# Easton ACC shaft Diameter for Bohning HD wraps?



## zephus (Apr 28, 2012)

So I've been looking for the diameter of ACC shafts, but I could not find any stat regarding the diameter of these shafts. I'm asking as I'm choosing to use Bohning HD wraps for these new shafts and I am not sure whether to buy small or extra small wraps for these. I'm planning on getting the 3-28 shaft. Any help would be appreciated


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

3-28/500

3 is the amount of carbon wraps
28 is the diameter
500 is the spine size.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

You'll do well to go to the auto parts store and purchase a digital caliper. This way you won't have to wait for an answer that you can get on your own.

somewhere there is a thread that has a spreadsheet showing different shaft dimensions...think Dchan did it (not sure). I've tried looking but can't find it...maybe someone else can post a link


----------



## hdracer (Aug 8, 2007)

According to OT2 Easton ACC 3-28 arrows have an OD of .255".


----------



## JTRocket (Mar 18, 2015)

* 3.14=.80 circumference 



hdracer said:


> According to OT2 Easton ACC 3-28 arrows have an OD of .255".


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

DarrenHJA said:


> 28 is the diameter


Not sure where you got that info. Would be cool to have arrows that have mass but no diameter!

2-00?

DC


----------



## hdracer (Aug 8, 2007)

If the -28 in "3-28" were the OD, the OD of a 3-60 and 3-71 shafts would be huge vs the .287" and .298" that they actually are.

Imagine shooting a .710" OD arrow...


----------



## DarrenHJA (Dec 27, 2014)

dchan said:


> Not sure where you got that info. Would be cool to have arrows that have mass but no diameter!
> 
> 2-00?
> 
> DC


Ok I take back what I said. Haha


----------



## zephus (Apr 28, 2012)

The thing is that I don't own these arrows yet so I haven't had the liberty of using a caliper on them. But thank you all for the help.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

PM me...I shoot the same arrows...go the digital caliper to show diameter.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 23, 2004)

3-28

3 =number of carbon wraps
28 = either either the ID or OD (can't remember) of the aluminum tube added to 0.200 So 0.200 + 0.028 is 0.228

If you need the circumference for wraps, the Shaft Selector Xpert (SSX) software will do that calculation for you given the shaft OD.

Formula to do yourself: circumference = 2 x 3.14 x radius


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I have 18,28,39 and have measured them.
3-18 is 0.245
3-28 is 0.255
3-39 is 0.265

I have 3-04 and 3L-18 but have not measured OD but do know that the ID of the 3-04is 0.187, the same as Med XR shafts.

I have never had any 49, 60, or 71 but might expect the 3-49 to be about 0.275 since someone already stated the 3-60 is 0.287 and the 3-71 is 0.298.

When trying to find the OD or ID of various shafts that you do not have any of, the Beiter nock data sheets can be helpful.

PSI, the 28 has no connection to the OD but it does relate to ID is some unknown Easton way. Easton may have stated something when ACC shafts were first introduced. I still think the designation has something to do with the core tube.

The IDs that I know are listed here.
-00 = 0.166 same as ACE, ACG, C1
-04 = 0.187 same as CE Med XR (not sizes smaller than 1100)
-18 = 0.199
-28 = 0.209
-60 = 0.243 same as Carbon Tech


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> 3-28
> 
> 3 =number of carbon wraps
> 28 = either either the ID or OD (can't remember) of the aluminum tube added to 0.200 So 0.200 + 0.028 is 0.228
> ...


I'm curious if you have a reference for this..

I understand the -xx number (according to the Easton website) is the designation of the "core" tube but it does not really relate to a specific number anywhere I can find.

By using your numbers and logic, 3-00 should be a core diameter of 0.200. If the this is the OD of the core then that would mean to get a number of .166 ID the wall thickness would be .0175. Seems pretty thick for that small of a shaft.. If you relate that to an alloy arrow it would be like having a 1318 shaft.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

there is a thread in the FITA section that has a list of shaft OD and ID...do you know where it is? I've looked and can't find it.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

There was this by Sean.Magnusen

and while I'm not sure all of his sources, He did a lot of research to build this chart.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...wDmiVIt5ForE3otc400PyCY3Y/edit#gid=1808828504


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Why don't you take a piece of tape, wrap it around the shaft at a slight angle, make a mark that crosses 2 layers of the tape, unwrap it and measure the distance between the marks?


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

Thanks David, that is exactly what I was looking for


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

OK, I believe the -xx designation is the second and third digits of the core tube OD. Except for the -oo, they could not have realistically called it a designation of --82 whereas a 3-00 would have been 3--82, so they just made a base of 00.

I had confused myself by using OD of point shanks for shaft ID or using advertised ID like .187 for the MedXR which fits the 3-04 ACC and the universal recognized ID of the -60 which had been set forth by CT. Apparently the -60 shafts are really 0.244 which makes sense because CE components advertised at 0.244 will fit but Easton and GT components at 0.046 do not. We all know that -60 and LS components are not interchangeable. For the 3-18 and 3-28 I had measured the point shanks instead of the shaft ID, which are slightly larger.

ACC core tubes have always had a 0.008 wall.

-60 ID of 0.244 + 0.016 = 0.260 therefore 60
-04 ID of 0.288 + 0.016 = 0.204 04
-18 ID of 0.202 + 0.016 = 0.218 18
-28 ID of 0.212 + 0.016 = 0.228 28

The 3-39 should be 0.239; 3-49 should be 0.249; and 3-71 should be 0.271.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

go to Davids link
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...wDmiVIt5ForE3otc400PyCY3Y/edit#gid=1808828504


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

Stash said:


> Why don't you take a piece of tape, wrap it around the shaft at a slight angle, make a mark that crosses 2 layers of the tape, unwrap it and measure the distance between the marks?


I'd say because if you had the ability to measure accurate enough you could just measure the OD directly


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

And then multiply by 3.14159... and that gives you the circumference of the surface of the shaft but then you have to allow for the thickness of the wrap material. 

Just use the tape and a ruler, add 1/8" and you're done. No math, no calipers.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Fury90flier said:


> go to Davids link
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...wDmiVIt5ForE3otc400PyCY3Y/edit#gid=1808828504



In the subject spreadsheet, the OD for ACC 2L-04, 2-04, 3L-04, 3-04, 3L-18, and 3-18 are extremely incorrect.
The ID of the 3-60 is incorrect.


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

FS560 said:


> In the subject spreadsheet, the OD for ACC 2L-04, 2-04, 3L-04, 3-04, 3L-18, and 3-18 are extremely incorrect.
> The ID of the 3-60 is incorrect.


Rather than just saying that (also since I'm not the author of the chart) how about being a little more helpful considering someone decided to compile a list from what ever sources they might have had, attempted to build a reference and then was more than willing to share that reference with us. 

How about posting the information you have, and give your source so that the person that created that reference can research it and adjust it? That would help us all.

A lot of this info is what someone posts and we don't have access to the actual specification from the manufacturer.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I already did provide OD for 3-18, 3-28, and 3.39. See my first paragraph of post #12.
In post #18, I listed ID of -04, -18, -28, and -60 in paragraph four.

A published spreadsheet of technical specifications, of any kind, automatically carries an air of authority and accuracy. This spreadsheet has neither, although some data is correct.

Take a look at the ACG data. How can a someone purporting to know enough about arrow shaft specifications to prepare the spreadsheet, not be aware that the ACC -00 shafts use the ACE components as well as the ACG shafts and therefore have a 0.166 ID. And then, publish the large OD for the -00 ACCs and state the ACG shafts have an OD of 0.189?

Think of the harm that this spreadsheet can do to archers that do not know any more about arrows than the person that prepared it.


----------

