# Why Tungsten?



## 3SixtyOutdoors (Sep 14, 2012)

tag


----------



## williamskg6 (Dec 21, 2008)

Tungsten metal is more dense than steel. It's so dense, in fact, that it has been used to make forgery gold bricks in the past by crooks. It's heavy per volume, but unlike gold, it's also hard. So, the mass can be concentrated even more at the front of your arrow and if you hit something hard, damage to the point will be less than steel. So, it does actually impact the flight of the arrow (moving FOC forward), but I can't imagine a circumstance where I'd be willing to pay the cost of tungsten points.

-Kent W.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

the tungsten point is much shorter, the shank is shorter, it gets more weight forward at the end of the shaft. FOC is better. 

Stainless steel is not as tough. I have ruined quite a few of each, however once i shot tungsten tips, they do take much more abuse from hitting pins, wood bales etc. I have broken arrows in bales with stainless steel. But i have not with tungsten. I have bent tungsten points and broken shafts with a miss etc. But they are much more durable that the stainless steel. 

Also the bulge point is better in my opinion for protecting the shaft upon impact. 

Can you shoot great with stainless steel? sure. 

I personally shoot the 150gr tophat points. I wouldnt shoot anything else. Even Park Sung Hyun changed to tungsten points in her shooting career. 

She is probably the one person on the planet who could shoot any point. 


Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I believe the purpose of Tungsten points was to reduce the overall length of the point outside of the shaft to prevent breakage and bending in the hard bales/bosses that are used in many European countries. 

After shooting the compressed wood fiber bales in Turkey, I was glad I had custom 125-grain tungsten points on my A/C/E's and not stainless, as I'm sure they would have bent in that wind when hitting those bosses at an angle.

The short overall length of tungsten points also will help increase your FOC somewhat, although I don't find that to be a compelling reason to use them.

Whether to use tungsten or stainless or in the case of Carbon Express - tool steel points (a great compromise between the two) is pretty far down on most archer's list of concerns. The difference in price for Tungsten points can probably only be justified by a very small percentage of world class archers (most of whom are not buying their tungsten points anyway), or for those who routinely find their stainless points bending in very hard bales.

John


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

williamskg6 said:


> So, it does actually impact the flight of the arrow (moving FOC forward), but I can't imagine a circumstance where I'd be willing to pay the cost of tungsten points.
> 
> -Kent W.


You must not get 40 -45 mph wind at your archery range. though i would agree with John. For most, the benefits are minimal. 


Chris


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

chrstphr said:


> the tungsten point is much shorter, the shank is shorter, it gets more weight forward at the end of the shaft. FOC is better.
> 
> Stainless steel is not as tough. I have ruined quite a few of each, however once i shot tungsten tips, they do take much more abuse from hitting pins, wood bales etc. I have broken arrows in bales with stainless steel. But i have not with tungsten. I have bent tungsten points and broken shafts with a miss etc. But they are much more durable that the stainless steel.
> 
> ...


I dont necessarily agree that they increase FOC (i would love to see some definitive data on this). The shank is shorter, and so is the point, which means that they could be proportionally the same (or better or worse, no way to know without a direct comparison) as the FOC of an equal weight SS point. If increasing FOC was a benefit, I would be very surprised that it is not advertised in ANY of the company descriptions of the benefits of using the points I have read. Additionally, replacing the very occasional shaft that breaks due to the SS point bending would be a much lower cost per arrow than buying a dozen tungsten points(considering most people replace their shafts every couple years). And if euro bales bend x10s, well, that sounds like an issue with the choice of bale not the arrow.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> And if euro bales bend x10s, well, that sounds like an issue with the choice of bale not the arrow.


1) It's not "if."
2) The points bend.
3) If you get to choose your bale material, you have more authority than Oh or Ellison or Park.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Ten_Zen said:


> I dont necessarily agree that they increase FOC (i would love to see some definitive data on this). The shank is shorter, and so is the point, which means that they could be proportionally the same (or better or worse, no way to know without a direct comparison) as the FOC of an equal weight SS point.


The Easton Tungsten have a short shank with short point. The Tophat tungsten points are not short, they are longer with short shank. The FOC is different. 
Chris


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

chrstphr said:


> The Easton Tungsten have a short shank with short point. The Tophat tungsten points are not short, they are longer with short shank. The FOC is different.
> Chris


Ok that lends credence to the idea that the Top Hats would have a higher FOC, but I am still not convinced that it wouldn't be almost negligible given equal weight. Would love to get some real data on that. So someone with some Tophat tungstens AND some SS points of equal weight care to do a side by side comparison and post the data for the good of the archery community?


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> 1) It's not "if."
> 2) The points bend.
> 3) If you get to choose your bale material, you have more authority than Oh or Ellison or Park.


Again, not a problem with the arrow/point. I have shot x10's into plywood, 2x4's, and the ground, and I have never had a point bend. I have had the carbon break and strip off the arrow because of this, but upon recovering the point from the broken shaft, there was no noticeable bending. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I am saying it doesn't happen often enough to justify spending more than half the cost of the shaft on a stiffer point considering most x10 shooters replace their shafts every couple years anyway. Additionally, tungsten is more brittle than SS and would have a greater chance of BREAKING in a situation that might cause a SS point to bend.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

If you get a two arrows, both the same length from point tip to nock groove, but one with steel and the other with tungsten they both have the same FOC, steel might even win. But i'm not concerned of FOC, what i'm more concerned about is arrow breakage. Allot of competitions here are shot on stramit(straw targets) which can be very hard, and indeed sometimes causes arrows to produce cracks in the carbon, or eventually break. ACE's are a no go on these targets, especially at long drawlenghts and high poundages, x10's with tungsten hold up fine.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

So the main benefit of tungsten points is you can shoot them at a straw mat? Is that the consensus here?


----------



## spogshd (Mar 14, 2014)

The tungstens don't look as ugly, make's me feel better about using them, after all archery is 90% psychological, feels like they turn my arrows into wands, I also guess some folk just simply can't afford them, but the choice is there.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

Update: So the tophat points dont fit. I must have read the description wrong I thought it said Outside diameter of .166<.218, but apparently its INSIDE diameter of at least .166 and OUTSIDE diameter of <.218. So now I have 2 dozen points I cant use. The overall point of the thread is still valid, but unfortunately the $25 dozen 140gr SS points for x10 shafts are, in fact, a myth.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

L


Ten_Zen said:


> Update: So the tophat points dont fit. I must have read the description wrong I thought it said Outside diameter of .166<.218, but apparently its INSIDE diameter of at least .166 and OUTSIDE diameter of <.218. So now I have 2 dozen points I cant use. The overall point of the thread is still valid, but unfortunately the $25 dozen 140gr SS points for x10 shafts are, in fact, a myth.



Email Blackie, he will probably swap them out for the correct point. I shoot his 150gr tungsten X10 points and they fit.




Chris


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Higher FOC has no advantage if one does not look at the increase/decrease in form and skin drag that comes with any points.


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Here's a good read:

http://www.tap46home.plus.com/mechanics/foc.htm

Google it and you will find many reputable sources detailing the how and why.


----------



## spogshd (Mar 14, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> L
> 
> 
> Email Blackie, he will probably swap them out for the correct point. I shoot his 150gr tungsten X10 points and they fit.
> ...


Chris,when I ordered mine, there was a choice of 3, all within 1 grain of each other, (type 1) type 2 (type 3) whats that all about, surly 1 grain wont make that much difference, my guess is when they are machined they match them up because they can't get each one exact.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

<health warning - my opinions only)
When the X10 first came out there was considerable debate about which was better, the ACE or the X10 (with Easton obviously in the X10 camp). Standard point at that time was a 100 gram steel point. Easton produced exclusively for the X10 a 120 gram ? tungsten point (with the official explanation that, being shorter, it was less prone to bending). On a practical level you now had the choice between the X10 with 120gm point and the ACE with 100gm point. Clearly (until people started getting third party 120gm point for the ACE) this tilted the scales in the direction of the X10. So my guess is that the tungsten point was brought in to promote X10 sales over the ACE sales.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the ACE, lighter, and less dense, than an equivalent spined X10?


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

theminoritydude said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the ACE, lighter, and less dense, than an equivalent spined X10?


Yes it is.
Shaft performance (aerodynamically) basically comes down to two parameters, shaft diameter and shaft grains per inch. For both parameters the the lower the value for both parameters the better the performance (within practical limitations of course). Problem is these two parameters are on either end of a see-saw (larger diameter ~ lower gpi and vice-versa so you are looking for the optimum balance). Of the two parameters I think mass is more important to performance then diameter.
The X10 has a higher gpi and smaller diameter then the equivalent ACE (both shafts are barreled to reduce the effective gpi) so on the above assumption with the same point weight the ACE, in terms of grouping and wind behaviour, is likely to be the better performer than the equivalent X10. Put a heavier point in the X10 then in the ACE and the X10 becomes the better performing shaft.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

Joe T said:


> <health warning - my opinions only)
> When the X10 first came out there was considerable debate about which was better, the ACE or the X10 (with Easton obviously in the X10 camp). Standard point at that time was a 100 grain steel point. Easton produced exclusively for the X10 a 120 grain ? tungsten point (with the official explanation that, being shorter, it was less prone to bending). On a practical level you now had the choice between the X10 with 120gr point and the ACE with 100gr point. Clearly (until people started getting third party 120gr point for the ACE) this tilted the scales in the direction of the X10. So my guess is that the tungsten point was brought in to promote X10 sales over the ACE sales.


Uh! yu know what I meant


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

I did.


----------



## Zombie_Feynman (Jun 27, 2014)

Is there any drawback to increasing point weight besides the arrow being heavier? In theory it should make the arrow more stable, but I would like to know if you can ignore the suggested point weights of the manufacturer as long as you are able to shoot the distances you want.


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Looks like someone's getting it.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Joe T said:


> <health warning - my opinions only)
> When the X10 first came out there was considerable debate about which was better, the ACE or the X10 (with Easton obviously in the X10 camp). Standard point at that time was a 100 gram steel point. Easton produced exclusively for the X10 a 120 gram ? tungsten point (with the official explanation that, being shorter, it was less prone to bending). On a practical level you now had the choice between the X10 with 120gm point and the ACE with 100gm point. Clearly (until people started getting third party 120gm point for the ACE) this tilted the scales in the direction of the X10. So my guess is that the tungsten point was brought in to promote X10 sales over the ACE sales.


I have followed quite close the history of the ACE's, the advent of the X10, their development, the development of the McKinney I and II and finally the development and the advent of the Nano-Pro extreme.
My opinion is same as Joe T. one. The Tungsten point for X10 was developped to give to thenm at least similar performance than to ACE's. X10 were a good project , but at their launch in 1995 they were showing immediately to be too heavy and with a limited FOC in with their steel point comparison to ACE's with 125 gr one piece steel point. Slimemr was OK, but slower and with bad fOC was not.
So the urban legend of the "suggested FOC" started, and Easton designed the 120 gr tungsten point for X7 on one side, than dropped the 125 one piece ACE steel points (they were average 127 gr or more) form the other side. The fake info that light shafts were needing ligher points started to circulate, and X10 started performing average at same level or better than ACE's.
I have resisted to this by two ways: developed a 125 to 130 grain tungsten point for ACE my son (and limbwalker) has used in Athens in 2004 ad for a couple of years after, and then got all available Easton stock of 127 gr one piece steel points, starting using them from 2007and after, since he started testing Nano Pro 
In the mean time, the most advanced FOC for a target arrow was reached by my daughter shooting a 26" McKinenyII with (our) 110 gr tungsten point: 23%. Those arrows were fantastic in the wind, solution was dropped for other reasons than too much FOC. 
So, what is really stupid in this situation is that the 2 top target arrow makers, Easton and Carbon Express, both have remained prisonners of the stupid legend about "too much foc" and have not developped 130 to 150 tungsten points for their top level shafts. 
Now X10 has this option from another vendor, and I'm sure the results Chris is getting can be confirmed easily by anyone using them. Nano Pro Xtreme with 120 gr tungsten point can compete with equivalent x10 with 120 gr tungsten point, but will never catch up in the wind an X10 with 140 gr point, in my opinion. But, they do not "understand" why .....yet

Ps. anegdote
around 2001 or 2002, when I stil was in FITA TAC, at one dinner in Losanne I went discussing with Jim Easton about arrows, and the choice Easton made at that time to drop any high spine aluminum arrow (including the 1413) brcause of limited sales. I pointed out to Jim that this decision was going to make all small children without arrows, and that in reality what was needed was an even smaller size/weaker arrow. He got my point , and told me he was going to discuss in the company something about the possibility of making a new alu size from the core structure of the ACE (12xx something). Then I mentioned how a fantastic arrow the ACE could be if a tungsten point was availble for it like it as was already for the X10. He told me that in reality Easton was loosing money with X10, and he was going top ask to his people also why no Tungsten points for ACE's yet. 
After few months, the Jazz series was announced by Easton, including the new 1213 and a reborn 1413. But the tungsten point for the ACE had no follow up, then I went to develop it by myself with the help of an American friend. 

.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Great background there Vittorio.

I was an unaware beneficiary of the work that was being done to produce 125 grain tungsten A/C/E points, provided to me through a friend of Jason McKittrick in Indiana who produced them at the time. When I became aware of their availability, it offered a solution to a tuning issue I was having, and brought my FOC back up after choosing to use plastic vanes over spin wings.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Great background there Vittorio.
> 
> I was an unaware beneficiary of the work that was being done to produce 125 grain tungsten A/C/E points, provided to me through a friend of Jason McKittrick in Indiana who produced them at the time. When I became aware of their availability, it offered a solution to a tuning issue I was having, and brought my FOC back up after choosing to use plastic vanes over spin wings.


Jason was the guy making them for us too. Then these points have also been used in Field by Michele and by Sebastian Rohrberg, too, but this is another story ...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Jason was the guy making them for us too.


Yup. I recall carrying a plastic bag full of tungsten points to Antalya and thinking "I wonder what this little bag full of points is worth ?!?"


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Vittorio said:


> So, what is really stupid in this situation is that the 2 top target arrow makers, Easton and Carbon Express, both have remained prisonners of the stupid legend about "too much foc" and have not developped 130 to 150 tungsten points for their top level shafts.
> Now X10 has this option from another vendor, and I'm sure the results Chris is getting can be confirmed easily by anyone using them.



my X10s with 150gr point give me outstanding results. I have posted groupings in wind and video. However, if no one wants to confirm or believe, its ok with me to.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> my X10s with 150gr point give me outstanding results. I have posted groupings in wind and video. However, if no one wants to confirm or believe, its ok with me to.


LOL! 

You go man. Let the sheep follow the sheep.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

I would like to point out here that I am not trying to talk trash about tungsten, I am asking for information about the benefits and if/how they outweigh the expense. I would love it if someone out there in archery land (who happens to have a 120gr x10 tungsten point and a 120gr x10 SS point, and two shafts from a matched dozen lying around) to do a side by side comparison of the FOC. It wouldn't take long and it would help archers like me who want to pretend like they know what they are using to justify spending $250 on a small handful of metal.


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

Hey TenZen, I have some of both, and some arrows without points. I will try to get a measurement in a bit, depending on work.

One would think I would have done this already...


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

calbowdude said:


> Hey TenZen, I have some of both, and some arrows without points. I will try to get a measurement in a bit, depending on work.
> 
> One would think I would have done this already...


hey thanks!


----------



## calbowdude (Feb 13, 2005)

OK, I managed to take a quick look at this. I have 10 X10 in C3 450 spine. I stuck a 120 grain SS point (from Korea, which I got 2 dozen from a former USAT member) and a 120 grain unbroken tungsten point. I balanced them both on a wooden dowel. Based on my imprecise eyeball measurement, there is very little difference in FOC between the two. 

As stated previously, the denser tungsten point has less sticking out from the end of the shaft, and so the the effective center of the tungsten point is probably identical or very nearly so to the stainless point, which has more shank within the shaft, but also a lot more point outside of the shaft. 

To confirm, I may have to figure out how to balance the SS and tungsten points and verify this as well. 

I will try to get more precise measurements and do this with several arrow shafts to confirm or deny my findings. So, weight is still king when it comes to FOC. 

I have, however, bent SS points right at the point/shank joint, enough so that arrow flight was adversely affected. I would expect that the tungsten points, being so short, would be a lot harder to bend. And, as previously mentioned, the short tungsten point shank does indeed weaken the arrow a fair amount.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Zombie_Feynman said:


> ....... I would like to know if you can ignore the suggested point weights of the manufacturer as long as you are able to shoot the distances you want.


Manufacturers suggest the point (weights) they are making , not those that are the good ones fo you. 
Typical example are the points for the aluminum shafts... In early days of X7, there were 2 different points for them made by Easton , a light one and and heavier one. But after many years, manufacturer decided that "sugegsted" point had to be one only, and dropped both models, making an intermediate weigh one, only. Of course the "suggested" point weight was not giving the same perfomance as before to all users, and then the open market for the aluminium shafts points was born ..... 
FOC is everything, provided you can tune that arrow for you bow and reach the maximum distance you want to reach.


----------



## TomG (Dec 4, 2002)

At the same weight, there is almost no reason to get tungsten. The only one I can think of is increased risk of bending.

However, being able to get heavier point is a definite advantage in my book. The 150 grain points are clearly helping in the wind for me.

Especially when combined with Uukha limbs. My 450 spine X10 used to tune at 43# with 90 grain points with PSE X-pression limbs. Now the exact same arrows tune at 48.5# with 150 grains points with the Uukha VX 1000. And I my sight marks are great - I am using a short bar compound sight at 70m.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Any thoughts on using the Top Hat 140gr VAP point in an ACE or MK2?

-Grant


----------



## anmactire (Sep 4, 2012)

grantmac said:


> Any thoughts on using the Top Hat 140gr VAP point in an ACE or MK2?
> 
> -Grant


I use 140 grain points in my Black Eagles, they're awesome in the wind...


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

calbowdude said:


> OK, I managed to take a quick look at this. I have 10 X10 in C3 450 spine. I stuck a 120 grain SS point (from Korea, which I got 2 dozen from a former USAT member) and a 120 grain unbroken tungsten point. I balanced them both on a wooden dowel. Based on my imprecise eyeball measurement, there is very little difference in FOC between the two.
> 
> As stated previously, the denser tungsten point has less sticking out from the end of the shaft, and so the the effective center of the tungsten point is probably identical or very nearly so to the stainless point, which has more shank within the shaft, but also a lot more point outside of the shaft.
> 
> ...


Awesome! Now lets add a little more accuracy. Measure the total length of each arrow (nock groove to front carbon edge) and divide that number by 2. Then balance each arrow and mark the balance point. Next, measure from the front carbon to the balance point. Subtract that value from the first value (total length/2), and divide that number by the total length. This will give you the FOC ratio of each arrow. If you could post those numbers that would be awesome!


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Vittorio said:


> Manufacturers suggest the point (weights) they are making , not those that are the good ones fo you.
> Typical example are the points for the aluminum shafts... In early days of X7, there were 2 different points for them made by Easton , a light one and and heavier one. But after many years, manufacturer decided that "sugegsted" point had to be one only, and dropped both models, making an intermediate weigh one, only. Of course the "suggested" point weight was not giving the same perfomance as before to all users, and then the open market for the aluminium shafts points was born .....
> *FOC is everything, provided you can tune that arrow for you bow and reach the maximum distance you want to reach.*


Really, what else does one need to hear?


----------



## Last_Bastion (Dec 5, 2013)

Is there a specific FOC you all are going for when putting together new arrows? Or do you have an acceptable range?

I hope that made sense....


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

Ten_Zen said:


> Awesome! Now lets add a little more accuracy. Measure the total length of each arrow (nock groove to front carbon edge) and divide that number by 2. Then balance each arrow and mark the balance point. Next, measure from the front carbon to the balance point. Subtract that value from the first value (total length/2), and divide that number by (total length/2). This will give you the FOC ratio of each arrow. If you could post those numbers that would be awesome!


 Pardon my derp. That will give the correct FOC ratio.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Ten_Zen said:


> Pardon my derp. That will give the correct FOC ratio.


I have never agreed about omitting the lenght of the nock and the lenght of the point from total lenght of the arrow to find its FOC. The center of balance includes those lenghts, so should the FOC calculation. Results are in some cases quite different ...


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

Hmmmm.... i was always told to do it that way, but now that you mention it, that does make more sense..
i defer to your better judgement on that one. until i can think of a convincing reason to do it the other way.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

ok after doing some research I have found 2 methods for measuring FOC that both claim to be correct. And apparently i had it right the first time, you divide by the overall length. 

Method 1) measure the full length from Groove to point tip and divide by 2, then subtract from that the length from groove to balance point, and then divide by the overall length and multiply by 100.

Method 2) exclude the length of the tip in the overall length, and measure from the cut edge of the shaft to the balance point and then subtract that from the overall length/2, divide by the overall length, and then multiply by 100.

So what isnt important is what side you measure from, so long as you subtract the smaller value from the larger one (aka, take the absolute value of the difference between the center and the balance point), but what will make a pretty big difference is whether or not you include the length of the point.

I am still thinking about it. I cant see why you wouldnt include the length of the point. The longer the point the more leverage it has forward of center so it makes sense to include its length. But why does most of the literature I can find on it say otherwise?


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

Forward of Center (FOC) physically relates to the distance the arrow center of mass is in front of the (bare shaft) arrow center of pressure (so it should really be defined as FOCP  ). However no simple way to measure center of pressure. So you need some simple (standard) definition of arrow length which can be used to compare different arrows. Bottom of nock groove to end of shaft is the most commonly used standard and is fairly simple and consistent.

Most accurate (and simple) method to define length as regards being closest to actual FOCP value? I would suggest the distance from the end of nock to half way up the arrow point (compromise between conical and parabolic point). However difference to just saying end of nock to end of point is small and has the benefit of an unambiguous measurement so on a practical basis I would go for this. Problem is unless everybody uses it causes more confusion than sticking to the existing "standard".

Fletchings create a problem. Their weight as it affects balance point is simple but affect on center of pressure is anything but simple. Simplest approach is to define FOC in terms of a bare shaft only. Fletching effect on FOCP left to experimental arrow flight evaluation only.

PS of course what I would really prefer as the definition of FOC is divide the distance from the end of the nock to the balance point (x100) divided by the distance from the end of the nock to the tip of the arrow. That way FOC values would run from 0% to 100% which to me is more sensible then +50% to -50%.


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

some notes on this topic http://www.tap46home.plus.com/mechanics/cop.htm


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

As any physical objects, an arrow with nock, point, vanes and wrap has a physically measurable COG that of course includes all its elements and their mass distribution along the shaft. So there is no doubt about how to fing its COG. personally, I use the small Blue Beiter clips that have been designed to this purpose. COG position phisycally found by this practical method can of course change changing nock, adding a pin, changing lenght of points insert, adding grains inside the point, changing density of various materials, cuting (barrelled) arrows on the back and so on. In any case, comparing two totally different arrows of the same total lenght (including arrow tip) , you will end up with a mark on each indicating their COG, and the difference betwen the two marks in relationship to the lenght (or center) of the total object give the real measurable difference between them. Simple.
Discussion is clearly only about what lenght to consider to make a simple didivion giving a percentage. 
But what flies and needs a good downrange speed is the totally assembled arrow, not just its shaft with no point and no insert and no pin and no nock.. 
You can omit point and nock lenght from calculation only if you compare two arrows having exactly same nock and same point lenght out fo the shaft (and of course identical vanes and wraps), IMHO, but in any case real comparison beteween two arrows is given by the direct comparison of the postion of the tho different COG, and this can't be discussed, as already said.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Dec 20, 2005)

Back to the answer of your original question. The reason the cost difference is tungsten is expensive and even more expensive to machine into little points. The benifit of tungsten is. Shorter points = less wind drift. Tungsten is also Harder then SS. So less chance of points getting bent. 

FOC = for overly concerned! 

The true foc calculation should take into full length arrow tip to end of nock but it doesnt. In the end it only changes the foc a tiny bit and it's just a number. The number doesn't affect your actual outcome on the target. I could care less what my foc is as long as my groups are as tight as they can get. Only way to know is by testing with different tip weight or actual results based.

FOC Calc is
1. Divide the arrow's overall length (distance to the bottom of nock groove to end of shaft by 2).
2. Find the balance point. ...
3. Subtract center of the arrow measurement (calculated in step 1) from the balance point (calculated in step 2).
4. Multiply the resulting number in Step 3 by 100.

Are the tungsten tips worth the $250 more. To the guy that can afford them yes. Will they affect score? Indoors no outdoors yes. The more arrows you shoot the more chances the wind is going to affect your groups. That tiny bit shorter point will eventually get a line the more you shoot it.


----------



## Ten_Zen (Dec 5, 2010)

Thanks Joe and Vittorio! It is really helpful to get such informed minds chiming in on this slippery subject. I am in school today but I will be reading that article as soon as I can. This is one of those things that most people could care less about, just calculate it one way or the other and stick with it. But for a few of us, understanding the WHY behind what we are doing is just as important as getting to the actual result.


----------

