# Over sized 27/64 shafts for inoor archery



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

What does most indoor shooters think about the over sized and over spined shafts for indoors, Just how much of a advandage 

does these large shafts give archers on the X ring verse a nice spined shafts that is just right for our bows. Why do most

indoor shooters think that they need to shoot large shafts? Do they think it is a big advanage over smaller perfect spined shafts?

Why is the large over spined shafts not been recomened in most of the arrow charts? Now I know that you can cut the shafts longer

and use a lot of point weight, but do the over spined shaft shoot better than a spined shaft? Does a larger shaft really produce a higher x count,

or is this just in a lot of archers mind ???


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Archery Power said:


> What does most indoor shooters think about the over sized and over spined shafts for indoors, Just how much of a advandage
> 
> does these large shafts give archers on the X ring verse a nice spined shafts that is just right for our bows. Why do most
> 
> ...




You are asking 8 questions in your post....... some questions over lap other questions and some are asking opinions about what some others may be thinking. I'll try to break the questions down and offer up my _opinion_ on some. Of course this type of questioning of fat shafts is getting old but it still is good for some belly aching..........

1. "_What does most indoor shooters think about the over sized and over spined shafts for indoors"_ - I have no idea what "most indoor shooters think". I can't think of any reason I would comment on this question so I'll pass.

2. "_Just how much of a advandage does these large shafts give archers on the X ring verse a nice spined shafts that is just right for our bows_" -- There are no bonus X's given for using " nice spined shafts that is just right for our bows" and there are no bonus X's given for using fat shafts. So which ever arrow records the higher X count has the advantage. If the fatter shafts score 1 X more than the "nice spine" shaft the advantage is one X. If the "just right" arrow scores one more X then the "just right" arrow has exactly a one X advantage......... This is VERY easy math.

3. "_Why do most indoor shooters think that they need to shoot large shafts?"_ -- You ask in question #1 what most indoor archer think then you state here that most indoor archers use fat shafts. Obviously, you believe "most" indoor archers like fat shafts so I'm a bit confused why you even asked the first question. My answer to your question is that those that use fat shafts think they will score better using them.

4. _"Do they think it is a big advanage over smaller perfect spined shafts?"_ -- I'm betting they think it helps their score. For some archers it can be a significant advantage to use fat shafts over "perfect spined shafts" and for many others there is about zero advantage and possibly a disadvantage. It also depends on the game that is being played. For some archers in some competitions if the fat shafts hit just one more X it is a HUGE advantage!!!! For other archers 5 more points and a few more X's means very little in where they place in a tourny but it can mean a lot to them personally.

5. "Why is the large over spined shafts not been recomened in most of the arrow charts?" -- Because they are niche arrows. Many experienced archers don't get particularly concerned as to whether an arrow that groups great for them fits the archaic old school spine charts. If it works it works and what a spine chart says is ABSOLUTELY useless at that point. I do not know a competitive archer that would toss his best shooting arrows aside because an old school spine chart says they are not "perfect".

6._ "Now I know that you can cut the shafts longer and use a lot of point weight, but do the over spined shaft shoot better than a spined shaft?" _-- If they do I use them and if they don't well then I don't. Again it's not real complicated.

7. _Does a larger shaft really produce a higher x count, or is this just in a lot of archers mind ???_ - I do hit more X's with my -27 shafts than I do with "perfect spined" a/c/c's. If an archer believes in his set up his scores will be higher than if he does not believe in his set up. If an archer does not believe in his set up then fat shafts do not help UNLESS he has tested and tracked his arrow groups and it is proven the fat shafts help his score.


You knew all the answers to ALL your questions before you asked them.............. However, I bet some of my answers caught you a bit by surprise and I'll also bet you agree with at least some of them! :becky:


----------



## hollywood88 (Feb 9, 2009)

Only way to truly tell is shoot them side by side. Set up a half dozen of each and shoot for a while testing the two. Whichever one produces the highest scores is what you use. I tend to choose something in the "23" range. Is it because they shoot best? No its because its a good all around arrow size FOR ME and still allows plenty of fetching clearance for my cables. It also allows multiple options in spine for use in different shooting styles without changing rest settings.
For example: 
I use 2315's for hunting
I use 2312's & 2213's for 3d
Indoor i use 2312's 2314's 2315's etc just depends on which bow Im shooting.


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

hollywood88 said:


> Only way to truly tell is shoot them side by side. Set up a half dozen of each and shoot for a while testing the two. Whichever one produces the highest scores is what you use. I tend to choose something in the "23" range. Is it because they shoot best? No its because its a good all around arrow size FOR ME and still allows plenty of fetching clearance for my cables. It also allows multiple options in spine for use in different shooting styles without changing rest settings.
> For example:
> I use 2315's for hunting
> I use 2312's & 2213's for 3d
> Indoor i use 2312's 2314's 2315's etc just depends on which bow Im shooting.


hollywood88 that is a very good answer , however there is a lot of the indoor shooters that are shooting 27/64 that is a way over spined for their bow

they are useing arrow shafts with a lot of front point weight and in most cases the arrows are very long, but my question is why do they think that

it is needed to shoot this type of set up to produce a high score and a high x count, I think the 22's and 23's size is a good shaft for indoors. But

these over sized 27's should not be legal to shoot in competion, I think fita legal size should be big enough. This comes in around 23/15. What do you think?


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

*NFAA and the Vote on th over sized 27/64 shaft three years ago*

The NFAA state directors voted to do away with these over sized arrows but Easton made them go back with another vote

NFAA had just voted to use fita legal arrows, This was going to be brought back up the next year or so we was told

what happened to this agenda item, Did NFAA get cold feet, All of these new rules such as senior age change, every

one that was for it said we need to be in line with with the rest of the Archery org. but what happened to this arrow size for the indoor shoots?


----------



## ccwilder3 (Sep 13, 2003)

Archery Power said:


> The NFAA state directors voted to do away with these over sized arrows but Easton made them go back with another vote
> 
> NFAA had just voted to use fita legal arrows, This was going to be brought back up the next year or so we was told
> 
> ...


Easton said no.

As to your question, a couple of years ago I was keeping careful track of my shooting. Using standard size, properly spined arrows, my x count was 5 x's lower than using the super stiff 2712's.


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

Archery Power said:


> The NFAA state directors voted to do away with these over sized arrows but Easton made them go back with another vote
> 
> NFAA had just voted to use fita legal arrows, This was going to be brought back up the next year or so we was told
> 
> ...


In simple terms... Easton said not a chance, and because well... their name is on the building,..... what they say goes. lol

But to answer your question, I am shooting both 23's and 27's.... I do see an increase in X's for the 27's.... so thats a plus, but It would be nice to have the international rules and NFAA rules be a bit more.... um.... similar... lol

B~


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

What slays me about all this is that yes, Easton would have "lost" the bucks for the 24-27 series of arrows already made. They would have had to re-tool their 24-27 machines to handle the smaller shaft sizes.

BUT....they would have also made up for it because nobody on the planet would be buying or have access to the fat shafts once the supplies were gone.

The error made, IMHO, was in not phasing out the fat shafts over a period of 3-5 years so that the inventory could be used up and the shooters would have time to use of their supplies of the fat shafts. It MIGHT have worked out better to say, for example, that effective Jan 1, 2014, the maximum shaft size for any competitions will be 23/64...or whatever that measured out to with the 2314 arrow's outside diameter." Phasing it in would perhaps have been a better way of getting it done.

A world standard for shaft sizing is NOT a bad idea; it was simply mis-managed, IMHO. Of course, it still really isn't too late to try to pass/adopt the shaft size limit again...with different wording, and a "phase in period" before it becomes "law." I don't imagine anyone has the cajunas, however, to buck the big E again....

Just sayin'....


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

Tom I like your ideal on these over sized fat shafts, It would be a lot better for everyone concerned if we all shot fita legal sized arrows

I could care less what easton thinks on this subject it is what we think about it I can not belive how the nfaa became in slaved to easton

What we as archers should and I mean everyone just boycott all of the over sized shafts that all of the mfgs. put on the market.

What do you think?


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

Archery Power said:


> Tom I like your ideal on these over sized fat shafts, It would be a lot better for everyone concerned if we all shot fita legal sized arrows
> 
> I could care less what easton thinks on this subject it is what we think about it I can not belive how the nfaa became in slaved to easton
> 
> ...


Its a great idea, but I always have a hard time about boycotts.... they never seem to work, youll never get enough people to make easton to feel the 'pain'.

Besides, money talks.

B~


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

field 14, i agree the shafts are getting to big,so now Easton makes the decision ? this is kinda off this subject but i have a question for you. so if us seniors over 60 want a silver senior pro division would it be best to talk to Easton and get their approval and then Easton just would tell the NFAA to start the silver senior pro division ? to me kinda looks like Easton is deciding who, what ,where,and how not the NFAA. Pete53


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

You guys are funny, Easton did not talk to one Director I know I was a Director at the time, but in defense of some there where 4 Directors that voted no once again, NM (me) AZ, CA and UTAH funny thing we are some of the closes states to Easton. Myself and The AZ director watched very carefully. Easton has paid for a lot of things at Yankton but none of them are or belong to the NFAA.


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

archer_nm said:


> You guys are funny, Easton did not talk to one Director I know I was a Director at the time, but in defense of some there where 4 Directors that voted no once again, NM (me) AZ, CA and UTAH funny thing we are some of the closes states to Easton. Myself and The AZ director watched very carefully. Easton has paid for a lot of things at Yankton but none of them are or belong to the NFAA.


If thats the truth, and I have no reason to not believe you... then let me be the first to say Im sorry, and that I was wrong.....

Sorry...
B~


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Pete53 said:


> field 14, i agree the shafts are getting to big,so now Easton makes the decision ? this is kinda off this subject but i have a question for you. so if us seniors over 60 want a silver senior pro division would it be best to talk to Easton and get their approval and then Easton just would tell the NFAA to start the silver senior pro division ? to me kinda looks like Easton is deciding who, what ,where,and how not the NFAA. Pete53


You follow protocol and go through the correct process. It is past the Sept 30 deadline for agenda items, so now you have to try to get a director to put in a 15-signature item for the SS Senior Pro Division. Easton likely has nothing to do with this or much else regarding the matters of the NFAA with regard to rules, divisions, rounds, etc. "Something" sparked the re-vote on the arrow shaft diameter rule and its reversal after a "legal" vote of the directors going to a 23/64 max shaft diameter...Something....What? It is anyone's guess at this stage of the game. I certainly wasn't there and certainly don't know how or WHY a "revote" was demanded and taken after the fact.


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

No offense taken, I just wanted to let all of you know what the real story is. Brad I have always tried to keep some at the top honest and now that I am in a Council position nothing has changed. That is why I stay involved


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

Thanks... I appreciate it. And its nice to know there really are honest and true coucil members out there...
I just wish that I had a council member like you... I just dont feel like ours has our best interest in mind... At least any time I have tried to have a conversation, or submit something, I have been passed over or blown off.... discouraging...

B~



archer_nm said:


> No offense taken, I just wanted to let all of you know what the real story is. Brad I have always tried to keep some at the top honest and now that I am in a Council position nothing has changed. That is why I stay involved


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

archer nm,you have been honest with me.here is my question why can`t you do the 15 signature for us on the silver senior pro division this year 2013 ? i for one will sign it and i bet there are plenty more who will.you maybe are only hope for this to happen.thank you,Pete53


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Pete, the 15 signatures happen at the meeting and it is all Directors that sign the form, I will do it if you make sure you contact me sometime in the middle of January so I don't forget as January is a very busy time for my section. Deal


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

archer_nm said:


> You guys are funny, Easton did not talk to one Director I know I was a Director at the time, but in defense of some there where 4 Directors that voted no once again, NM (me) AZ, CA and UTAH funny thing we are some of the closes states to Easton. Myself and The AZ director watched very carefully. Easton has paid for a lot of things at Yankton but none of them are or belong to the NFAA.


I am not sure that I understand what you just said, Did the nfaa diretors vote down the oversized arrows and then was called back because easton told the president of the nfaa

that they was not going to fund the building at Yankton if the oversized shafts was taken out 24/64 to 27/64 Now did they or not have a second vote that was voted to keep these

over sized shafts up to 27/64 ??? I would like to know and if this could be brought back up as a agenda item.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

archer nm,thank you- i now have a note for you on my computer ,to remind you to bring up the silver senior pro division .i will also try to contact my minnesota director of the MAA,but they do not seem to answer e-mail from their members.thank yuo,Pete53


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

AP you did not fully understand the meaning of what I stated, the larger shaft was voted out by the Directors (each state has one)
But prior to our banquet There was a meeting called for by the President and he alone convinced all but 4 Directors to change their vote. My comment about Easton is what they have paid for does not belong to the NFAA most of it belongs to the NFAA Foundation, before all of you get cornfussed let me explain what we are all about. There is the NFAA, then the WAF and lastly the NFAA foundation
This is due to the fact that the NFAA is a 501 3c which is a not for profit group and we due a lot of business and inturn take in a lot of money and also spend a lot of money. Anything over that goes to the NFAA Foundation, the NFAA is no longer a club it is now treated as 3 Different business. This is a very breif run down as I don't have the time or the space to get into every detail


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

archer_nm said:


> AP you did not fully understand the meaning of what I stated, the larger shaft was voted out by the Directors (each state has one)
> But prior to our banquet There was a meeting called for by the President and he alone convinced all but 4 Directors to change their vote. My comment about Easton is what they have paid for does not belong to the NFAA most of it belongs to the NFAA Foundation, before all of you get cornfussed let me explain what we are all about. There is the NFAA, then the WAF and lastly the NFAA foundation
> This is due to the fact that the NFAA is a 501 3c which is a not for profit group and we due a lot of business and inturn take in a lot of money and also spend a lot of money. Anything over that goes to the NFAA Foundation, the NFAA is no longer a club it is now treated as 3 Different business. This is a very breif run down as I don't have the time or the space to get into every detail



So are you saying that easton had nothing to do with the change in the vote, but the presdent of the nfaa convinced all of the directors to change their vote all but four

for what reason was this done by our president and why does he have that kind of power over the nfaa state directors. And if they had already voted to do away with the

over sized shafts, Then it sounds like the directors did not repesent all of the states that did not won't these oversized shafts, and sounds like the presend was doing a lot

of lobbening, Sounds like he took a page out of washington D. C. I also understand what you said above but what does this have to do with the votes beening changed.

I cannot see how our nfaa state directors can have their mind changed that easy.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Archery Power said:


> Tom I like your ideal on these over sized fat shafts, It would be a lot better for everyone concerned if we all shot fita legal sized arrows
> 
> I could care less what easton thinks on this subject it is what we think about it I can not belive how the nfaa became in slaved to easton
> 
> ...


Boycotts don't work. The ones "boycotting" the fat shafts would be the losers, because those that are convinced fat shafts give them an advantage won't "boycott.' It would create more problems than it would help.

Now as far as reintroduction of a shaft size limit of the FITA/WFA standard and a "phase out" of anything over FITA max diameter over a period of 3-5 years...my gut feeling tells me that it would be laughed at and never brought to the floor! Naysayers would say, that is water over the dam, we've been there, tried it, accomplished it, and then it went back to the fat shaft size restriction of .422." or Whatever.

It would be interesting, however for someone (NOT ME!!!) to write up an agenda item for shaft size restriction to adopt the FITA standard as the maximum shaft size outside diameter...but with the "phase out period" for using up the fat shafts, just to see what would happen; even if it was laughed off the floor of the NFAA. If it isn't tried, nobody knows, correct? As I said earlier, I think that was the error the first go-around with this...it was "fall off the cliff and do it NOW" instead of a planned future to phase it in. Just my opinion; I could be all wet.

This would have to be carefully worded, and very, very clear and concise. The "phase in time period", IMHO would be a major key to getting this done, if even then. ALL of the arrow manufacturers must have an inventory of 24, 25, 26, and 27 diameter shafts as do the shooters, so we aren't looking at even beginning to try for 2014, or 2015...but 2016 or so? Might have at least a shot in the dark at that.

It sure would be nice to have standardization and the same shaft size restriction world-wide, excepting IBO and ASA (and maybe they, too would join in later!). 

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

field14 said:


> Boycotts don't work. The ones "boycotting" the fat shafts would be the losers, because those that are convinced fat shafts give them an advantage won't "boycott.' It would create more problems than it would help.
> 
> Now as far as reintroduction of a shaft size limit of the FITA/WFA standard and a "phase out" of anything over FITA max diameter over a period of 3-5 years...my gut feeling tells me that it would be laughed at and never brought to the floor! Naysayers would say, that is water over the dam, we've been there, tried it, accomplished it, and then it went back to the fat shaft size restriction of .422." or Whatever.
> 
> ...













tom I think that you are right we could never get anythink like this changed now, it is too late, So we will have to live with a very big mistake that was made.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I was on the committee that dealt with the max arrow size and recommended the 9.3 size and I voted for the 9.3 in general session when it was passed.
Then I would ABSOLUTELY have voted no on the reconsideration along with my friends in SW section and may have successfully lobbied another vote or two in the MA section.

BUT, the special meeting was convened while I was waiting in the airport to return to work the next day.

It is too late to go back now on the arrow size.

NFAA is a 501c4 non profit corporation with limited forms of taxable income. NFAA Foundation is a 501c3 non profit corporation with no taxable income. WAF is a for profit corporation. NFAA is the parent.

All of the Easton grants have been from the Easton Foundation, a 501c3 non profit, to the NFAA Foundation, purportedly because the Easton Foundation could not (or would not) give the grants to any entity less than a c3.

The net proceeds from the sale of the land in Redlands, CA somehow found its way into the NFAA Foundation as real property at the NFAA HQ.

The WAF was originally purchased to use the profits to help fund the NFAA. However, that has not proved to be as forthcoming in the last few years due to the cold weather/ice storms scare that could have decimated attendance at the Vegas tournament a few years ago with disastrous consequences.

SO, now NFAA owns the field archery game, members, two national championships, sectional championships, 3D championship, a magazine, and a 25% interest in a campground. WAF owns two national championships and the money. NFAA Foundation owns the real property.

Always never lose sight of the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

I'd personally be all for an arrow size restriction. But, on this and a few other issues, I do not believe they should be brought to the floor on a 15 signature item. When the arrow size restriction was voted on, it was brought as a 15 signature item at the meeting. What opportunity was there for the general membership, those folks that the Directors represent to provide their input? None. How can any Director vote based on the desire of their State, if the members of their state have not had the opportunity to comment on an item? Its why the agenda is set early, and given to the Directors. They can then seek the input of their members...the people they 'represent', and the will they are supposed to vote for. 15 signature items, if they make it to the floor, end up being voted upon based almost entirely on the opinion of the Director. Personally I hate 15 signature items, and IMO, they should only be used in the case of emergencies. The arrow size issue was not an emergency.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

I still think it is NOT too late to bring up the arrow restriction again; only this time have that "phase in period" of from 3-5 years of lead time for the arrow manufacturers AND for the shooters so they know to use up their fat shafts by the lead time date.

I know pretty much for certain that the carbon arrow manufacturers can make a 23 diameter carbon arrow that could be set for several different spines to fit most any poundage bow; or a 22 series even.

However, the fieldman is NOT the one to begin to try this agenda item. It would have to come from somebody more "lawyer-based" that can write with a magic tongue that makes things SHORT, CLEAR, CONCISE...and straight to the point in as few words as possible...and you know pretty much for sure that person is NOT me, hahahaha.

To make a "move" such as this that impacts the industry and the arrow manufacturers, you (we) gotta give advance notice and LOTS of it since millions of bucks could be involved should this "change" happen overnight or in 3-6 months...THAT may well have been the "kicker" the first time around!

PLAN out the agenda item, plan out a phase out plan for this change's implementation date, word it right...and you may well be surprised; it may well float and get done. Just don't try to do it at the last moment on a 15-signature item...won't work.


----------



## Archery Power (Feb 4, 2005)

field14 said:


> I still think it is NOT too late to bring up the arrow restriction again; only this time have that "phase in period" of from 3-5 years of lead time for the arrow manufacturers AND for the shooters so they know to use up their fat shafts by the lead time date.
> 
> I know pretty much for certain that the carbon arrow manufacturers can make a 23 diameter carbon arrow that could be set for several different spines to fit most any poundage bow; or a 22 series even.
> 
> ...


Tom for the best for archery this needs to be done, These over sized arrows 24/64 to 27/64 does nothing for the game of archery only degrades the game of indoor archery

I don't even have very little respect for these high scores that have been shot with the over sized shafts, But I think the top archers will still put up high scores with the

23/64 shafts and it looks a lot more respectable when the high score is shot with a small shaft. And if hgher scores or produced with the oversized shafts then by all means they 

should be taken out of the game. This would make it a lot better at the top of the tournment for sure the ones on top would have earned it.


----------



## distributor (Mar 18, 2004)

These oversized logs has no place for indoor shooting What were they thinking when these arrow shafts was used in indoor shooting what a disgrace to 
indoor shooting, Would not be caught on the line with these over sized shafts.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

what the manufacturer`s were thinking: more new arrows sold more money for the manufacturer`s or a bigger pile of Gold ! if they could sell 50-10 shafts ,they would get their way and make more money.always bet on the Gold !


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Archery Power said:


> Tom for the best for archery this needs to be done, These over sized arrows 24/64 to 27/64 does nothing for the game of archery only degrades the game of indoor archery
> 
> I don't even have very little respect for these high scores that have been shot with the over sized shafts, But I think the top archers will still put up high scores with the
> 
> ...


I think you are correct. I think that Reo Wilde and many of the others that compete on an International basis have shoot as good, and perhaps even better indoor scores on the Vegas face with the FITA "legal" 23's as he has with the fat shafts (27/64ths). Since Reo and others compete on an International scale, they really don't NEED the fat shafts...but aren't about to 'give away' anything to their competitors here in the USA that are using the fat shafts to try to gain an edge, or not give an edge; depending upon which way you are looking at it.

I do NOT think that the top echelon shooters would be heart-broken if the world standard of 23/64th's was adopted as a standard, NFAA and all orgs inclusive. The ones that would raise the dither would be the "wannabees" that think they gotta have fat shafts in order to score well. WRONG! The fat shafts are not NEEDED...people are psyched into thinking they are needed.

If they became unavailable in 3-5 years time, people would comply or leave sport...but I don't think "leaving the sport" over arrow size would happen excepting the wannabees, and probably not even many of them either.

Lots of hullabaloo over much of nothing....BUT...to stress one more time...a phasing out time frame for ridding the game of anything over the 2314 maximum shaft diameter is, IMHO, the key to getting this brought up again and giving it any chance of passing muster. I'm thinking out of the box, here, but 3-5 years advance notice of the phasing out of fat shafts should be ample.

As an individual, ALL of my perfect 60X-300's on the blue face, ALL of my perfect 450's on the Vegas face, and nearly all of my perfect 300's on the 300 Vegas round were shot by me with......SMALL SHAFTS....1714 ALUMINUM arrows to be precise! Used to royally torque off my competition when I would do this in league or tournaments...and they were shooting their 24 or 25 diameter, and then 26's... Back then, 27 diameter shafts weren't thunk of yet. hahahaha.

I'm way more proud of those scores shot with knitting needles than I would ever be of ANY shot with "logs".

Just little ole correctly spined knitting needles out of a 48" ATA bow, with a springie arrow rest, and itty-bitty piddly short draw length at a piddly 47# peak weight....did a lot of "damage" to the x-ring that way. Nowdaze, I can almost guarantee that I'll hit the bale every time, hahahahaha.


field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

field14 said:


> Lots of hullabaloo over much of nothing....BUT...to stress one more time...a phasing out time frame for ridding the game of anything over the 2314 maximum shaft diameter is, IMHO, the key to getting this brought up again and giving it any chance of passing muster. I'm thinking out of the box, here, but 3-5 years advance notice of the phasing out of fat shafts should be ample.


The language wouldn't be difficult to come up with, or to include a phase in period, which I also agree is necessary...unlike the last attempt.

But, the language should precisely identify the maximum diameter of the shaft, either in 1000ths or metric (9.3 mm) and should not use '2314' or '23xx' as the measuring stick. 2317s, while technically supposed to be 23/64" are a couple 1000ths bigger than 2315s, which are also technically 23/64". Too much room for confusion, and the '23xx' does not take into account the effect of wall thickness and spine. So if you say 2314 is the max, it may be interpreted as making 2315s illegal (this ignores the fact that it is diameter we are talking about, not wall thickness, and that 2315s are FITA legal, but 2317s are not). So, maximum OD of .359, or .360 if we're rounding up. Throw in a couple more 1000ths for point diameter, or not, and make it effective July 1, 2016/17. What the 3-D orgs do is up to them, but, and IMO, it would be best if all the American orgs were on the same page...which currently they are.

And, since we are talking about the indoor game for NFAA (pretty much exclusively), I'm not sure if we ain't making more of it than what is necessary. Don't confuse that with being against the idea though. 

That said, there is going to need to be a push from the membership (at least of a state) to get it on the agenda, and then the majority of the members form each state (or at least those who care to comment) should be given the opportunity to weigh in. If the State membership does not support it, then the State Director should not be a voting for it, regardless of their personal opinion...that opinion should be counted amongst the voice of the State members...at least IMO. Doesn't mean a State Director cannot propose it as an agenda item, and then vote against it...may not be looked upon kindly from the State members though.


----------



## Pete53 (Dec 5, 2011)

guys,really to get this arrow diameter rule done it would be best to get Easton also involved and with the state directors .


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

Pete53 said:


> guys,really to get this arrow diameter rule done it would be best to get Easton also involved and with the state directors .


Not sure why Easton, Gold Tip, Carbon Express, Victory, etc. should be involved in the process at all. They can be informed of the potential, and provide whatever thought they want. The Directors can do whatever they want with that. But, it is the MEMBERSHIP, not the Directors that ultimately should decide whether their is or is not a change to the current size restriction rule. Again, the Directors are supposed to advance the position of the State MEMBERS, even if that opinion differs from the Director's personal opinion.

But, it is certainly within the discretion of a Director to raise the issue with the State membership, and get a consensus of whether the MEMBERS want to change the current rule or not. If they don't want to, it becomes dicey for that Director to advance an Agenda item on the issue, and even more dicey for the Director to vote for a rule change that is against the consensus of the members that the Director is supposed to represent.

Every Director I have spoken to knows that it is an 'issue', but presently, it appears that the majority of the MEMBERSHIP is happy with the current rule, and there does not seem to be a big push of multiple States to change it. If there isn't a push from the majority of the MEMBERSHIP from a majority of the States, I'm not sure it should even be advanced as an agenda item, regardless of what I want or prefer.

The NFAA is a bottom up organization...which also leads to a lot of the delay, hand wringing, and tape. But, that is the way it was designed, and the way it is intended to run...


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Easton did not tell the directors how to vote. It is The Cullinator's job to control the Cullinites while Easton controls Bruce Almighty.


----------



## Brad HT (Dec 9, 2006)

Its such a great idea (The phase in period), I just wish someone would just write it up and submit it to their state....! I would even do it, if I knew how to... 

Nobody wants my poor grammar in an agenda item... lol

B~


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Brad HT said:


> Its such a great idea (The phase in period), I just wish someone would just write it up and submit it to their state....! I would even do it, if I knew how to...
> 
> Nobody wants my poor grammar in an agenda item... lol
> 
> B~


Actually, it could be a coordinated effort to write a GOOD agenda item, in the correct format (I think that used to be found on the NFAA Web-site), with "good sell wording" that is clear and concise without a lot of big words. Straight and to the point. IF this was worked up by a group of people, and then coordinated and sent to ALL the NFAA directors and it can get to the membership somehow, there could be involvement by the MEMBERSHIP to basically "order" the Directors how to vote on the item!

It will NEVER work as a 15-signature item. Whomever tackles this had from now until mid August to get 'r DUN and then to submit it as an official agenda item to the NFAA NLT Sept. 30, 2014. This would mean that if/when the phase in period is included, the shaft size limit wouldn't take effect until 2017-2019, which is plenty of time to phase out the FAT shafts and get the inventories of 22 and 23 diameters prepared for that phasing in date.

The manufacturers would not be blind-sided and the shooters would know well in advance what is coming and would 'phase out their FAT shafts accoringly.


----------



## rharper (Apr 30, 2012)

Please explain why a larger shaft should be outlawed? Not just a "I think so" but what's it REALLY doing to hurt you? (not directed at anyone posting here in particular)


----------



## giltyone (Nov 9, 2009)

I don't know what category you're shooting in.... It would depend what indoor class you shoot in.

The majority of FITA and World Archery limits the max diameter to 23/64" and they even ban the 2315 size because it actually is larger than 23/54" due to the construction of that aluminum shaft.

The reason - to keep the playing field equal for all shooters in this class. (internationally, they use 9.3mm of the shaft not including an arrow wrap)


----------



## thunderbolt (Oct 11, 2002)

giltyone said:


> I don't know what category you're shooting in.... It would depend what indoor class you shoot in.
> 
> The majority of FITA and World Archery limits the max diameter to 23/64" and they even ban the 2315 size because it actually is larger than 23/54" due to the construction of that aluminum shaft.
> 
> The reason - to keep the playing field equal for all shooters in this class. (internationally, they use 9.3mm of the shaft not including an arrow wrap)


It's actually the 2317 size that falls over the 9.3 mm limit. 2315 is legal.


----------



## Rolo (Dec 16, 2002)

giltyone said:


> The reason - to keep the playing field equal for all shooters in this class. (internationally, they use 9.3mm of the shaft not including an arrow wrap)


I'm not adamantly for or against and arrow size restriction/rule/reduction...but I am confused by this statement. How is the playing field not equal? As long as everyone plays by the rules, it is equal. Different set-ups, but field is equal. Everyone has the opportunity to shoot 27s at NFAA events. Everyone has the opportunity to shoot 9.3mm at FITA and World Archery events. At either or any, a person can chose to shoot the maximum size allowed, or something smaller. 

I don't understand how the "playing field" is not equal. Different, yes...but hey, you Canadians play football on a different sized field and different rules than we Americans. But, when you play either, under the rules required, the field is equal.


----------

