# ACE's vs. X10's



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Here's one - X10s are thinner than ACEs.
And, X10s seem to be a tad heavier.


----------



## MerlinApexDylan (Oct 14, 2002)

X10's tune like butter, there is nothing else out there that will tune as well for a recurve that I know of.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

M.A.D,

That kind runs counter to the common (mis)conception that X10's are difficult to tune. Personally, I found them to be no more difficult than any other arrow to tune, but it seems some folks just can't figure them out for some reason...

I shot ACE's with great success from December of '03 until the folks at Easton sent me some X10's around October of '04. Honestly I cannot say that my scores improved because of the switch. If anything, I thought the ACE's were slightly more forgiving and consistent. I often had unexplained fliers with the X10's that I didn't remember getting with ACE's. I'm pretty sure Khatuna shot ACE's in Beijing. They are still a darn capable arrow. If I weren't shooting CX Nano's, I'd be using ACE's simply because of the success I've had with them in the past.

Now, having said that, there have been far too many medals and records set with X10's to dispute their effectiveness. But a fair test will never be available because those same archers only shot one arrow on the day they won that medal or shot that record score. Too many variables involved to know whether one arrow is truly "better" than the other. Suffice it to say that unless you are a 1300+ recurve archer, the difference isn't worth arguing about.

ACE's are still an important arrow for Easton due to their light weight. This is essential for some archers to be able to reach their longest distances without resorting to tricks or gimmicks. So for some, X10's are too heavy to be practical. For those that have plenty of horsepower to spare, the X10 is appealing due to it's smaller diameter and heavier weight (leading to potentially less wind drift and more downrange energy).

John.


----------



## Drivingbirdie (Apr 17, 2007)

What is the recommended weight range for X10 to be useful at 90m?


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

Drivingbirdie said:


> What is the recommended weight range for X10 to be useful at 90m?


....i would imagine any draw weight(NOT limb weight) above 42# would benefit from the x10s.....this weight should still allow you to shoot 90m without pulling the sight in....PS...since i can no longer pull that much weight i have switched to mckinney II arrows...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'd say mid-40's to reach 90M with X10's from a recurve, but it's hard to say. Too many variables. Draw length is a big one there as it really affects arrow speed and the size arrow you need to use (which in turn affects total arrow weight).

Only one (expensive) way to know for sure... :sad:

John.


----------



## tjk009 (Feb 15, 2007)

*90m*

I can reach 90M with Samick Extremes, #34 and A/C/E 670 120 g points. I can reach 90M with Samick Masters #38 X-10's 110 g points. Yes, the sight is in and fairly far down but I can aim at the target and not the flag.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

X10 are heavier but thinner than ACE for almost all draw lengts and poundages. So, by definition they are slower than ACE's but less sensitive to side wind then them in some conditions. These conditions have been mapped some time ago by Joe Tapley in his side wind simulator program, and is (not so) easy for everyone to compare them at the proper lenght and poundage by it.
As far as criticity to tune is concerned, I have ever found them more critical to tune and less forgiving than ACE's, and same for many others I know. 
In the Italian team, Michele has almost ever shot ACE's only, Ilario di Buo' went in and out from ACE's many times, Natalia Valeeva shot the Euroepan record 1369 with ACE's and presently she is back to ACE's after some time with X10 (and seh has been alternating them many times before)
Anyhow, both X10 and ACE have changed their features and quality many times in the years, as production process is changed for sure during such a long time. Last year Michele has been forced to abandon ACE's in favour of Nano Pro as average quality of them was found to be very bad in comparison to the past. And in recent tests at an Italian national team training camp, ACE's have again be found much worse as average than in the past, while X10 were more or less at same level (50% yield in selection) as ever. 
Pls note that these infos do not state anything related to the average user by the average archer, that mey never see any specific problem form any of them, but for sure ACE's of these days are not at the same quality level inside one tube they were at least until a couple of years ago. 
Specifically for them, the inside of the shaft is very dirth and need to be properly clened before even trying to select bare shafts, and as dirth removed can weight up and more than 2 grains in one shaft, is a good question to ask to Easton how they can grant weight tolerance in a tube with uncleaned arrows...


----------



## Apecs73 (Jan 19, 2009)

Vittorio said:


> X10 are heavier but thinner than ACE for almost all draw lengts and poundages. So, by definition they are slower than ACE's but less sensitive to side wind then them in some conditions. These conditions have been mapped some time ago by Joe Tapley in his side wind simulator program, and is (not so) easy for everyone to compare them at the proper lenght and poundage by it.
> As far as criticity to tune is concerned, I have ever found them more critical to tune and less forgiving than ACE's, and same for many others I know.
> In the Italian team, Michele has almost ever shot ACE's only, Ilario di Buo' went in and out from ACE's many times, Natalia Valeeva shot the Euroepan record 1369 with ACE's and presently she is back to ACE's after some time with X10 (and seh has been alternating them many times before)
> Anyhow, both X10 and ACE have changed their features and quality many times in the years, as production process is changed for sure during such a long time. Last year Michele has been forced to abandon ACE's in favour of Nano Pro as average quality of them was found to be very bad in comparison to the past. And in recent tests at an Italian national team training camp, ACE's have again be found much worse as average than in the past, while X10 were more or less at same level (50% yield in selection) as ever.
> ...


Hello Vittorio,

quite interesting hearing that from you because it seems to be confirming some experiences I made last outdoor season with my ACE's. I had the impression as well that the quality of that arrows had dropped.

What happened:
I had a set of 12 brand new ACE's. I always liked to shoot them with inserts and screwed points, because it was easy to switch between different point weights for tuning. But the surface of the points was very rough so that I always heard them scratching under the clicker. So I had to switch over to break off points.

After that I had my arrows tuned well I made the experience, that two arrows just did not group at 70m. They nearly missed the target at that distance and I could not find anything wrong with that arrows. So I had to put them away.

After some weeks, the carbon at the nocking side of the arrows broke up on nearly every single arrow! So I put the rest of the set into the garbage can. That was the end of my outdoor season last year.

Did anyone ever make similar experiences with ACE's?


----------



## rgauvin (Feb 20, 2007)

jmvargas said:


> ....i would imagine any draw weight(NOT limb weight) above 42# would benefit from the x10s.....this weight should still allow you to shoot 90m without pulling the sight in....PS...since i can no longer pull that much weight i have switched to mckinney II arrows...


I disagree, but let me explain before you think I am crazy. I have a long draw at 33 inches and I am holding 47 lbs thru the clicker. At 90M with my ACE's my sight is extremely low (extension bar out all the way). going to x10's, I would expect to have to bring in the bar (unless the x10's hit at the same height as the ACE's or higher). That said, with my long draw the sight is a 2-3 inches farther from my face then the average person with a draw of 28 inchs and that has to have an effect.


----------



## lorteti (Apr 14, 2008)

rgauvin said:


> I disagree, but let me explain before you think I am crazy. I have a long draw at 33 inches and I am holding 47 lbs thru the clicker. At 90M with my ACE's my sight is extremely low (extension bar out all the way). going to x10's, I would expect to have to bring in the bar (unless the x10's hit at the same height as the ACE's or higher). That said, with my long draw the sight is a 2-3 inches farther from my face then the average person with a draw of 28 inchs and that has to have an effect.


Draw length and arrow weight are the most critical indication to determine your minimum draw weight needed to reach 90m. With mine close to average 27.5" draw at 40 lbs, I have less than 1cm clearance from sight-pin to shaft with x10. My McKII 's gives me about 3cm clearance. The ideal draw weight for me to use x10 will be around 45 lbs.
Last year I was drawing 44 lbs with my Triple's(same mass weight as x10's), which gives me about 2cm clearance. Than I find the lightweight McKII's, so I draw 42 lbs and still get better sight marks. But I just lower draw weight to 40 lbs a week ago, when I realize that it's better working on my form consistency than pulling extra weight. As an archery enthusiast shooting about 500 arrows a week, I'll stick with this setup until I break 1300(if that happens), than maybe I'll try x10 or Nano pro pulling 45 lbs.
Ps: Actually with Nano pro doesn't need 45 lbs, with my 40 lbs draw still give me an acceptable 2cm clearance.
jx


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

lorteti said:


> Draw length and arrow weight are the most critical indication to determine your minimum draw weight needed to reach 90m. With mine close to average 27.5" draw at 40 lbs, I have less than 1cm clearance from sight-pin to shaft with x10. My McKII 's gives me about 3cm clearance. The ideal draw weight for me to use x10 will be around 45 lbs.
> Last year I was drawing 44 lbs with my Triple's(same mass weight as x10's), which gives me about 2cm clearance. Than I find the lightweight McKII's, so I draw 42 lbs and still get better sight marks. But I just lower draw weight to 40 lbs a week ago, when I realize that it's better working on my form consistency than pulling extra weight. As an archery enthusiast shooting about 500 arrows a week, I'll stick with this setup until I break 1300(if that happens), than maybe I'll try x10 or Nano pro pulling 45 lbs.
> Ps: Actually with Nano pro doesn't need 45 lbs, with my 40 lbs draw still give me an acceptable 2cm clearance.
> jx


Your explanation is perfec about reasons to choose one shaft instead of the other.... Bow elevation at long distancies is one of the most important factors in the choice....


----------



## Drivingbirdie (Apr 17, 2007)

I draw around 27.5 too, but I have an arrow that is about 28.5, and i'm using a Nexus, making the arrow even longer.


----------



## all10s (Sep 29, 2006)

lorteti said:


> Draw length and arrow weight are the most critical indication to determine your minimum draw weight needed to reach 90m.


This may sound odd for some of you, but the distance from the nock to your eye has a huge impact. You long faced people have a much easier time reaching 90m without having to move the sight inward.


----------



## AT_X_HUNTER (Aug 10, 2005)

all10s said:


> This may sound odd for some of you, but the distance from the nock to your eye has a huge impact. You long faced people have a much easier time reaching 90m without having to move the sight inward.


It makes perfect sense. The lower your anchor point the greater your launch angle.


----------



## inferno nexus (Oct 15, 2007)

Drivingbirdie said:


> I draw around 27.5 too, but I have an arrow that is about 28.5, and i'm using a Nexus, making the arrow even longer.


can you please explain more clearly how a riser can make your arrow longer?


----------



## Drivingbirdie (Apr 17, 2007)

inferno nexus said:


> can you please explain more clearly how a riser can make your arrow longer?


Grip


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

inferno nexus said:


> can you please explain more clearly how a riser can make your arrow longer?


the real answer involves the AMO draw length based on some risers having the pivot point closer to the back (the part facing the target) of the bow's riser an others. For example, If I take a sure loc with my cavaliver sight bar mounted clicker off of a SKY CONQUEST or a MATRIX and put it on the helix or nexus riser I cannot get through the clicker comfortably because my palm on my bow hand is closer to the clicker than it is on other brands or types of bows.


----------

