for all things Brownells when it comes to string material in general...and right now?...for some reason?...the word "loyalty" comes to mind...and you know how those old folks were. 

In any event and the way I figure?...even though I headed out looking for B55 and accidentally (out of ignorance) wound up with B50?...it all worked out for the best as I'm just fine with the B50 being more stretchy of the two on this 1/2 century old bow that hasn't been shot in 49 years and never has seen anything other than B50 bracing it's elegantly shaped limbs...furthermore?...it's a 66"/30# recurve...so it would probably be a bit bongy-at-the-shot if I strung it up with braided Kevlar! :laugh:

And finally?...as much as I like to shoot?...I'll probably have both of these strings stretched out, shot-in and set-up in a weeks time. 

Thanks again all and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## MrSinister

This is a useful thread on many levels it helps us all see some info on strings we might all find useful. It shows us how stories go round and round these days. It has even now prompted me to ask since we have some people on here who know materials what in the heck is D-10 string? What is it better than and maybe worse than. Not to side track anything on this thread but while materials are being talked about and since I also don't know one material from another if someone wants to tackle it feel free.


----------



## JINKSTER

MrSinister said:


> This is a useful thread on many levels it helps us all see some info on strings we might all find useful. It shows us how stories go round and round these days. It has even now prompted me to ask since we have some people on here who know materials what in the heck is D-10 string? What is it better than and maybe worse than. Not to side track anything on this thread but while materials are being talked about and since I also don't know one material from another if someone wants to tackle it feel free.


Sinister...I just spent about an hour goggling up and reading through numerous threads and test results/experiences of others who tried both Dacron and Fast-Flight type material strings on recurves and it turns out that the average FPS gains were in the 3-7fps vicinity...one dude claimed like 10-11fps and I bet he wished he didn't as I read on...and that's the chrono results of going from B50 too Fast-Flight based material so I can only presume that speed/performance wise?...the difs between B50-B55 is negligible at best. 

Another interesting tidbit I picked up on was this...

While many loved the move from Dacron too FF?...I also read a surprising amount of instances where archers who tried upgrading from Dacron/Polyester strings too Fast-Flight type materials on their recurves wound up reverting back to the Dacron/Polyester strings claiming their bows responded better to Dacron and citing that the FF based materials made their bows louder and ill behaved...but I would think that much of that was most likely due to a lack of tuning effort and/or?...their arrows used with Dacron became under-spined with FF...which again...imho...goes right back to a lack of tuning effort.

But the biggy for me was...really?....only 3-5fps (expected) with 7fps being the "reasonable high limit" for speed gains going from Dacron too FF?...as many responded "If you're that concerned with speed?...buy a compound!" :laugh:

But what do I know?...as it was just a couple days ago I thought I was buying Brownells B55! :embara:

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## MrSinister

Some if not many bow designs have limits to be sure. I have watched the lever limb bows for years and years closely and know them better than I do recurve bows to be sure. One think I have found is that design seems to be limited in how much speed you are going to get from them. You can go through a lot of things but still be about the same speed. A few fps here and there have been found but the design in general seems to limit what there is to be found and I would imagine it is similar for sure with stick and string. I still think it would be great if the industry would start getting it together to have a measure of performance. An arrow of certain weight shot at a certain draw weight and draw length using a machine to get some performance numbers from these pieces of fire wood. That would sure be a nice step forward for these types of bows. It would also help to find how much different string builds do or do not add to bows.


----------



## BarneySlayer

MrSinister said:


> Some if not many bow designs have limits to be sure. I have watched the lever limb bows for years and years closely and know them better than I do recurve bows to be sure. One think I have found is that design seems to be limited in how much speed you are going to get from them. You can go through a lot of things but still be about the same speed. A few fps here and there have been found but the design in general seems to limit what there is to be found and I would imagine it is similar for sure with stick and string. I still think it would be great if the industry would start getting it together to have a measure of performance. An arrow of certain weight shot at a certain draw weight and draw length using a machine to get some numbers from these pieces of fire wood. That would sure be a nice step forward for these types of bows. It would also help to find how much different string builds do or do not add to bows.


There comes a point when the moving mass of the limbs swamps everything else, and as much as you might reduce string weight, increase string efficiency, even reduce arrow weight, the movement of the limbs will rob a greater and greater proportion of energy. I don't know a lot about lever limb bows, but it looks like a mechanism to get more energy into the draw force curves with a given holding weight. It does nothing necessarily to remove moving mass in the limbs for a given amount of energy storage.

I think there is already an AMO standard for traditional bow speed. I am sure I will be corrected, but I believe it is 30 inch draw, 540 grain arrow, and 60#, or 9gpp. 

Problem is, does this actually help anybody who isn't shooting this setup? It tells us nothing of how the draw will feel. It tells us nothing about how well a bow will handle a lighter arrow, or how much it will benefit from a heavier arrow. It says nothing about what will change, and to what degree, when you throw on _your _favorite string and string accessories, let alone how the bow performs at _your_ draw length, preferred draw weight, and with your preferred arrows. One might take that single dimension number and try to use it to compare to other single dimension numbers, and extrapolate based on that, but if you start varying much in anything, the number becomes more and more useless.

Backing up from that, it still tells you nothing about how well a person might actually shoot a given bow, or enjoy it. I don't mean to preach, because I like speed as much as anybody. Still, every arrow drops significantly, and they drop a whole lot more like each other than they're different. Speed may minimize errors in judging distance, or for that matter knowing how to compensate for difference, but it's a small help compared to making a slightly better judgement or correction, which means _knowing_ the trajectory is more important than _flattening_ it, whether you do that instinctively, or with an explicit aiming method.

BTW, LOVE the avatar!


----------



## MrSinister

Actually the reason I say that is I don't think there is that much difference between the lightning fast bows and those called the dogs.
It is easy to say something is sooo much faster when there is no real standards. I figure there isn't a big difference but would like to see some real comparisons between bows that are so fast and some that are considered lacking in performance. I don't shoot enough draw weight to have anything close to a fast recurve. I also don't shoot light arrows so speed isn't much the thing with me but I often think it would nice to see some comparisons. Many things are hard to quantify like smooth or quiet but raw horsepower can at least be measured.


----------



## MrSinister

Oh and I picked up the avitar and user name back in the day over in the ville and have carried it ever since. Sinister being a term for left handed and he and I are both biochemists of sorts LOL


----------



## Bender

Mr. Sinister, There are performance standards just like you asked for. The old AMO and the newer IBO performance ratings.

Here's a brief bit on it:

http://www.archeryexchange.com/shopcontent.asp?type=amoibo


----------



## LBR

Not sure about D-10, but Dynaflight '10 is (was) SK78 Dyneema--a slightly higher grade than Dynaflight '97 or 8125. The difference was so slight it didn't hang around long under than name. It's now available as Force 10 Crossbow string material. To get an idea of the difference, original FF was SK65 Dyneema. Dynaflight '97 and 8125 are SK75 Dyneema. 8190 is SK90 Dyneema, BCY-X is SK90 Dyneema with 17% Vectran.




> I also can't help but notice that there seems to be a penchant amidst the old schoolers to stick with what they've known for so many decades as it seems to me that many of the more humble types who have been around for awhile seem to have a preference for all things Brownells when it comes to string material in general...


Other than Mrs. Brackenbury and Barbee, who? All the top bow manufacturers use BCY on their top end bows, at least to my knowledge, as do the best (and some maybe not the best) string makers I know. As far as loyalty goes, in my experience you won't find more loyal customers than those who have been with BCY long enough to experience their customer service, not to mention materials. There's a reason BCY has 85-90% of the world market wrapped up.



> But the biggy for me was...really?....only 3-5fps (expected) with 7fps being the "reasonable high limit" for speed gains going from Dacron too FF?...


All the best shots I know would use HMPE materials even if they were slower. The main benefits are lack of stretch and creep (consistency) and durability. Touting big speed gains to make a sale just preys on those who don't know any better IMO.


----------



## MrSinister

I believe you had the right product. It is a BCY string material.


----------



## BarneySlayer

Question for you, Chad.

What does the SK in SK-XX dyneema stand for, and what does the number following the SK- actually mean anyway?


----------



## LBR

Never thought to ask Barney, but I will. I just know it's a grading system, and the higher the number the higher the quality, strength, and durability. SK90 is currently as good as it gets.


----------



## JINKSTER

LBR said:


> Not sure about D-10, but Dynaflight '10 is (was) SK78 Dyneema--a slightly higher grade than Dynaflight '97 or 8125. The difference was so slight it didn't hang around long under than name. It's now available as Force 10 Crossbow string material. To get an idea of the difference, original FF was SK65 Dyneema. Dynaflight '97 and 8125 are SK75 Dyneema. 8190 is SK90 Dyneema, BCY-X is SK90 Dyneema with 17% Vectran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than Mrs. Brackenbury and Barbee, who? All the top bow manufacturers use BCY on their top end bows, at least to my knowledge, as do the best (and some maybe not the best) string makers I know. As far as loyalty goes, in my experience you won't find more loyal customers than those who have been with BCY long enough to experience their customer service, not to mention materials. There's a reason BCY has 85-90% of the world market wrapped up.
> 
> 
> 
> All the best shots I know would use HMPE materials even if they were slower. The main benefits are lack of stretch and creep (consistency) and durability. Touting big speed gains to make a sale just preys on those who don't know any better IMO.


I won't argue with you Chad...let's just say I'll be happy to be that 10 too 15 percent that patronized Brownells as I've always been a fight for the underdog kinda guy...also...I thought creep relates to string build quality (or lack thereof) and stretch is material related.


----------



## LBR

Creep can be from the build but its more a characteristic of the material. BCY was the underdog not many years ago and Brownell was the giant, but superior service and products has a way of overcoming.


----------



## 4nolz

Chad dreams about strings.Thats why I call him and say "make me a string for" and let him handle the rest.It makes my eyes glaze over.


----------



## tpcowfish

I'm fairly new to all this, but I did have Chad make me a string, and the workmanship was awesome, I would have to think he knows his stuff


----------



## LBR

I appreciate the good word. I just enjoy it. Its not rocket science, its not magic. Just takes research and practice.


----------



## JINKSTER

LBR said:


> I appreciate the good word. I just enjoy it. Its not rocket science, its not magic. *Just takes research and practice.*


Ya mean like *"THIS"*?

_Re: BCY B-55 bowstring material

*Post by LBR » Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:42 am*
"B-55 is polyester, and seems to be safe for anything. *I can't tell much of a difference with it and B-50/B-500."*_

apparently your opinion has recently changed?

whoopsey daisy! :laugh:


----------



## 4nolz

Pretty creepy to have Jinx researching 3 years ago.LOL.


----------



## JINKSTER

4nolz said:


> Pretty creepy to have Jinx researching 3 years ago.LOL.


actually about 15 minutes ago...it's called google. :laugh:


----------



## 4nolz

Google thyself


----------



## wseward

Hey computers are built for doing searches.

I like shooting B-50. May be the best thing for your mellow lady.


----------



## Stykshooter

My first custom recurve was a Brackenbury back in about 1989. Linda Brackenbury has been making flemish strings for me and the other members of our traditional club exclusively since the 90's. Never had a bit of a problem with any of them. We put together a mass order once or twice a year. Her strings are works of art and we all joke that a Linda Brackenbury string adds $50.00 to the value of a bow.


----------



## LBR

Recently? That was over 3 years ago and concerning performance. I still don't see much of a difference there. Whoopsie....try again. I don't mind someone looking at what I've said. I have nothing to hide.


----------



## LBR

Could have read post #30 and see where I said basically the same thing. Post honestly and you don't have to worry about stuff.


----------



## JINKSTER

LBR said:


> Could have read post #30 and see where I said basically the same thing. Post honestly and you don't have to worry about stuff.


That's comical...they are night and day commentaries...post #30 is all about how much better B55 is...including feedback from your customers.


----------



## CAPTJJ

Very happy with all my dealings with Chad, great customer service and always straightforward.


----------



## MrSinister

Wow someone feeds you a line of crap then someone on here sets things straight and the one who provided the correct information is the one on trial in the end. Only on AT folks only on AT.


----------



## JParanee

Geez guys 

Mrs Brakenbury is a sweet elderly lady that I am sure did not mean to spread any misinformation 

She has been making strings for a very long time and has her loyalties. Which is nice 

Heck I have one of her strings somewhere that came on my Shadow from Jim 

You can not expect her to be up on the latest string technology and it is regrettable that she was brought into this. I am sure that was not Bills intention 

I have no reason to doubt what Chad says he's just not that kind of a guy. He knows strings and has a right to change his mind on how a product works as he gains experience with it


----------



## LBR

I meant no disrespect to Mrs Brackenbury-she was simply mistaken about B-55. My posts speak for themselves and are consistent-I see no need for further clarification but will be happy to answer any questions.
Joe I appreciate the good word but my opinion hasn't changed. B-55 has less stretch and creep and is more durable, but performance-wise the difference is negligible. I don't normally see a big difference in performance between equally well made polyester and HMPE strings. The big difference is durability and consistency. 

Mr Sinister, thanks to you as well. Sometimes you just have to apply the "Ron White" rule.


----------



## LBR

Thank you too Captain JJ.


----------



## Easykeeper

JParanee said:


> Geez guys
> 
> Mrs Brakenbury is a sweet elderly lady that I am sure did not mean to spread any misinformation
> 
> She has been making strings for a very long time and has her loyalties. Which is nice
> 
> Heck I have one of her strings somewhere that came on my Shadow from Jim
> 
> You can not expect her to be up on the latest string technology and it is regrettable that she was brought into this. I am sure that was not Bills intention
> 
> I have no reason to doubt what Chad says he's just not that kind of a guy. He knows strings and has a right to change his mind on how a product works as he gains experience with it


Great post JP.


----------



## JINKSTER

Stykshooter said:


> My first custom recurve was a Brackenbury back in about 1989. Linda Brackenbury has been making flemish strings for me and the other members of our traditional club exclusively since the 90's. Never had a bit of a problem with any of them. We put together a mass order once or twice a year. Her strings are works of art and we all joke that a Linda Brackenbury string adds $50.00 to the value of a bow.


Thanks Stykshooter! That's great to hear man! :thumbs_up



JParanee said:


> Geez guys
> 
> Mrs Brakenbury is a sweet elderly lady that I am sure did not mean to spread any misinformation
> 
> She has been making strings for a very long time and has her loyalties. Which is nice
> 
> Heck I have one of her strings somewhere that came on my Shadow from Jim
> 
> You can not expect her to be up on the latest string technology and it is regrettable that she was brought into this. *I am sure that was not Bills intention*
> 
> I have no reason to doubt what Chad says he's just not that kind of a guy. He knows strings and has a right to change his mind on how a product works as he gains experience with it


Thanks Joe...especially for *"THAT"*...as there's been one or two evenings here I laid in bed starring at the ceiling wishing I had never posted this thread just for Mrs. Backenburys sake as it was never meant to be what it has become...and I suppose I am not without sin here but I thought it was sweet of her to try an make me feel better about what was ignorance on my part regarding brownells not being the ones who produce B55...you know....her just being nice...which seems a rare trait these days. 



Easykeeper said:


> Great post JP.


I agree.


----------



## Easykeeper

JINKSTER said:


> Thanks Joe...especially for *"THAT"*...as there's been one or two evenings here I laid in bed starring at the ceiling wishing I had never posted this thread just for Mrs. Backenburys sake as it was never meant to be what it has become...and I suppose I am not without sin here but I thought it was sweet of her to try an make me feel better about what was ignorance on my part regarding brownells not being the ones who produce B55...you know....her just being nice...which seems a rare trait these days.


Solid post Bill...:thumb: 

I know more about non-FF materials now than I did before, and that's not a bad thing.


----------



## DDSHOOTER

Easykeeper said:


> Solid post Bill...:thumb:
> 
> I know more about non-FF materials now than I did before, and that's not a bad thing.


This is a kind new comer view. Since I have started posting here I have learn. 

1. There seems to be quite abit of joking or let's say poking in fun of a mistake. Not really to hurt someone but to have some humor. I am somewhat guilt of this and do apologize for it. Most often one or two posting later. Kegan, sorry again.
2. The information that individuals bring to this forum may be interesting or misinformed. Correction are made base on the vast knowledge we have. Some of which is new and sometimes very old. This is the difference that we sometimes have problems with.

I have learned to use the cancel button at the bottom of the post quick reply sections if my post has no meaning or misleading. The real point here is we love to shoot traditionally. I now know it's in my blood and also stay awake at night thinking about my next adventure down this ever learning path.
DD


----------



## fred hill

FYI, 60X (AT site sponsor) makes endless loop B-55 recurve strings. Cost is a whopping $9 shipped.


----------



## tpcowfish

Fred, don't think 60x makes recurve strings anymore, that's what I was told a while back anyways, sorry if i'm wrong


----------



## fred hill

tpcowfish said:


> Fred, don't think 60x makes recurve strings anymore, that's what I was told a while back anyways, sorry if i'm wrong


Just ordered one last week.


----------



## Big Country

fred hill said:


> Just ordered one last week.


He must change his mind from time to time then……I have known Brad for a long time, and just sent a mutual friend up to get me a spool of 8190 from Brad two weeks ago. Brad told our mutual friend that he did not make trad strings…..maybe he meant flemish twists?


----------



## tpcowfish

Went to his sight today, recurve strings, says not available, I don't know ?


----------



## fred hill

tpcowfish said:


> Went to his sight today, recurve strings, says not available, I don't know ?


I PM'ed him last week about it, he replied with the price and what colors of B-55 he has on hand. Only makes single color strings. Ordered a string for my mid 70's green Bear Kodiak Mag.


----------



## tpcowfish

That's cool I guess Fred, I got an e-mail, or a pm, can't remember, said we no longer make those, no matter, anywho, I just know I had some compound strings he made that were great, so I thought i'd try some for a recurve


----------



## BarneySlayer

endless loop, difference between a recurve and compound string... nothing i know. compounds are much more critical of stability, as may affect timing and draw stop length. reason, i don't even try to make other people compound strings.

so long as the length, strand count, and serving are done well, i have no issue using a 'compound' string maker's string on my recurve.


----------



## JINKSTER

Well?...I got left an apologetic voicemail from one Mrs. Linda Brackenbury...telling me that she was sorry but that she had inadvertently passed on some mis-information to me regarding the B50-B55 debacle...so I called her back and as it turns out?...the apology was because even she thought Brownells made B-55 at one time but had discontinued offering such because while she remembered the stuff?...she didn't see it listed in her brownells catalog...then she chuckled and again apologized claiming that between Brownells and BCY?...that there's more "B's" flying around than she can remember! :laugh:

Then she went on to say that over the decades of her late husband making bows that they've always relied on Brownell's and that basically that was pretty much all they had to work with until BCY came along...decades later...but because they had their processes down with the brownell's products and knew exactly what to expect that they simply stuck with what they knew.

And then she went on to say that even though she pre-stresses all her bowstring materials and builds and serves them under tension?...that when the B-50 comes off the jig it contracts by about an inch (pending length) which is why she builds them under tension so that she knows she's hitting the customer requested length with nominal twists so they have optimum adjustability up or down brace wise.

And finally?...she told me that she tells all her customers who order B-50 strings the same thing...that when you first brace or re-brace your bow?...go just fling 6-8 arrows and re-check/reset brace again and you should be good to go as the B-50 does contract and then stretch whenever the bow is re-braced but that if I leave it strung?...it shouldn't be much of a problem at all and to just check brace before each session and that....it's that's very contraction and expansion that the B-50 offers...the elasticity of it...that makes it so gentle and soft shooting on older and non-FF bows...she said she's seen 7 year old strings made of B-50 that were shot hard and often yet still retained their elastic qualities.

She ended off by letting me know it was a pleasure speaking with me and that my two new strings are on their way and that she would like to hear back from me after I receive and shoot them.

So...for me?...and to kind of sum things up?...I guess the bowyers in the days of old were looking for some very different characteristics in their string materials used as opposed to what string characteristics they seek for todays bows...and both for good reasons.

And since I wouldn't think it a great idea to run mobil1 synthetic in a model T?...I'll keep B-50 on my pristine, collectable grade '65 Bear Polar. 










anyways...sorry for all the spin and hoopla and thanks for reading...L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Stone Bridge

String material, much ado about nothing.


----------



## Bender

Stone Bridge said:


> String material, much ado about nothing.


There are only 2 interfaces between the shooter and the bow. The grip and the string. The string is what transfers the bow's stored energy to the arrow. 

Yeah, I can see that. Its not especially important is it?


----------



## LBR

I see the string as the bow's transmission. Pretty important to me and every shooter I know. If it didn't matter we wouldn't have the big selection of literally space age materials to choose from. Pretty well speaks for itself.


----------



## JINKSTER

Stone Bridge said:


> String material, much ado about nothing.


At this point?...I tend to agree with you Stone....cause out of the veritable plethora of string materials out there to choose from?...ranging from the Dacron/Polyester too "The Blends" to the Space Age Zero Creep/Stretch stuff?..there's a scant 3-7fps to be gained on average...from the most elastic of them all B-50....where it was designed to have some give acting like a built-in shock absorber so as to not damage the limbs of older designed bows where the string notches have the loops crossing wood laminations too the most modern of offerings advertising zero creep stretch?...3-7fps is all that separates the two...pending bow poundage and design.

And right now?...I can't help but wonder if these so called technological advancements in modern zero creep/zero stretch string materials are playing a villain's role with the many reports I've read of recent where older trad archers are proclaiming that...

"They simply can't....Take The Hand Shock Of Shooting Longbows Anymore"

cause while these modern string materials may be stronger and lighter?...(which is the pitch they use for claiming a reduction in hand shock)...what about those rapid moving limb tips coming to a sudden stop like they ran into a brick wall with those zero stretch strings?...could that actually be inducing MORE shock into these bows?...my minds eye says yes.

Anyways...I'm in agreement with you and have come to conclude that these highly hyp'ed string materials have about as much to offer as one sparkplug over another...one might last a little longer and cost a bundle to pay for all that scientific hype and advertising but...either new?...will have your vehicle running just fine...unless of course you buy the hot one that holes your pistons...or?...split your limbs! :laugh:

To me?...the important parts are Type (flem or endless), Build Quality and use, care & execution...as I now believe any or all of these things trump material selection as far as strings go.

all I got and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## LBR

Just to set the record straight, polyester string material wasn't designed to stretch. To the contrary, until Bob Destin (co-founder of BCY) invented the first HMPE material (original Fast Flight) polyester was the material of choice because it had lower stretch and higher durability. It has changed a few times since it's inception, always working toward less stretch, higher strength, higher durability.

Speed isn't the main factor for most knowledgeable archers. Reduced stretch and creep equalls better consistency. I would use HMPE materials if they were slower because of the other benefits.

These facts aren't hard to research, and aren't kept secret. It's not difficult to use common sense with research to determine there are measurable benefits to HMPE materials.

To be clear, I'm not reccommending them for old bows or any bow not built to accept them. Just stating the fact that there is a difference.


----------



## wseward

I have recently learned that tabs, strings, etc. can have a significant effect on the rigs performance. All of these things together, do make a difference in the rigs tune.


----------



## LBR

HMPE strings do normally reduce hand shock as well. It's not difficult to test.


----------



## ozzypop

Jinks I see where you are coming from. I was shooting a b-50 on my longbow but since it is ok for fast flight I bought one. i still have it on the bow but I can' t explain it but the bow just feels better with the b-50 . Thinking about switching back.


----------



## JINKSTER

LBR said:


> Just to set the record straight, polyester string material wasn't designed to stretch. To the contrary, until Bob Destin (co-founder of BCY) invented the first HMPE material (original Fast Flight) polyester was the material of choice because it had lower stretch and higher durability. It has changed a few times since it's inception, always working toward less stretch, higher strength, higher durability.
> 
> Speed isn't the main factor for most knowledgeable archers. Reduced stretch and creep equalls better consistency. I would use HMPE materials if they were slower because of the other benefits.
> 
> These facts aren't hard to research, and aren't kept secret. It's not difficult to use common sense with research to determine there are measurable benefits to HMPE materials.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not reccommending them for old bows or any bow not built to accept them. Just stating the fact that there is a difference.





wseward said:


> I have recently learned that tabs, strings, etc. can have a significant effect on the rigs performance. All of these things together, do make a difference in the rigs tune.


I can pretty much agree with all that...that there are measurable differences...but as far as benefits go?...that varies...shooter to shooter...bow too bow...for instance....it was an enlightening moment for me the day I replaced the OEM B50 Flem string on my 62"/54# Bob Lee TD Hunter with a Flemish Brownells FF+ number from 3Rivers after finding out the limbs would indeed accommodate such and upgrade...and it was an awesome, in-my-face upgrade...to that particular bow...which had rubber gaskets between the limb bases and riser with a riser made of pressure resin impregnated solid ash that you could dang near drive nails with...and worked out favorably...extremely so...but that was on a rock solid riser with rubber gaskets buffering shock from the limbs...but on the flip side?...I also swapped out my oem spectra string on my falco one piece D-longbow to try an angel majesty number and it darn near rattled the fillings out of what few teeth I have left! :laugh:

And proved to be absolutely horrid as far as hand shock...as the spectra string went right back on my falco...and in my research of just this topic?...I've read many reports where it seems that a considerable percentage of archers who offed their old B-50 strings for what they thought would be an upgraded string material?...couldn't stand the feel and wound up putting their old B50 strings right back on...with some claiming not only a better feel but...better shoot-ability...so yes...they are definitely different...but the million dollar question left to the end users who's putting them to use on any particular bow is...if we eliminate all the hype and hoopla?...

"Is it *a desirable* difference?"

Does it really make your bow shoot better?

Does it really make your bow feel better at-the-shot?

and with any given bow pending....heavy risered curve or light risered longbow...single piece or take-down?...t seems to me that the answer could be yes as easily as it could be no...old or new.

But at the end of the day?...it's all fun and interesting...whether it be trying new things or sometimes?...even re-discovering old things that still seem to work well as originally designed.

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## JINKSTER

ozzypop said:


> Jinks I see where you are coming from. I was shooting a b-50 on my longbow but since it is ok for fast flight I bought one. i still have it on the bow but I can' t explain it but the bow just feels better with the b-50 . Thinking about switching back.


See there?...that was posted while I was typing out the above! :laugh:

And thank you for having the nads to step up and post your honest feelings on the subject Ozzy! :thumbs_up

and rest assured....in the past week or so of me researching and reading about this very topic?...

you're not alone! 

L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## Easykeeper

Like I said a few posts back, this turned into a very informative thread. Thanks Jinkster, looking forward to the write up with your new-to-you bow and strings...:thumbs_up


----------



## Arron

I just might give some B-50 or B-55 a try on my Omega. Now I would not necessarily say the Omega has terrible hand shock and for a person with healthy elbows probably a none issue. But my worn out elbows I am limited to about 50 shots and then its the ice packs. I absolutely love my Omega but my elbows would beg to differ at times.


----------



## Rick Barbee

Hand shock is generally due to the lateral lurching of the limbs.
The more abruptly the limbs stop moving, the less the shock will be. 

Rick


----------



## JBowdelta

You are right Jinks. There are bows like my ILF that work great with low stretch hmpe strings. But I have a couple of traditional asiatic recurves which shoots better with their original endless loop dacron strings. FF on these bows made the hand shock quite noticeable compared to the soft feeling with the original strings. Didn't gain any measured or perceived speed increase either. Don't worry about the difference between B50 and B55 on that 30# vintage. Enjoy the bow.


----------



## grantmac

If you are getting more handshock with HMPE then B50 I'd say the problem is tuning or arrow weight. In my experience nothing takes the shock out like a well constructed low-stretch string.

-Grant


----------



## 4nolz

X2 my elbow can't take handshock


----------



## Hank

Dave Wallace probably has more IBO belt buckles than any other trad guy and he PREFERS B50. And he shoots a real longbow, not a recurve riser with longbow limbs.... weird.


----------



## fatzboys

I think a good bow will shoot any properly built string, no matter what its made from. I think it has more has to do with your brace height, arrows, side plate ,form. Once you tune the bow, a good string has its place. people are making to much of it. Lots of good string makers out there. Be happy with the one you got.


----------



## LBR

There appears to be two schools of thought here: personal preferences/opinions, and established fact. I won't attempt to argue with preferences--we all have them. 

Some folks prefer a simple self bow over the most advanced equipment Trad Tech has to offer. Does that mean the self bow is in any way superior? On the other hand, get down to the measurable differences--speed, smoothness, durability, consistency, etc.--it's a no-brainer. Doesn't mean the self bow guy is wrong for his preferences, but just because he prefers one over the other doesn't make that one better.

Talk to the manufacturers about the specifics. Check to see what the vast majority of professional archers are currently shooting, and why. 

Unlike a lot of what you may see on message boards, it's not smoke and mirrors or elaboration--again, very simple to research...if you aren't afraid of the facts.


----------



## LBR

Ironically.......I saw this e-mail a while ago.


"...I recieved my new flemish D97 bowstring yesterday 
For the last two years I have only used Dacron strings on my Hill Wesley Special
longbow, included the B55 strings *** made for me. 

Yesterday I put on a D97 string for the first time. After adjusting brace height and
installing a nock, I nocked a Gold Tip Traditional 55/75 (400) arrow without
fletching, drew my bow to anchor point and let the arrow fly. 
What an amazing experiance! The expected "hand shock" and vibrantions was gone, and
the bow sounded almost silent.
I will never put on a Dacron sting on this bow again!

In my opinion, the carbon shafts from Gold Tip are very spine tolerant. With the new
D97 string, the bare shaft arrow with 50 grain inserts and 145 grain field point hit
my target with the nock pointing to the left, indicating a weak spine. I expected
this, but was surprised that the 125 grain field points I put on hit the target with
the nock pointing to the left as well. I had to reduce the point weight to 100
grains in order to get perfect bare shaft flight, a reduction of 45 grains compared
to the tip weight I had to use with the B55 string.

I can't tell you how pleased I am with the new D97 flemish string..."

Obviously some folks see, feel, and hear a difference.


----------



## JParanee

I have only one bow left that runs B 50 

The rest are running on D 97 and 8190 

I can tell string different string materials by three different ways 

One is a Chrono 

Two is bareshafting 

Three is noise 

Even subtle differences are differences


----------



## DDSHOOTER

LBR said:


> Ironically.......I saw this e-mail a while ago.
> 
> 
> "...I recieved my new flemish D97 bowstring yesterday
> For the last two years I have only used Dacron strings on my Hill Wesley Special
> longbow, included the B55 strings *** made for me.
> 
> Yesterday I put on a D97 string for the first time. After adjusting brace height and
> installing a nock, I nocked a Gold Tip Traditional 55/75 (400) arrow without
> fletching, drew my bow to anchor point and let the arrow fly.
> What an amazing experiance! The expected "hand shock" and vibrantions was gone, and
> the bow sounded almost silent.
> I will never put on a Dacron sting on this bow again!
> 
> In my opinion, the carbon shafts from Gold Tip are very spine tolerant. With the new
> D97 string, the bare shaft arrow with 50 grain inserts and 145 grain field point hit
> my target with the nock pointing to the left, indicating a weak spine. I expected
> this, but was surprised that the 125 grain field points I put on hit the target with
> the nock pointing to the left as well. I had to reduce the point weight to 100
> grains in order to get perfect bare shaft flight, a reduction of 45 grains compared
> to the tip weight I had to use with the B55 string.
> 
> I can't tell you how pleased I am with the new D97 flemish string..."
> 
> Obviously some folks see, feel, and hear a difference.


Now that's a bit of information I can use. I knew that strings with to much elastic don't stop at BH and Since they don't they cause extra noise, To which user's wants to weight them down with all sort of thing. I know from my compound day that 8125 20 strand for a string and 452X 24 strand for the cables worked best in regards of speed, shootablity, and just plain Robust. I am not sure what I have on my TT it came from John setup and was made by Stone Mountain. I might give LBR a try, starting to here and read good things. Thanks for the infor.
DD
DD


----------



## Stone Bridge

Hank said:


> Dave Wallace probably has more IBO belt buckles than any other trad guy and he PREFERS B50. And he shoots a real longbow, not a recurve riser with longbow limbs.... weird.


Not really weird. He can shoot better than most people most of the of time. This goes back to my "much ado about nothing" comment. Equipment does not make the shooter. The shooter is 99.9% of the equation. All the rest is internet fodder. Dave Wallace would beat most longbow shooters using a linen string from a hundred years ago.


----------



## JINKSTER

Stone Bridge said:


> Not really weird. He can shoot better than most people most of the of time. This goes back to my "much ado about nothing" comment. Equipment does not make the shooter. The shooter is 99.9% of the equation. All the rest is internet fodder. Dave Wallace would beat most longbow shooters using a linen string from a hundred years ago.


Man that statement rings of raw truth....nice Stone! :thumbs_up


----------



## BLACK WOLF

Equipment DEFINITELY helps determine an archer's ability! 

Some equipment choices make bigger differences than others.

In regards to strings...an archer's accuracy will most likely have a very small affect...but the sum of all the available choices between risers, limbs and other options can be the difference of winning and loosing a tournament or reaching a specific score.

Ray :shade:


----------



## JINKSTER

BLACK WOLF said:


> Equipment DEFINITELY helps determine an archer's ability!
> 
> Some equipment choices make bigger differences than others.
> 
> In regards to strings...an archer's accuracy will most likely have a very small affect...but the sum of all the available choices between risers, limbs and other options can be the difference of winning and loosing a tournament or reaching a specific score.
> 
> Ray :shade:


Well Ray?...apparently?...Dave Wallace didn't get the memo. :laugh:

Or?...maybe tell Ricky Welsh he's not allowed to shoot that good with a glove that he has to have a tab?

Or?...maybe take Dwayne Martins wood shaft arrows away?

it seems many of the greats utilize gear that's not of optimum mainstream opinion yet...

They seem to get it done.


----------



## BLACK WOLF

Reading comprehension, Jinks. Reading comprehension! Reread what I said...unless your words are filled with sarcasm.

There's a reason why they have different classes in competition...and it certainly isn't because equipment choices don't play a roll in an archer's accuracy.

Equipment choices matter! Some more than others.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Bender

Aw Ray you got it all wrong! Take Brady Ellison, America's top Oly shooter. He can shoot the same scores with a self bow that he can with his full blown Oly rig!



What utter BS!

Look, its time to tell the truth.

Sure some people have equipment preferences. ESPECIALLY top shooters. Like Wallace. he prefers B-50 for some reason. But he can also SHOOT that difference between 
B-50 and other materials.

Top shooters can tell differences in equipment AND shoot that difference. Poor shooters can't And some poor shooters then claim that since they can't tell the difference because their own personal performance has not improved, then therefore there must NOT BE any difference.

And if the shoe fits, lace that sucker up and WEAR it!


----------



## BLACK WOLF

Bender said:


> Take Brady Ellison, America's top Oly shooter. He can shoot the same scores with a self bow that he can with his full blown Oly rig!


Than why doesn't he use his selfbow in Olympic competition?

Is there documented proof he can shoot the same scores with his selfbow as his Olympic rig?

Ray :shade:


----------



## Bender

You do know I'm kidding, right? Taking the "equipment doesn't matter" argument to its extreme.


----------



## BLACK WOLF

Bender said:


> You do know I'm kidding, right? Taking the "equipment doesn't matter" argument to its extreme.


LOL...I hate to assume so I wasn't sure.

Thanks for the clarification! :wink:

Ray :shade:


----------

