# Bareshaft tuning



## mnfuel (Jun 28, 2014)

I keep hearing about bareshaft tuning. What is it and how is it done?
My most recent bow purchase from local shop included a "tune".
Guy slapped all the accessories on. Took 4 shots through the paper called it good when the point was inside the Fletch. And sent me on my way. Current bow is binary has no yokes
I have done wb and mod French and the others nut and bolts has spoken of. But I am interested in the bareshaft tune
Thanks


----------



## gofor (Feb 4, 2013)

Bare shaft tuning is using an arrow with no fletchings on it as a magic wand to tell you what needs to be corrected in order for you and your bow to be shooting the most efficiently. In order for it to work you have to be at least a junior Bare Shafter (BSr). This is the level that you can shoot 3 bare shaft "wands" at any given distance and they all hit the target within an inch of each other with all the nocks pointing in the same direction. Until you can reach this level, you will not have enough power over the wand to make it tell you the truth, and it will lie to you and send you off on many fruitless paths that can ultimately drive you insane and cause you to post stupid things on the AT Forum. 

If you have already achieved Junior BSr status, then hopefully the true Master BSrs will post to start you on the journey of divining what the wand is telling you. Beware of those that pose as Master BSrs, because some are Masters, but the BS is not Bow Shooting. As in all things magic, things may have multiple interpretations.

Good Luck in your Quest. Many have gone before you and failed, but many others have succeeded, so hope is there.

Go

PS. The above posted only partially Tongue-In-Cheek


----------



## mnfuel (Jun 28, 2014)

Lol 
I have until next September until the bow is needed again plenty of time to work on it


----------



## bbjavelina (Jan 30, 2005)

I'm a big fan of bare shafting. It always gets me where I need to be.

Before you jump into it, there are a few things to consider.
Arrow spine is important. A weak arrow will be difficult. Over-spined can be tuned with the bows I have, but I still prefer one that is very near the proper spine.
Consistency of the archer is vital. You may get away with less than textbook form, but only if you are very consistent. Textbook form make repeatability easier. 

Draw length is a major factor, as is grip, stance, hand/arm actions, cheek pressure on the string at draw, and all the other little things that most of us ignore. 

You can only tune to the level that you can shoot. No, I'm not saying that you have any of these problems, just pointing out that if you do, it's not yet time for bareshafting. 

Personally I start with a quick modified French tune to set my center shot. This is after synch and timing set and the rest and nock point are set. Then I'll shoot fletched and bareshaft at close range. Very small changes to the set-up to get them close. Step back 10 yards and re-shoot fletched and bare. Adjust as needed. Keep stepping back until you are happy with the results. Continue to at least 30 or 40. Farther if you care to. 

It's a rewarding experience and I wish you the best of luck with it.


----------



## dartonpro4000 (Oct 12, 2010)

gofor said:


> Bare shaft tuning is using an arrow with no fletchings on it as a magic wand to tell you what needs to be corrected in order for you and your bow to be shooting the most efficiently. In order for it to work you have to be at least a junior Bare Shafter (BSr). This is the level that you can shoot 3 bare shaft "wands" at any given distance and they all hit the target within an inch of each other with all the nocks pointing in the same direction. Until you can reach this level, you will not have enough power over the wand to make it tell you the truth, and it will lie to you and send you off on many fruitless paths that can ultimately drive you insane and cause you to post stupid things on the AT Forum.
> 
> If you have already achieved Junior BSr status, then hopefully the true Master BSrs will post to start you on the journey of divining what the wand is telling you. Beware of those that pose as Master BSrs, because some are Masters, but the BS is not Bow Shooting. As in all things magic, things may have multiple interpretations.
> 
> ...


Lmao!!!


----------



## eliminator2 (Feb 19, 2011)

I'm a master bsr ....at least that's what my wife says


----------



## dartonpro4000 (Oct 12, 2010)

Is there a poll on here to see who is the best BSr?


----------



## mnfuel (Jun 28, 2014)

I am running the app on phone so could not make poll 
But I am a master BSer after a bit o tequila


----------



## dartonpro4000 (Oct 12, 2010)

A true BSr does not need tekillya!!!


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

gofor said:


> Bare shaft tuning is using an arrow with no fletchings on it as a magic wand to tell you what needs to be corrected in order for you and your bow to be shooting the most efficiently. In order for it to work you have to be at least a junior Bare Shafter (BSr). This is the level that you can shoot 3 bare shaft "wands" at any given distance and they all hit the target within an inch of each other with all the nocks pointing in the same direction. Until you can reach this level, you will not have enough power over the wand to make it tell you the truth, and it will lie to you and send you off on many fruitless paths that can ultimately drive you insane and cause you to post stupid things on the AT Forum.
> 
> If you have already achieved Junior BSr status, then hopefully the true Master BSrs will post to start you on the journey of divining what the wand is telling you. Beware of those that pose as Master BSrs, because some are Masters, but the BS is not Bow Shooting. As in all things magic, things may have multiple interpretations.
> 
> ...


LOL ))

Here is the first divination of the Solomon key about bare shaft )

Vanes correct arrow flight. Efficient flight is achieved, when vanes are not needed. A Bare shaft is an arrow without vanes.
An arrow without vanes, is the true image of ones self and it's equipment.
That means, that if you were to shoot that bow from a shooting machine, there will probably be things to adjust in order for it to send that bare shaft in the desired place on a paper target face.
Most of the time you would have to replace that specialized equipment called shooting machine, and this way you will introduce all your shooing form variables in the equation.
When do you want to use this bare shaft tuning?
Well, I use it every time I change strings, or arrow sets.
How far do I go with this? I cannot say that I go too far, I am not trying to achieve perfect bare shaft hits, especially when I know that I am shooting an overspined arrow, or an underspined arrow. But I take the time to do some yoke adjustments and arrow rest adjustments, up until the arrow lands perpendicular in the target face.
Generally speaking, this helps to make your shots more forgiving.
Complete mastery is achieved, only when you attempt to bare shaft with perfectly spined arrows. In any other circumstance there will be false positives in this bow tuning equation.
Does it worth the time?
Yes, if you are a target shooter especially. When you execute that bad shot, It is the difference between still landing the arrow in the target face, or totally out of it. As well when you are at a 3D shoot, and your vane decides to come off, on that shot. You can still execute a decent shot, with vane malfunction, since the vane will not place a critical role in stabilizing your arrow every inch of the way from bow to target.
Things to be aware of:
Do not attempt to get bullet holes in paper tuning with overspined bareshafts and believe that the fletched arrows will also hit bullet points through that paper


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

The best thing to do is read through the nuts & bolts of archery in the General section here...it's a sticky--go with the most recent version.

when you bare shaft...only look at arrow impact location. If you start looking at nock angle and you don't really know what you're doing, all you'll do is chase your tail. 

The issue with bare shaft testing is that it tells you everything YOU are doing wrong-- more than your setup. Pull to the side on the release just a hair- nock kick...grip off 1mm--nock kick...bad follow through--bad nock kick.

not only will nock kick be bad but you can also get false readings simply by inconsistent form.

I'd suggest getting a couple bare shaft arrows--just strip the fletching off. Every few ends, fire a both bare shafts with your 3-5 shot fletched. What you're looking for is consistency with the bare shafts. at first it doesn't matter where they land...just so they're together. Once you always hit in a certain area and group...then start tuning.


----------



## mnfuel (Jun 28, 2014)

That sticky is no longer sticked, from what I could see, well actually not see. I do have it as favorite though, along with a few others. I did find the one on bareshaft tuning. I will go read up on that one.
Thanks for all the BS on BS and other BS


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

found it in about 20 seconds using yahoo. Sometimes yahoo is faster/better than this sights search engine....actually, it's always been better for me.

You're right...no longer a sticky. I'm wondering if it is because Alan is making the DVD.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1399457


----------



## dartonpro4000 (Oct 12, 2010)

The official bareshaft tuning thread is in the general archery section


----------



## BTM (Dec 31, 2002)

Another LMAO for gofor's post!

Make sure your bow is fairly well tuned before you start the BS testing. As an archery shop owner told me, "I love it when people bareshaft test because they break a lot of shafts if they don't know what they're doing. Ka-ching for me!"


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

Fury pointed out the real jest of the matter, but then there are some bows that are uncooperative. You may get suggestions of changing cam shims around or changing shims altogether and learning grip pressure.


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Ideal bareshaft tuning would be performed with a shooting machine. Than all the shooter variables are out of the way. Grip, release, follow through, etc.
And, no doubt some bows will be found guilty, for not having a good roll of their cams, harmonic vibration of the string in the shot execution, etc.


----------



## jmann28 (Nov 22, 2010)

Zalmo said:


> Ideal bareshaft tuning would be performed with a shooting machine. Than all the shooter variables are out of the way. Grip, release, follow through, etc.
> And, no doubt some bows will be found guilty, for not having a good roll of their cams, harmonic vibration of the string in the shot execution, etc.


That's about as wrong as it gets

You bareshaft tune the bow to YOUR grip/facial contact/release torque and angle. 

The machine doesn't shoot the bow, so tuning it for one makes literally zero sense


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Actually, the machine shoots the bow, and because of that, any mechanical flaws that interfere with a clean launch of the arrow is than easily observed and addressed.
The only great thing that the bareshaft does for you, is that with no vanes on the arrow, there is no flight correction. The arrow launch is the big thing you want to clean by using bareshaft. 
When you put fifty+ pounds behind that arrow, in less than a hundred of a second, you weaken it's structural integrity, si by the time the arrow sets in motion, it is already bent. This is the so called archers paradox. So that arrow is now in motion, and it is not heading towards the location where you aimed it, it is heading towards a location that was decided by it's weakest structural part, and the direction of the force vector of the string (which sometimes can also be off, if the bow is not truly centershot). Now, you can fiddle with arrow rest, nock position, cams, yoke to get it to shoot where you aim. HOWEVER.
It won't save you from your inconsistent grip, inconsistent cheek pressure you apply, inconsistent release, with all sort of torque situations. IF you think you can remediate these issues with tuning, than I wish you many many years of tuning. I am sure in the process you would have learned how to shoot better, but you will probably attribute your shooting skills to some magic formula of twists in the yoke. Arrow rest position, and magic arrows.
I call this syndrome "bareshaft tuning fever" those so have suffered from it become evangelists of the bareshaft tuning method, because they actively believe that it is the process that transforms the bow from a mechanical shooting device to a prostatic extension meant to correct one's shooting flaws.
I cannot help these borderline attitudes, and I will not intend to do it on this thread.
Happy holidays everyone!
Stay happy!


----------



## BalisticSquirel (Jan 4, 2015)

Lots of interesting input from all. 
Perhaps the mystique involved comes from missing the fact that all of these points are connected.
So may i offer the following framework of understanding for review (compound).
First, it seems that BareShaft tuning is not worth getting into until everything has been thought of, set up, and accounted for. Cam lean; timing; nock travel; tiller; shaft spine, length, orientation; poundage,etc.. And yes, there are ways of determining and setting all of these that don't involve BareShafting. In other words, it's nothing like a cure all or replacement, it's a final fine tuning.
Assuming you're at that point, you then want to fine tune the machine you're using to push arrows (or fine tune the arrows). So you BareShaft 'tune' via a shooting machine like a hooter shooter. 
Knowing that all is well with the non-human components, one can move to shooting the setup in as close a way as possible to the supposed perfect manner of a shooting-machine. (and perhaps this element of teaching you how to shoot is the BS gift to those that have gone through that much setup / tuning, and are willing to be tought by their bow)
There may be some ways in which it is impossible to match a shooting machine, and as part of accommodating for this (for your humanness) you might want to tweak certain parameters according to a further round of BareShaft shooting by hand.
Using BareShafts intermittently thereafter can tell you how well you're keeping up the correct form.

For what it's worth, EVERYTHING i just said is in gofor's original response (#2) in this thread.


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

I like your framework, so I will make the following additions to complete the picture here.
Truly bareshaft tuning worth it's value for properly spined arrows. Which is rarely the case since indoors competitive shooters prefer thicker shafts which more often than so are seriously overspined. So there is no happy middle between all the arrows a competitive shooter uses nowadays.
Now assuming that you use properly spined arrows, and want to bareshaft. Yes, there are 2 considerations: the mechanical ones and the human ones. I believe I explained the mechanical part, well enough in my post above.
As far as the human part: 
I personally do not attempt to get the bow adjusted more for my shooting style, unless there are obvious changes that the shooting machine could not replicate. For instance: grip point on the handle. However if I see torque I do not try to compensate. Again this is personal, I believe that compensating torque is a fools errand. I prefer to spend the time to eliminate torque sources. Work on the barrel of the gun, hand grip in predraw sequence, target panic residual reflexes, etc. also, if it comes from the release and D loop, work on that. Adjust release, or change it, modify D loop.
Rethink face contact. Too much face into the string is not beneficial, it takes off string velocity, it skews the travel route, etc. it is selfish to even think that a mechanical device should be the way you want it, with all you quirks. Do you really think that HOYT or PSE or ELITE engineering team were thinking of YOU when they designed that bow?
They designed a bow that runs at optimal performance, when it is set within the tolerances and it is mechanically sound. That is about all. So that begs the question, how much should you modify the bow configuration out of spec in order to accommodate your shooting style?
And where do you gain most benefits from? Shooting a bow tuned to shoot mechanically sound and adjusting you shooting style for that instrument? Or the other way around?

Food for thought!


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Also, when I look at the statistic data about how many hours (30) per year the average person shoots, it makes you think twice, how much of this time should you put into tweaking, and how much into shooting discipline?
http://www.archerytrade.org/uploads/documents/ATA_Participation_2013_Report_FINAL.pdf


----------



## BalisticSquirel (Jan 4, 2015)

Zalmo, 
I don't think that anyone even contemplating BareShafting is the average shooter. And i don't trust statistics and reports.  Especially questionaire based ones. Was that report generated from a survey?
I am totally the type of archer i think you'd like to see us all be. It's why i choose compound. I love the idea of a technical machine that i can have a lot of influence on the workings of. The challenge of getting that all right before you even think about yourself and shooting. And then the lovely challenge of learning how to adapt oneself to use that perfect tool can begin. But i also like to let individuals choose how they're going to input their time and energy. (Maybe because i'm just starting, so i can't know for sure that this path of mine even works out at the end.)


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Well, please read the detailed report. That magic number 30 is of target shooters and hunters. Which is the most active group in archery. The real average was that of 5-7 days / year. And that is your average guy that doesn't own a bow (most likely) goes to the local club to shoot once in a while because he is paying subscription.
I did not wanted to procure that number on this forum 
However, those 30 days were averaged on a population of almost 13 million archers, so it may not be representative for the people on archery talk at all, since this is more of a group of highly active archers. If everyone shoots as often as they post, than this group is out of the statistic matrix I quoted above hehehe. 
On the other hand when it comes to equipment, I share the same values as you. You need to trust the equipment, and for that you need to get it tuned right.
Compound gives you the opportunity to mechanically fit certain aspects of personal preference and physiological design. Which makes it more appealing, and renders better shooting results or, to put it differently immediate gratification for the user.
Unfortunately it is exactly this effect of immediate gratification for which there's a large majority of archers that are in a lifelong pursuit of "perfecting" the bow setup. And further more, a subculture has risen from this activity. When I encounter those ideologies I choose to be frank and honest and call it for what it is.


----------



## eagleman55 (Sep 9, 2005)

only bare shaft tune your arrows and bow if you care where your arrow lands. if not, do not worry about tuning. In archery, the bow is setup to fit you and your style. After the bow is setup, then you tune the arrow to coincide with both how you shoot and the setup on the bow. Someone else cannot either tune your bow or bare shaft your arrows for you. The vanes or feathers on an arrow are used to stabilize the arrow after it is shot. By bare shaft tuning the arrow, you can see what the arrow is doing without the vanes or feathers to correct it. The closer you can get to make a bare shaft arrow to fly to where the vaned arrows are, the more user friendly it is because the vanes and feathers do not have to work as hard to correct the arrow. 
when you bare shaft an arrow, you are first checking to see if the arrow is the right spine or not. that is relatively easy. take a full length bare shaft arrow that you are thinking about, backup about 12 to15 yards and shoot it straight at a target. watch the arrow fly. If the arrow goes straight for a while and then takes a turn to the right, it is considered to be weak . (this description is for a right handed shooter. if you are a left handed shooter, the results are opposite for stiff and weak.)If it goes straight and then turns to the left, it is considered stiff. it is much easier to tune a weak arrow then a stiff arrow. If the arrow is weak, cut off about 1/4 inch off the rear of the arrow and shoot again. keep doing that until the arrow goes straight to the target without turning. Then back up to 20 yards and repeat. after that you can go to 25 and 30 yards. Olympic shooters bare shaft out to 60 yards. To fine tune an arrow from weak to stiff you can do several things: lower the poundage on your bow; lighten the head weight on the arrow; or shorten the arrow. To fine tune your arrow from stiff to weak you can: lengthen the arrow(hard to do); increase the head weight; or increase the poundage on your bow. It is much easier to go from weak to stiff. Let me clarify something. When you bare shaft an arrow, you are not changing the spine of the arrow but you are changing how the arrow behaves in regard to its original spine. Once you have the bare shaft relatively close to shooting straight, feather or vane three arrows and leave three arrows bare shaft. Go back to 15 yards and shoot all the arrows at the same spot. if you know you fired a poor arrow, do not use its results to determine anything. What you are looking for is that the bare shafts and the vaned arrows strike relatively close on the horizontal line. You will also look to see if the bare shaft arrows are on the same vertical line. If the bare shafts do not hit the same vertical line as the vaned arrows, your nocking point on the string is either too high or too low. If the bs arrows hit above the vaned arrows, you nocking point is too low. if they hit low, your nocking point is too high. adjust the nocking point in very small amounts, like a 1/16 inch at a time. keep adjusting until both sets of arrows hit the same vertical spot. then you can finish the horizontal adjusting using the above methods listed. when finished you should be able to place both sets of arrows within a 3 inch circle of each other out to 25 yards. that will make your arrows adjusted to be user friendly to you. for all the testing, you must be the shooter, not someone else or using a hooter shooter. after you are satisfied with the arrow flight, take and measure your brace height, tiller measurements, bow poundage, nocking height on the string, length of the arrow, vanes or feathers, total weight of the finished arrow and arrow head weight. that makes it easier to return there should something happen to your bow or you need to change your string. . write all of your measurements down and keep it somewhere safe. 

if you have any questions, write back. I bare shaft every bow and arrow setup I shoot. a good bare shaft arrow /bow combination will also make it much easier for a broadhead arrow hit the same spot as a field tip arrow.

Doug


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

You can also use a 21 century method to tune your arrow, with a computer and software. Save yourself some money and time in the process. If you use Software for Archers, you can tune your bow and arrows. Learn exactly the ballistic flight pattern at each distance you want to shoot. It calculates the arrows spine, in conjunction with arrow tips, vanes, bushing pins, arrow wraps, and all the other things forgotten to be mentioned that can make your arrow stiff, other than putting lighter tips, or cutting from it.
On top of that you save yourself some time spent crafting arrows. 
Now, you still might have to make some adjustments on the bow. Arrow rest, nock, yoke, etc.
But more than half the mystery is gone. If you shoot through a chronograph, and ensure that the speed is in range with the speed for which you built your arrows in the software, they will fly true, bareshaft or vanes on.


----------



## BalisticSquirel (Jan 4, 2015)

Doug, I want to thank you for that detailed description. I'm new to everything archery and i think that, like woodworking or any other skill being developed, one should go about it the long way at least once to learn and appreciate everything that's going on when you might later take the technologically assisted shortcut. So i'm going to be paying close heed to your instructions, not only because i don't have a chronograph and can't afford archery software.


----------



## Cris Anderson (Oct 22, 2014)

Zalmo said:


> Well, please read the detailed report. That magic number 30 is of target shooters and hunters. Which is the most active group in archery. The real average was that of 5-7 days / year. And that is your average guy that doesn't own a bow (most likely) goes to the local club to shoot once in a while because he is paying subscription.
> I did not wanted to procure that number on this forum
> However, those 30 days were averaged on a population of almost 13 million archers, so it may not be representative for the people on archery talk at all, since this is more of a group of highly active archers. If everyone shoots as often as they post, than this group is out of the statistic matrix I quoted above hehehe.
> On the other hand when it comes to equipment, I share the same values as you. You need to trust the equipment, and for that you need to get it tuned right.
> ...


I like this. Very well said.

I've been building racing engines and cars all of my life...as well as driving the end result...and to be honest, I'm finding that archery is very much the same. I will ABSOLUTELY tune the car to the best performance. However...the best performance may or may not be to factory specifications for the given part being tuned. The fact that a HUMAN interface is necessary for the car to even move...will always impact that!! For example...I have a friend who races an 8 second 5.0 Mustang. They tune the suspension to steer slightly right, because he naturally holds the wheel in such a way that the car would steer left otherwise. He's been driving nearly 30 years, and finds it better to adjust the car to him, than to try to adjust his driving style to a way that doesn't naturally fit him. There's a million other examples like him out there...because in the end, these are just a mechanical device designed to produce a desired result when utilized by a human being. No different than a race car, a cordless drill, a door, or a ladder. If your door is too heavy, or closes too quickly for you...you'll adjust it until it suits you. If a drill doesn't fit your hand (and you use it for your livelihood), you'll buy one that does.

A bow is exactly the same.



Zalmo said:


> You can also use a 21 century method to tune your arrow, with a computer and software. Save yourself some money and time in the process. If you use Software for Archers, you can tune your bow and arrows. Learn exactly the ballistic flight pattern at each distance you want to shoot. It calculates the arrows spine, in conjunction with arrow tips, vanes, bushing pins, arrow wraps, and all the other things forgotten to be mentioned that can make your arrow stiff, other than putting lighter tips, or cutting from it.
> On top of that you save yourself some time spent crafting arrows.
> Now, you still might have to make some adjustments on the bow. Arrow rest, nock, yoke, etc.
> But more than half the mystery is gone. If you shoot through a chronograph, and ensure that the speed is in range with the speed for which you built your arrows in the software, they will fly true, bareshaft or vanes on.


Arrow tuning, and bow tuning are completely totally different things. I used OnTarget2 to help me design my arrows...both target and hunting. It did a wonderful job of getting me in the speed range I wanted, with the FoC% and dynamic stiffness I desired. 

This did absolutely nothing to help me tune my bow.

Out of the six arrows I built Friday...I left 2 bare shafts for a reason.


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Well Chris, you are right on both comments and I will take then one by one.
High performance may not be within factory specs. For instance, I found myself exchanging cam nylon washers with PTFE ones to get less friction and the tolerances desired, in order to get the bow center-shot for instance. Yet still I always look at the bow and ask myself how can I optimize it to mechanically perform better. Not how Can I optimize the bow to fit my quirky impulses of bad execution better 

Now on the second topic. I do not exclude the need to tune the bow even after you get a proper arrow. That is Why I give bareshaft tuning it's rightful degree of respect. However, wouldn't you agree that is is so much more faster and economic to use a software to get a proper arrow solution, and to know how much to crank up the bow poundage poundage for that arrow, instead of messing up with all 3 variables in the bateshaft process (arrow, bow hardware, poundage level)?
My process is a bit faster, because after I establish that I have the right arrow, software wise, and I build it to specs. I crank up or drop the bow speed to match the arrow spec. Now it is spined and flying correctly that arrow. Now I get a bareshafted one (same arrow from same stack but without vanes). And tune the bow accordingly. Literally I only have to work with nock location, arrow rest, and yoke to fix most split limb bows from here on. Now all rules apply about where they hit on the target, angle of arrow in the target etc. if I want to go frenzy I even do a nock rotation, to get perfect consistency from those arrows. In this case I shoot the entire stack I build bareshaft, and place the vanes afterwards.
But here are the realities of bareshaft that were omitted and I am adamant to bring them back in discussion.
A bareshaft that hits dead center, at any distance you want, does not guarantee a vaned arrow to hit the same mark. And here's why. Vanes gives the arrow flight correction, and in doing so, it produces drag on the back of the arrow and flight. Consequently this puts less force and tension into the structural integrity of the shaft, and the end effect is that the arrow is slightly stiffer when wanes are on.
Also another thing omitted by most, is placing tape in the vanes location, to ensure that your bareshaft keeps the same FOC as the fletched one.
That is why, at one point you realize that you solved 75% of the puzzle right of the bat with having the right arrow and shooting it at the right poundage. Than you solved 15% of mechanical tuning yoke for limbs and cams, arrow rest, nocking point. Than you have 10 % margin of error left with because, you cannot make a bareshaft that is as stiff as a fletched arrow, and as balanced as one as well. Unless you can show me a formula that determines the level of stiffness in flight dependent of vane drag.
So that is why I am such a reserved person when it comes to bareshaft tuning. Personally, I repeat myself by saying:
I tune for performance not for my incompetence.
I understand that I will reach a threshold of technical evaluation beyond which the bow-arrow configuration will remain untuned for.
I take it as a positive motivation, that tasks me to ensure that my technique is good and can compensate for that.


----------



## Cris Anderson (Oct 22, 2014)

Zalmo said:


> Well Chris, you are right on both comments and I will take then one by one.
> High performance may not be within factory specs. For instance, I found myself exchanging cam nylon washers with PTFE ones to get less friction and the tolerances desired, in order to get the bow center-shot for instance. Yet still I always look at the bow and ask myself how can I optimize it to mechanically perform better. Not how Can I optimize the bow to fit my quirky impulses of bad execution better


I would agree completely. Other than the fact that we're talking about bare shaft tuning to get fletched and bare shafts to fly the same, not to correct for bad form. If you have bad form, you're not going to get bare shafts to even fly with each other. I had this problem today as a matter of fact. I went to the gym this morning and worked shoulders/upper body (including 5 sets of 5 105lb one arm cable rows to strengthen my draw muscles...lol). Then, when I got to the shop before it opened, I was asked to help rotate the stupidly heavy target bales. By the time I got to shoot my bow...I couldn't hold my float lol...much less group fletched OR bare shaft arrows. In addition, I switched release types...and everything is off because of that still as well. So...as has been said...bare shaft tuning is only applicable if your form/execution are already reasonably respectable. For me, today...it would have been hopeless.



Zalmo said:


> Now on the second topic. I do not exclude the need to tune the bow even after you get a proper arrow. That is Why I give bareshaft tuning it's rightful degree of respect. However, wouldn't you agree that is is so much more faster and economic to use a software to get a proper arrow solution, and to know how much to crank up the bow poundage poundage for that arrow, instead of messing up with all 3 variables in the bateshaft process (arrow, bow hardware, poundage level)?
> My process is a bit faster, because after I establish that I have the right arrow, software wise, and I build it to specs. I crank up or drop the bow speed to match the arrow spec. Now it is spined and flying correctly that arrow. Now I get a bareshafted one (same arrow from same stack but without vanes). And tune the bow accordingly. Literally I only have to work with nock location, arrow rest, and yoke to fix most split limb bows from here on. Now all rules apply about where they hit on the target, angle of arrow in the target etc. if I want to go frenzy I even do a nock rotation, to get perfect consistency from those arrows. In this case I shoot the entire stack I build bareshaft, and place the vanes afterwards.


I must have missed the part where you agreed with bareshaft tuning (or mixed it up with someone else's post!). The post I quoted of yours was mostly about arrow design...which isn't really relevant to bareshaft tuning...other than that you do need a properly stiff arrow to perform it. You also said that if you build your arrows via software, then shoot through a chronograph to verify speeds...you'll get true arrow flight. That's where I disagreed. A properly spined arrow allows for the ability to tune for proper arrow flight...but the weight/speed and/or stiffness of the arrow in no way guarantees it, which is what your post implied. That is what made me comment on your post in the first place. I know you mentiond still having to adjust your bow, but that felt completely at odds with what you said before and after that sentence.

For the record, I agree with designing your arrows with software. I already said above I did mine that way exactly. The difference is I know what poundage I want to shoot (60lbs max for indoor, and 70lbs for hunting), and designed my arrows with that in mind. From there, everything you said was accurate other than the implication that properly spined arrows that shoot at a given speed will somehow create proper arrow flight.



Zalmo said:


> But here are the realities of bareshaft that were omitted and I am adamant to bring them back in discussion.
> A bareshaft that hits dead center, at any distance you want, does not guarantee a vaned arrow to hit the same mark. And here's why. Vanes gives the arrow flight correction, and in doing so, it produces drag on the back of the arrow and flight. Consequently this puts less force and tension into the structural integrity of the shaft, and the end effect is that the arrow is slightly stiffer when wanes are on.
> Also another thing omitted by most, is placing tape in the vanes location, to ensure that your bareshaft keeps the same FOC as the fletched one.
> That is why, at one point you realize that you solved 75% of the puzzle right of the bat with having the right arrow and shooting it at the right poundage. Than you solved 15% of mechanical tuning yoke for limbs and cams, arrow rest, nocking point. Than you have 10 % margin of error left with because, you cannot make a bareshaft that is as stiff as a fletched arrow, and as balanced as one as well. Unless you can show me a formula that determines the level of stiffness in flight dependent of vane drag.


I think your percentages are a bit off. A 2% change in FoC in no way equates to a 10% difference in arrow impact point, if it causes any difference at all. Today in the shop I dropped a guy's draw length by a full 3/4" between modules and string adjustments...and the difference in his point of impact with the same arrows at 20yds wasn't measurable. If you figure 2% FoC would have a larger impact than 3/4" in draw length...I'm not sure how to reply. Either way...it's a simple thing to add weight to the nock to in order to compensate...if you feel it's that big a deal. For myself and my bare shafts...a small amount of mild steel rod glued into the nock made up the difference.

The second problem I see here...is that the only way steering (and thus...vanes!!) will really be necessary, is if the tune is incorrect...or the arrow spine is incorrect. We've eliminated arrow spine as an issue with properly designed and built arrows...and we're using bareshafts to tune to eliminate steering as a necessity. Added to that...again...is the fact that if FoC% has only the smallest impact on PoI...how much smaller would the impact of any inadvertent steering be on dynamic stiffness? I would think FoC and any steering induced stiffness would equate to well under 1% difference even in theory. In practice...I don't believe it would be measurable.



Zalmo said:


> So that is why I am such a reserved person when it comes to bareshaft tuning. Personally, I repeat myself by saying:
> I tune for performance not for my incompetence.
> I understand that I will reach a threshold of technical evaluation beyond which the bow-arrow configuration will remain untuned for.
> I take it as a positive motivation, that tasks me to ensure that my technique is good and can compensate for that.


Honestly...in the end...if your methods work for you...and if they push you to strive to improve your form and technique...then they are 100% correct! 

For you .


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

I reinforce the statement that bareshaft has it's role so that there is no confusion.
I mixed arrow design with bareshaft tuning in reply to doug's post. He is using observational feedback in order to determine spine on a bareshaft, and mentioned ways to fix is. That is what I meant by a 3 variables situation. He also mentioned the importance of draw poundage and it's effect on spine.
I will mention 2 topics from your post that interest me:
1. The reason for which I verify arrow speed after I build it according to computer solution is because theoretic bow efficiency is determined by poundage and IBO speed. That is not my true bow efficiency anymore. Not after I have changed cable slider and bow strings with other than manufacturers type. 
So I might need an extra pound or a pound less in draw weight to get the speed I designed them for. 
Now why is that important before I start bareshaft-ing? ))
Short version: because draw weight weakens or stiffens the shaft. So I want it to be right before I start judging the flight of those bareshafts.
Long version:
Because if you throw a projectile with a specific initial speed, the earth's gravity will attempt to pull it towards it. Now this is in sync with Newton's law,. And I might add that the larger the mass the faster it is going to be pulled towards earth. The projectile is the arrow, and the mass is the total weight of the arrow in grain. Also speed is resolved by applying force from the string in the arrow. That force is measured as draw weight. So I match draw weight accordingly, to match the designed speed of that arrow the one I simulated the ballistic flight in the software. It is only at that speed that the software knows it's spine value.
However. Ballistic flight is not true flight. And this is where I wanted to correct the confusion you have been subjected to by my post.
Now that I established draw weight, and matched speed, I expect that the spine stiffness is true with the software evaluation. It is most of the times.
As I mentioned before, the discrepancy is due to bow efficiency. I will define bow efficiency as: how much force (draw weight measured in pounds) is absorbed by the bow's mechanical system, and not translated into arrow speed.
Again, this ensures arrow spine, and that issue is not questioned in the bareshaft tuning anymore. As it was an issue in Doug's method of tuning. THIS is the reason for which I mentioned computer building the arrow and it's importance in bareshaft tuning.

Now second topic 
I shouldn't have used FOC, because it confuses people.
You speculated a 2% change in FOC. but this of course depends on the arrow components you use. How much the vanes, weigh in total, and how many you use, 3 or 4. Sadly, the vanes, depending on their size vary in weight a lot. Yet the arrow shaft is merely a fulcrum system when you determine the center of gravity of an arrow. So you always place the weight of the arrow tip against the assembly - vanes, bushing pin, nock, arrow wrap.
Now I couldn't quite understand how shortening draw length affects front of center in your experiment.
I can only say the following:
I have explained the ballistic flight above.
The center of gravity (the point where the arrow balances) is the point of most gravitational pull to earth. That is the pilot of your arrow, and establishes it's POSTURE in flight.
If you overlook the posture of your arrow in flight, how would you expect for it to land in the same position in your target every time. And if you overlook that, how would you know to make adjustments to your nocking point or arrow rest?
Again I shouldn't have used FOC, because of the way it is calculated. I should have referred instead to the center of gravity.


----------



## Cris Anderson (Oct 22, 2014)

Zalmo said:


> I reinforce the statement that bareshaft has it's role so that there is no confusion.
> I mixed arrow design with bareshaft tuning in reply to doug's post. He is using observational feedback in order to determine spine on a bareshaft, and mentioned ways to fix is. That is what I meant by a 3 variables situation. He also mentioned the importance of draw poundage and it's effect on spine.
> I will mention 2 topics from your post that interest me:
> 1. The reason for which I verify arrow speed after I build it according to computer solution is because theoretic bow efficiency is determined by poundage and IBO speed. That is not my true bow efficiency anymore. Not after I have changed cable slider and bow strings with other than manufacturers type.
> ...


Gotcha! I think we're more in agreement than it initially appeared. Your post was more in direct response to Doug's, rather than in response to the thread in its entirety. That makes a lot more sense...as I disagreed with much of what Doug posted as well. Unless you're doing a teeter totter with the spine being on the flexible side...left and right impacts of a bare shaft are more likely the result of release arm orientation. I tested this directly today myself. Draw the bow, swing your release elbow back behind your head...release...and bam, bare shaft hits right. Draw the bow, cock your release elbow away from your body...release...and bam, bare shaft hits left. My arrows are technically quite over stiff...but as long as my center shot was right, and my release elbow was in a direct line from my arrow rest through my release wrist...my bare shafts hit dead center. I feel that weak spine could be tested for with his method...but going reasonably stiff spine on a compound isn't a problem in my limited experience. I'm shooting a 352 IBO bow at 62lbs and 27" draw...with 25.25" carbon to carbon (26.5" or so nock throat to end of outsert) 350 spine 370 grain VAP arrows at 19%FOC. My fletched arrows have 3 AAE pro max vanes (sort of like a micro Blazer I believe). OnTarget2 shows that optimal spine would be .395-.378 (target-hunting recommendations). By Doug's logic...my bare shafts should be hitting left...or at least nock right on the bale. That simply isn't the case. I even put a lighted nock on one and had a friend watch the tracer effect. The flight was perfect from the side (his perspective) as well as perfect from the rear (my perspective). Impact into the bale is dead square at both 5yds, as well as 20yds. The centershot is dead on, and tomorrow I'll fine tune the cam sync to get my POI even with my fletched arrows. Once I've done that...I'll have zero fear of using those little vanes to steer my 1 1/8" cut 2 3/4" long broadheads as well.

Here's a picture of my arrows:










And a closer look at the vanes:










My comment about draw length was to say that losing .75" of draw length would have a larger effect on point of impact than 2% FoC, or even a similar percentage shift in center of gravity. You seemed to be saying that a very small change in the FoC (or center of gravity rather...I look at them similarly by the way, so I understood what you meant. You can't calculate one without first determining the other) would have a big enough impact on flight and point of impact to be worthy of concern. I was saying that I don't think that's the case...as losing .75" of draw length would seem to have a greater impact theoretically, and yet in reality it simply doesn't. Tomorrow I'll switch nocks on one of my bare shafts to an unmodified stock weight nock, and see if the resulting point of impact is any different than the bare shaft with the modified nock. I have a feeling that 14.1g (I just weighed three of my vanes lol) of weight on the tail of the arrow isn't going to make much difference at all.

Anyhow, like I said...I think we agree on more than we disagree on...but it's nice to have an amicable discussion with someone who has a differing opinion. That's not very common around this site!


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Haha  tou are right, I knew we were in agreement on a lot of points. And I understood, the confusion, since I tried to keep a flow in my writing basing my statements of the last post, all the time, instead to simply write my opinion on the main topic. I apologise for the confusion. I shot 28 1/2 Draw length and I dropped it to 27 1/2 for some time now, with no real impact on my arrow flight. I think draw length is more of an Ego manhood type psychology than anything. There is little impact from draw length on arrow flight.
Also. About center of gravity, I would rather say that it depends on the application. Right now I am shooting some eaton X27 at 610 grains with 210 grain points. I can tell that it matters at such slow speeds, especially on a FITA target at 20 yds. So when shooting slow and heavy, yes. When shooting fast and skinny, as it is in your application, it does not. Also I identified that the issue is simply determined by the fact that the arrows position in flight at the time it encounters the target is affected by the center of gravity location, rather than anything. And that, at 20 yds, indoor can be the difference between cutting the line or not. 
However, I urge you to weigh an entire bag of AAE Pro vanes, and see if they all weigh the same  i can tell you that it isn't a +- 0.005 grain difference. Or at least it wasn't with my batch. And the situation only worsens when you weigh bigger vanes. This particular product inconsistency made me more aware of the center of gravity distribution among my arrow sets than anything. 
I think it has something to do with the density of material, in those rubber materials that they make the vanes out of.


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Btw. If you are shooting VAP 350 at 62 pounds, I would recommend a bushing pin. Victory came out with this product last year. What I noticed on my VAP 310 is that the shaft started to crack on the nock side after repeated shooting.


----------



## Cris Anderson (Oct 22, 2014)

Zalmo said:


> Haha  tou are right, I knew we were in agreement on a lot of points. And I understood, the confusion, since I tried to keep a flow in my writing basing my statements of the last post, all the time, instead to simply write my opinion on the main topic. I apologise for the confusion. I shot 28 1/2 Draw length and I dropped it to 27 1/2 for some time now, with no real impact on my arrow flight. I think draw length is more of an Ego manhood type psychology than anything. There is little impact from draw length on arrow flight.
> Also. About center of gravity, I would rather say that it depends on the application. Right now I am shooting some eaton X27 at 610 grains with 210 grain points. I can tell that it matters at such slow speeds, especially on a FITA target at 20 yds. So when shooting slow and heavy, yes. When shooting fast and skinny, as it is in your application, it does not. Also I identified that the issue is simply determined by the fact that the arrows position in flight at the time it encounters the target is affected by the center of gravity location, rather than anything. And that, at 20 yds, indoor can be the difference between cutting the line or not.
> However, I urge you to weigh an entire bag of AAE Pro vanes, and see if they all weigh the same  i can tell you that it isn't a +- 0.005 grain difference. Or at least it wasn't with my batch. And the situation only worsens when you weigh bigger vanes. This particular product inconsistency made me more aware of the center of gravity distribution among my arrow sets than anything.
> I think it has something to do with the density of material, in those rubber materials that they make the vanes out of.


That does make sense...but since it's something I haven't experimented with myself...I can't really comment much on it.

On the whole bareshaft tuning subject...i'll share the post I made today on my own thread in the Xpedition forum.



Cris Anderson said:


> As for what I was able to get done today....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My fletched groups are VERY tight now...as expected. So, getting the draw length right...accomplished by shooting groups with fletched and bareshaft arrows at a cross of masking tape from 20yds to fine tune my rear elbow position, then continuing with bareshafts to fine tune my arrow rest and cables...made a huge difference. Like...night and day. I'm going to shoot it through paper tomorrow morning just out of curiosity....but I trust bareshaft groups like that a whole lot more than I trust my form to give me 5yd bullet holes lol.


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Looks like you're on the right path. I am curious if you shoot bullet holes tomorrow with paper tune. You have to trust your form. Start shooting through paper after you get a few warmup shots first. You can even bareshaft at 20 yds, again as a control than setup for papertune and shoot through paper.


----------



## Cris Anderson (Oct 22, 2014)

Zalmo said:


> Looks like you're on the right path. I am curious if you shoot bullet holes tomorrow with paper tune. You have to trust your form. Start shooting through paper after you get a few warmup shots first. You can even bareshaft at 20 yds, again as a control than setup for papertune and shoot through paper.


I'll try it out first thing tomorrow. I'm genuinely curious how it works out lol.


----------



## mdewitt71 (Jul 20, 2005)

I paper tuned and walk back tuned over the last 15 years but, never bare shaft tuned till this week. 
I read every post from Nuts&Bolts and went to town on my Genetix bow shooting way stiff arrows cause I am a cheap skate and trying to use the same arrow on all my bows. 
Here is what I first shot at 10 yards with my Genetix @ 60lbs with a .350 spine arrow and bareshaft:









after some tuning and listening to Nuts&Bolts comments and tips, I shot this @ 20 yards:








That's a BLazer vane arrow, FOB'd arrow, and bareshaft that busted thru my nock and split my arrow. 
I'll call it a FOBn Hood..... not bad for a guy who hasnt shot for 2 years and just got back into it last month.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

and that's how it's done...

congrats on you're "new" tuning method....very well done.


----------



## mdewitt71 (Jul 20, 2005)

Fury90flier said:


> and that's how it's done...
> 
> congrats on you're "new" tuning method....very well done.


Thanks.... I was pumped and immediately went thru my others bows. 
My New Breed Eclipse, was spot on.... no adjustments needed, I stacked all arrows and shafts from the get go... that was cool. 
I will definitely use this tuning method more often.


----------



## Cris Anderson (Oct 22, 2014)

Zalmo said:


> Looks like you're on the right path. I am curious if you shoot bullet holes tomorrow with paper tune. You have to trust your form. Start shooting through paper after you get a few warmup shots first. You can even bareshaft at 20 yds, again as a control than setup for papertune and shoot through paper.


Sorry for the delay! Last week was pretty hectic, and I actually just got a chance to setup the paper target today!!

I've put a few hundred arrows down range over the time since I tuned the bow...so the first thing after shooting my two vegas rounds today, I tried a bare and fletched to verify things were where they were supposed to be. My first two arrows had an inch gap between them, second pair were touching. I figured things were still plenty good to try the paper shots.

First the setup:









Total spread between me and the bale was 5yds. The paper was about 3' in front of the bale. The bow was of course about 2.5' in front of the line...leaving about 3yds from the tip of the arrow to the paper. I fired one fletched shaft, and one bare.









The results. I'm more than happy with this...though I should have made a few more bare shaft attempts to see if the very slight tear would clear up with improved form. I honestly figure it would, as my previous 20yd bare shaft shots showed some variance from shot to shot.

Anyhow, there it is. As an interesting side note...I grabbed the owner and brought her back to take a look at them with me. Her immediate response was 'That's perfect!! Did someone paper tune it with you while i was at ATA last week??'. I told her that the bow hadn't been paper tuned, and I went through the process of bare shaft tuning I used to set the bow up (as I described here previously). I showed her the pictures and told her the process I used...and she seemed very interested. She made the comment that in these parts mostly only recurve people bare shaft tune...to verify arrow spine. I told her my arrows were 350 spine, and 25.125" carbon to carbon lol, being shot out of a 27" draw, 62lb Xcentric (read...very stiff). She was quite surprised that I managed what amounts to perfect tears with nothing but sight and rest adjustments...along with one twist of the control cable. Apparently it's pretty much unknown around here...when a compound bow is tuned, it's paper tuned.

So there it is. As time goes by I'm going to go ahead and bare shaft tune my daughters Infinite Edge...just to see if the bareshaft tune to paper results are repeatable. All in all it was pretty cool to see direct results like this.


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Really nice! And I like you aproach of self discipline combined with tuning. I decided to blank bail for a week, and I was unpleasently surprized by my lack of discipline in form. It is so easy to aim and shoot small with compound, but once you take the visual away, you realize body control goes back to intermediate shooter level.
The reason I am mentioning thos here, is because I believe that when you are in front of the paper rig for papertuning, you pretty much shoot in blank bail mode. 
It looks like that is rather the case of your bareshaft, rather than anything tunable at this point.

Moreso, recurvers tune for spine, beecause they have little fine control over draw poundage. Vs compounders can fix that with a turn of a key. So it is tricky bussiness for them. However, as I said before, bareshafting your compound have it's benefits as well, and as you said, it's not so complex either.


----------



## Cris Anderson (Oct 22, 2014)

Zalmo said:


> Really nice! And I like you aproach of self discipline combined with tuning. I decided to blank bail for a week, and I was unpleasently surprized by my lack of discipline in form. It is so easy to aim and shoot small with compound, but once you take the visual away, you realize body control goes back to intermediate shooter level.
> The reason I am mentioning thos here, is because I believe that when you are in front of the paper rig for papertuning, you pretty much shoot in blank bail mode.
> It looks like that is rather the case of your bareshaft, rather than anything tunable at this point.
> 
> Moreso, recurvers tune for spine, beecause they have little fine control over draw poundage. Vs compounders can fix that with a turn of a key. So it is tricky bussiness for them. However, as I said before, bareshafting your compound have it's benefits as well, and as you said, it's not so complex either.


I agree completely. With bare shafts...everything is critical to a clean shot, and with such a small tear...I absolutely believe it was more likely me than the bow. Actually, looking closely at the picture...and where the 'split' from the initial impact is...I'm not even sure how that tear was made, other than oscillations from the energy transfer into the arrow on the shot. There are two small cross marks in the very center of the hole. Those tell me the point went through centered on the slightly diagonal tear. My shop owner said that that's as good as some bare shafts get. Either way though...it's either the arrow oscillating, or me. I seriously doubt it was the bow .

On the spine thing...I'm finding I'd rather be high...for a margin of error, and the possibility of turning them into hunting arrows if I like. They seem to tune and shoot just fine, and being a perfect spine leaves zero room for any options other than what they were built for.


----------



## Zalmo (Oct 6, 2014)

Yes, don't get too caught up in spine values.
Ultimately, it ends up depending heavilly on the application. There are arrow gages for which spine is always stiff, and there is nothing else to do other than tune for it a little and shoot really really clean.


----------



## Dr. Perk (Jun 21, 2012)

tagged


----------

