# Tungsten points vs Stainless steel points



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

They protect the arrow shaft better when shooting hard stramit targets since the point head is much smaller so it has less leverage to act on the shaft(at least that's the theory I think) 
Pro shooters shoot them because they get them for free. The FOC is actually better with steel points I think since most of the weight is outside the shaft. 
I bought some for cheap, but couldn't shoot them, my 380's were way to weak since the tungstens have such a short shank. Another downside is that you can't snip the break of pieces of without thinking how much money you're throwing away.


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

Ive used tungstens and stainless steel and have noticed no difference. Im a 1200 shooter (in practice  ) and maybe it would help if I was scoring higher. I measured FOC and using the same point weight between SS and tungsten, it was about 2% more. However this made no difference with my skill.

In terms of the hardness, the tungstens still got scuffed up as much as my stainless steel points so that was kind of a disappointment. I ended up selling off about two dozen a few months ago because I saw no benefit. 

The main reason for me to use them was the reduced external point length which was perfect, but I abandoned those arrows after failing with them at SoCal. Heck, theres still one sitting behind the range in the bushes...


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

According to a study done by James Park and others, the shorter bulge point (Tungsten) actually creates more drag than the longer and standard points. You can read the summary at: http://pip.sagepub.com/content/227/1/64 and the entire Pdf with all details at: http://pip.sagepub.com/content/227/1/64.full.pdf+html


​


----------



## dylpickleeeeeee (Jun 6, 2013)

julle said:


> They protect the arrow shaft better when shooting hard stramit targets since the point head is much smaller so it has less leverage to act on the shaft(at least that's the theory I think)
> Pro shooters shoot them because they get them for free. The FOC is actually better with steel points I think since most of the weight is outside the shaft.
> I bought some for cheap, but couldn't shoot them, my 380's were way to weak since the tungstens have such a short shank. Another downside is that you can't snip the break of pieces of without thinking how much money you're throwing away.


Isnt it almost like cutting an x10 arrow?


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Seems like tool-steel are the best of both worlds, it's just they tend to break a lot


----------



## bigHUN (Feb 5, 2006)

I had a deep dive in to this last month, can tell you my story, became a bit long:

- nock tuning @ 70 meters with my hootershooter for incoming Field and FITA tournaments
- my last years CX nano XR 450's with 1.5" mini blazer vanes touch together (these for Field), but the this season 410's with 1.850" flexfletch just around a 10 ring (these for FITA), both have the same 120 grain stainless points.
- hassling big time and ended up calling CX
- turned out that I cut the 410's a bit shorter (about 1/2"-3/4") and became just that small stiffer won't touch on 70 and I could not raise the DW on my DST-40 setup....
- they sad take 120 grain tool steel points (shorter but same weight) and better steering (means 2" plus vanes flexfletch or AAE)
- (this will move the FOC and need to add better steering)
Now, from this moment start the thinkering, what about selling the dozen shafts and re-do from scratch? or jump into an extra $180 expense for new points? (because I already have 3 bags of SS points in my drawers....price tag in Canada 30 bucks/ea)
Ended up ordering a bag of new tool steel points for 410's only, and both FF and AAE 2" vanes....
- hassle again, fletched with FF 200, 
went to a FITA tournament, the arrows were flying satisfactory (1386), the change had a very positive effect, but ended up shooting @ 30 almost bareshafts....lost the FF vanes...never happened to me, Im using FF for years....
so next day re-fletching again to AAE, and these are (my first time AAE) really holding well...
{turned out, that, in my rush after the fletching I cleaned the excess glue from the carbon between the new vanes with acetone dip qtips , and FF really didn't like that}
back to OP
yes, the tool steel will help over SS in combination with better-longer fletching/steering, will give the arrow higher FOC...and the longer vane will stabilize faster.
no, not much difference between tool steel and thungsten points, not that much to justify the extra expense
some people saying the toolsteel want to brake at the neck if you hit a very hard chunk in the target, this happened to me as well with one newly refreshed shaft....
{CX is saying the QC is out of their hand because these parts coming from a third party, occasionally happening that the toolsteel got over-hardened....or something like that} 
the pro's are lucky, I believe they getting the thungsten, from my view point that is a totally different ball game...


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

for the most part, i find the point length to be what matters. If i need longer shaft, then tungstens are better to fit within the clicker radius, if i use shorter shaft, then stainless steel can be used. I find either point shoots the same. Supposedly the tungsten points will penetrate harder bales better while protecting the shaft from breakage. I have broken a few shafts using the stainless steel hitting something metal in a bale. I have only broken on shaft with tungsten. I have bent quite a few stainless steel points but only bent on tungsten. 

All in all i would say the extra expense of the tungsten points compared to the stainless steel isnt warranted and you can get just as good results with the stainless steel. But the tungstens just look so cool. 

what do i mostly shoot? tungsten. 


Chris


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

I developed the first tungsten points in 1992 for a very specific purpose which had nothing to do with durability or shaft survivability in Stramit and other incredibly stupid, 14th century target materials, but it turned out to be a major enhancement to survivability, especially in windy conditions. A nice side benefit, if you will.




> {CX is saying the QC is out of their hand because these parts coming from a third party, occasionally happening that the toolsteel got over-hardened....or something like that}


That's unsurprising, seeing has how they actually don't make anything at all, themselves...


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

>--gt--> said:


> I developed the first tungsten points in 1992 for a very specific purpose which had nothing to do with durability or shaft survivability in Stramit and other incredibly stupid, 14th century target materials, but it turned out to be a major enhancement to survivability, especially in windy conditions. A nice side benefit, if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And what was the "specific purpose" ?


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

That's "need to know" type information


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

>--gt--> said:


> That's "need to know" type information


We all need to know  I do believe there was a time when the heaviest SS point was 110 grains and the Tungsten was the only way to get a 120 grain. Is that close??


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

Or maybe....




To make it easier to remove your arrow from the target and/or to minimize wear on the front portion of the arrow shaft when it enters the target???


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

The FOC was the draw for me. Playing around with the stainless and the tungsten points, there is a slight difference for the better. At a 1280 level there was a small difference between the two. 

There could be a small adjustment to the spine of the arrow. The significantly shorter tungsten could allow for a bit more flex in the shaft, the lengthier steel may decrease the flex.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> The FOC was the draw for me. Playing around with the stainless and the tungsten points, there is a slight difference for the better. At a 1280 level there was a small difference between the two.
> 
> There could be a small adjustment to the spine of the arrow. The significantly shorter tungsten could allow for a bit more flex in the shaft, the lengthier steel may decrease the flex.


Nice to see you still lurking here


Chris


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Keep in mind that a lot of these testimonies are for recurve shooters at 1250+ or compound 1350+. That's getting close to the elite levels where a few points are starting to make the difference. 

For the rest of us mere Mortals and recreational shooters, While it's fun to say I'm shooting xyz, Probably not going to make that huge of a difference.

DC


----------



## Bob Furman (May 16, 2012)

dchan said:


> Keep in mind that a lot of these testimonies are for recurve shooters at 1250+ or compound 1350+. That's getting close to the elite levels where a few points are starting to make the difference.
> 
> For the rest of us mere Mortals and recreational shooters, While it's fun to say I'm shooting xyz, Probably not going to make that huge of a difference.
> 
> DC


Not to stray off subject to far, but I think i'd rather be the guy who shoots a world record with a 10 yr old recurve and off brand carbon shafts at 34# 


​


----------



## dchan (Jun 29, 2004)

Bob Furman said:


> Not to stray off subject to far, but I think i'd rather be the guy who shoots a world record with a 10 yr old recurve and off brand carbon shafts at 34#
> 
> 
> ​


Me too.

Or maybe get that blue Achievement pin shooting a 22lb Rolan recurve, with a plastic cartel sight, and Medallion XR arrows.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

chrstphr said:


> Nice to see you still lurking here
> 
> 
> Chris


Still here from time to time.

AndI agree with what dchan said. I only noticed a difference when I was comfortably breaking 1280+ and was scouting for the extra point here or there. These days, with the once a week practice, steel points mounted on ACEs are a much more affordable option for the 1230ish level I'm at.


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

Bob Furman said:


> According to a study done by James Park and others, the shorter bulge point (Tungsten) actually creates more drag than the longer and standard points.


and yet James will be the first person to tell you he uses tungstens, because arrow speed is far from everything.


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

clearly the Tungsten carbide point is shorter and therefore shortens the moment between the end of the arrow to the front node.
The only benefit would be to increase or help maintain nodal oscillation frequency. The X10 is designed with a barrel shaft which moves the nodes closer to the end of the arrow and there for a higher oscillation frequency. There must be a benefit. Maybe more stability by having the node closer to the rest without the front of the arrow hang over the front of the riser. I don't have x10s' or tungsten carbide points.
Maybe I'm clearly off base with this thought experiment.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

dylpickleeeeeee said:


> Isnt it almost like cutting an x10 arrow?


That's why I have such a long draw length ;-)


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

caspian said:


> and yet James will be the first person to tell you he uses tungstens, because arrow speed is far from everything.


Doesn't he shave them down to a bullet point?


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Played with tungsten points for ages, including having custom tungsten points done for ACE's.
Only reason to use them is a better FOC, and FOC is the dominating factor in windy conditions. 
No reason to use them if you can't judge the difference in practical shooting, i.e. you are not among top level shooters.


----------



## BobCo19-65 (Sep 4, 2009)

Tungsten points are much easier to pull from a wooden target frame.


----------



## cc46 (Jan 22, 2005)

Thanks!
Very good discussion guys... covers all of my questions
Cheers!


----------



## bigHUN (Feb 5, 2006)

DT told me an other day, x-10's or nano pros, with thungsten parts, will play a +1 point game when you reach to 1400, :confused3:
and, he won't sell me he's arrows for any money until Im not there
.....uhm :set1_thinking:....maybe next time hwell:


----------



## BobCo19-65 (Sep 4, 2009)

Tungsten points will not bend. I guess it is something that is one less worry mentally.?


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

BobCo19-65 said:


> Tungsten points will not bend. I guess it is something that is one less worry mentally.?


 i shot an arrow in to the wooden stand of the target last year with a tungsten point on the X10. when i pulled on the shaft, it came off but left in the point. When i dug the point our with a knife, the point shaft was bent. Not sure if it was the hit or my tugging with a pair of pliers that bent it. 


Chris


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

BobCo19-65 said:


> Tungsten points will not bend.


I'll take that bet. they bend just fine if you find a bolt in the butt frame.



julle said:


> Doesn't he shave them down to a bullet point?


not that I have seen. that would also reduce the weight of the point, somewhat destroying the "point" of the exercise.


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

horndog said:


> clearly the Tungsten carbide point is shorter and therefore shortens the moment between the end of the arrow to the front node.
> The only benefit would be to increase or help maintain nodal oscillation frequency. The X10 is designed with a barrel shaft which moves the nodes closer to the end of the arrow and there for a higher oscillation frequency. There must be a benefit. Maybe more stability by having the node closer to the rest without the front of the arrow hang over the front of the riser. I don't have x10s' or tungsten carbide points.
> Maybe I'm clearly off base with this thought experiment.


My conclusion © Tungsten carbide point have very little to do with arrow flight over a stainless steel point of equal weight but rather were they hit the target. With a higher oscillation frequency with tungsten carbide points the distance between left and right node travel is less. When the arrow hits the target there is a greater chance to break the line (if close). Maybe good for a couple of points at most but maybe the difference in a competition.

Case closed.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

horndog said:


> My conclusion © Tungsten carbide point have very little to do with arrow flight over a stainless steel point of equal weight but rather were they hit the target. With a higher oscillation frequency with tungsten carbide points the distance between left and right node travel is less. When the arrow hits the target there is a greater chance to break the line (if close). Maybe good for a couple of points at most but maybe the difference in a competition.
> 
> Case closed.


Nicely stated, confidently asserted- and wrong


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

>--gt--> said:


> Nicely stated, confidently asserted- and wrong


Thank you for the kind words! This is the first time I can remember being complemented on my demeanor rather than being summarily banished! I would be honored if you would elaborate on why my theory is wrong.


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

horndog said:


> clearly the Tungsten carbide point is shorter and therefore shortens the moment between the end of the arrow to the front node.
> The only benefit would be to increase or help maintain nodal oscillation frequency. The X10 is designed with a barrel shaft which moves the nodes closer to the end of the arrow and there for a higher oscillation frequency. There must be a benefit. Maybe more stability by having the node closer to the rest without the front of the arrow hang over the front of the riser. *I don't have x10s' or tungsten carbide points*.
> *Maybe I'm clearly off base with this thought experiment*.





horndog said:


> My conclusion © Tungsten carbide point have very little to do with arrow flight over a stainless steel point of equal weight but rather were they hit the target. With a higher oscillation frequency with tungsten carbide points the distance between left and right node travel is less. When the arrow hits the target there is a greater chance to break the line (if close). Maybe good for a couple of points at most but maybe the difference in a competition.
> 
> *Case closed*.


Maybe not?



>--gt--> said:


> Nicely stated, confidently asserted- and wrong


Maybe if I were to *acquire* said arrows *(700)* and points I might find my errors and recant my findings. : wink :


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

horndog said:


> Thank you for the kind words! This is the first time I can remember being complemented on my demeanor rather than being summarily banished! I would be honored if you would elaborate on why my theory is wrong.


don't expect an answer on that one.


----------



## ppayne (Jul 13, 2007)

the following might be useful to someone contemplating a switch from steel points to tungstens. Please keep in mind however that this info is only based on my own experience so very limited in scope

Possibly due to some hard bales used at my club, I would find cracks in may be 4, 5 of my X10s at the end of the outdoor season ( out of a dozen acquired prior to the start of the season). These would always be about 4 mm in length and of course, right at the junction where the point meets the shaft. After three seasons I assumed this to be the price one had to pay for shooting carbon-aluminium arrows in tough bales however these cracks have ceased to randomly appear now that my arrows are fitted with tungsten points. 
So in my case, they have been kinder on my arrows, for sure. No increase in performance but I am an average shooter in any case. Hope this helps


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

>--gt--> said:


> Nicely stated, confidently asserted- and wrong





caspian said:


> don't expect an answer on that one.


Sometimes you have to read between the lines!


----------



## toj (Aug 22, 2012)

I remember reading that the original stainless x10 points were prone to bending and snapping and so the tungsten points came about.
The stainless points available now are a little better and do not suffer as much so the tungsten are not really nessesary.

In the same post the guy stated that there was no performance gain from tungsten in anyway.

He also claimed to have developed them so I'm not sure how credible any of that may be.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

toj said:


> In the same post the guy stated that there was no performance gain from tungsten in anyway.
> 
> He also claimed to have developed them so I'm not sure how credible any of that may be.


If the poster was >--gt--> then he did develop them, as well as the X10 arrow. 


Chris


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

chrstphr said:


> If the poster was >--gt--> then he did develop them, as well as the X10 arrow.
> 
> 
> Chris


I can only imagine the cooperate finger pointing when it was discovered the points were too soft. Then the pressure to come up with a quick fix at an astounding $20 per point from $3. The real crime is fixing the SS points and not tell anyone! Well they have to pay for there mistake some how! I know I wouldn't be proud of this if it were me.

How could anyone reverse engineer a kluge like this? I regret I attempted!


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

Bob Furman said:


> And what was the "specific purpose" ?





>--gt--> said:


> The purpose of Tungsten points is to prevent arrow damage when shot by high-speed bows into hard (Stramit) targets. Full stop, end of story.
> 
> The new Easton stainless points are more than adequate for 95% of users.



http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=12513&p=93847#post93847


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

March 10th, 2003
Mr. Furman was not an AT forum member at that time. Your whole post was a fabrication. You can keep Mr. Furman company on my ignore list!


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

horndog said:


> March 10th, 2003
> Mr. Furman was not an AT forum member at that time. Your whole post was a fabrication. You can keep Mr. Furman company on my ignore list!


As I presume the nice Mr Horndog is aiming that comment at my last post I'll point out this icon







beside the usernames on my previous post can be used to link back to the original post.

The first quote is from the first page of this thread, the second from an older thread discussing the same subject which is also the home of the link at the bottom of the post.

The bottom post is the answer to the question posed in the first one.

Simples.


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

Greysides said:


> Quote Originally Posted by >--gt-->...sn't really consistent with his statements...


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

I said the original development had to do with something else, but a side benefit was a high degree of durability enhancement for the arrow. Later when a solution needed to be developed for a durability issue, the experience with the previously developed point was carried on to the current product.

What is inconsistent?


----------



## rasyad (Nov 22, 2005)

GT, 

As a product development, guy your explanation makes fine sense to me.

Rasyad


----------



## julle (Mar 1, 2009)

>--gt--> said:


> What is inconsistent?


You saying in one post the survivability is only a side benefit and in another it's the main purpose. Makes me wonder what the other benefit is, but that's clearly a secret.


----------



## Greysides (Jun 10, 2009)

Maybe the tungsten was a stand in for depleted uranium?


----------



## caspian (Jan 13, 2009)

forget it, gt is too busy displaying his superior and one-eyed attitude to actually bother answering with anything useful.

I take the point of commercially confidential information quite well, thanks. I work in a company that deploys billions of dollars of gear a year. Hoyt is small change in comparison.

that doesn't alter the fact.


----------



## Ronin Conan (Jul 4, 2011)

Greysides said:


> Maybe the tungsten was a stand in for depleted uranium?







tungsten is actually slightly denser.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

julle said:


> You saying in one post the survivability is only a side benefit and in another it's the main purpose. Makes me wonder what the other benefit is, but that's clearly a secret.


It's fun to speculate. Possibly S.H.I.E.L.D. needed a special armor-piercing arrow for one of their agents. Wonder which one?

Or maybe someone needed to vaccinate rabid bunnys at long range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flechette


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> Nicely stated, confidently asserted- and wrong


GT, you are a world class expert in archery engineering, giving constructive criticism that includes the correct answers would be helpful. Just saying "wrong" is not.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

we may be overthinking the subject of this thread..

after going thru all of the posts here is my take:

1)..as gt said there is a big advantage as far as durability is concerned which was a welcome result after it was developed but not originally the reason why it was developed in the first place--we may never know that original reason!

2)..it will also improve the foc for those who want or need it..

3)..it MAY help improve scores of the elite archers--1350+ recurve fita shooters--but may not be worth is for lesser archers..


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

Warbow said:


> GT, you are a world class expert in archery engineering, giving constructive criticism that includes the correct answers would be helpful. Just saying "wrong" is not.


You mean, it's better to let an incorrect conclusion stand with no comment at all? Interesting point of view.

I did go out of my way to answer the question from the person who started the thread. I didn't realize I was also obligated to provide an exhaustive counterpoint for incorrect further assumptions that present every appearance of being of a tongue in cheek nature in the first place.

In other words, horn dog is having fun with some of you and I responded in kind.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

julle said:


> "I developed the first tungsten points in 1992 for a very specific purpose which had nothing to do with durability or shaft survivability in Stramit and other incredibly stupid, 14th century target materials, but it turned out to be a major enhancement to survivability, especially in windy conditions. A nice side benefit, if you will."
> 
> He isn't really consistent with his statements...


Its coherent and very consistent. You might be wearing cognizant biased glasses. Several of you are I think.


----------



## >--gt--> (Jul 1, 2002)

I'm giving that person extra leeway for his non-native reading comprehension, as his English is a lot better than my Dutch!


----------



## horndog (Jan 5, 2009)

>--gt--> said:


> Nicely stated, confidently asserted- and *wrong*





>--gt--> said:


> *I said the original development had to do with something else*, but a side benefit was a high degree of durability enhancement for the arrow. Later when a solution needed to be developed for a durability issue, the experience with the previously developed point was carried on to the current product.
> 
> What is inconsistent?





Warbow said:


> GT, you are a world class expert in archery engineering, giving constructive criticism that includes the correct answers would be helpful. Just saying "wrong" is not.


As Warbow said,"GT, you are a world class expert in archery engineering". I would not have expected an answer in which you would have divulged any secret information that would compromise the team dominance in the archery competition world, or at least not give away any performance secrets. That would include introducing a "red hearing" to throw off the trail to the truth.

I'm sure your information of ten year old post would not have been volunteered in todays climate of back stabbing and arrow slinging (no pun intended).

This is a vicious forum!

Again, GT, thanks for the kind words!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

>--gt--> said:


> You mean, it's better to let an incorrect conclusion stand with no comment at all? Interesting point of view.


That, gt, is a straw man. It is better to provide the correct answer rather than just snarkily say "wrong", as my post clearly stated. 

You've got the chops to be one of the most fascinating and informative people in this forum, to provide evidenced-based insight into bow design, the hows and whys, non-of which are necessarily proprietary or trade secrets of Easton instead of the hit and run snark I often associate with your posts.


----------



## HikerDave (Jan 1, 2011)

jmvargas said:


> we may be overthinking the subject of this thread..
> 
> after going thru all of the posts here is my take:
> 
> ...


I'll add one more reason. Because the point is shorter with tungsten points, the arrow shaft is longer, which means that a slightly heavier arrow shaft could be used -- say the next size up instead of the next size down if the archer tunes in between two spine groups. That's not a very good reason to spend all that money on tungsten -- probably the only really good reason is to ensure that during the course of an important competition a damaged arrow point doesn't cost an elite archer score points.

Anybody remember the Titanium craze of the 1980's when all that Russian titanium went on the market? Tungsten points seem to be a similar kind of bling.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

It was likely realized during the early development of X10 arrows that, with SS, the relationship between the length of point outside the shaft and the length of the shank inside the shaft limited the practical point weight due to available hot melt at the time and the lack of patience of persons during the installation and/or removal of the points.

The original X10 SS points were only 110 grains and the additional 10 grains on the end would increase the bending moment upon striking the target in windy conditions. Adding the 10 grains to the shank would make it so long that people would ruin shafts from excessive heat misguidedly perceived necessary to easily insert the point into the shaft.

It is not possible for a competent engineer to not realize the FOC advantage of a relatively short shank and acceptable point length provided by a more dense material of sufficient strength to better resist flex failure at the junction of shank and point.


----------



## DWAA Archer (Oct 14, 2011)

1. The highest STAR FITA score shot in history with a recurve (1405) is with an X10 and stainless steel Easton points at 110 grains. All the top Korean recurve shooters use X10 shafts with stainless points.

2. I originally developed tungsten points in 1992, to accompany the ACE as a means of extending front-of-center balance a few percent with the same mass weight (cg of point outside the shaft). This was at a time when use of a 100 grain point was on the heavy side of acceptability for use. Due to the density of the tungsten, the point was a two-piece component using a tungsten head on a HS steel shank. Cost was deemed prohibitive, and these were never released to the public.

3. While the original 2-piece stainless points for X10 shafts were adequate, in some compounds on some hard target butts, in heavy winds, the point shank could be bent. I re-launched the tungsten point project in 1997 in order to address this specific issue. The X10 one-piece tungsten point is also much easier to properly glue into the shaft, and is extremely durable. It also allows a heavier point option without an excessivly long shank. The tungsten alloy used in the X10 point is not commercially available, it is made by a US defense contractor to military specifications using a special densification process and is stronger and denser than any commercial grade tungsten. 

4. In 1999, Easton reformulated the original stainless steel points to a much stronger precipitation hardened steel alloy which is still used today. This nearly completely eliminates the possibility of point bending.

5. I am not aware of anyone at Easton declaring that the tungsten point is required for high performance. It enhances product durability.

A GT quote from 2008


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And then in 2007, Carbon Express introduced the tool steel point, which is the perfect compromise between performance, and cost.


----------



## Red01 (Sep 4, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> And then in 2007, Carbon Express introduced the tool steel point, which is the perfect compromise between performance, and cost.


any word on if Carbon Express will release tool still points for the nano sst's, or if one of the ones for a nano pro will fit.I really do love these new arrows(they are my first "premium arrow") and can't figure out why carbon express hasn't updated their website. Probably wouldn't know the deference, but wouldn't mind getting some to play around with. 

Cedrake


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I can't figure out why CX hasn't updated their website either. Seems like a pretty high priority thing for a major company to me... 

I've not heard whether tool steel would be available for the SST line. My guess is probably not considering the price point for the SST's, but one never knows.


----------



## fango0000 (Mar 16, 2011)

Warbow said:


> That, gt, is a straw man. It is better to provide the correct answer rather than just snarkily say "wrong", as my post clearly stated.
> 
> You've got the chops to be one of the most fascinating and informative people in this forum, to provide evidenced-based insight into bow design, the hows and whys, non-of which are necessarily proprietary or trade secrets of Easton instead of the hit and run snark I often associate with your posts.


By the gods, you don't know how long I've waited to see that. Thank you Warbow.


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> I can't figure out why CX hasn't updated their website either. Seems like a pretty high priority thing for a major company to me...
> 
> I've not heard whether tool steel would be available for the SST line. My guess is probably not considering the price point for the SST's, but one never knows.


The 2014 catalog is up and it says the Nano Pro points will fit the SST shaft.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Arsi said:


> The 2014 catalog is up and it says the Nano Pro points will fit the SST shaft.


Surprise, surprise! There they are!

http://www.carbonexpressarrows.com/sites/default/files/2014 Carbon Express Catalog.pdf


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

limbwalker said:


> Surprise, surprise! There they are!
> 
> http://www.carbonexpressarrows.com/sites/default/files/2014 Carbon Express Catalog.pdf


Im curious why the SST specific points arent even in the catalog but they are on Lancaster. 

I was evaluating the arrows ill be using for the 2014 season and the SST was high on my list and I couldnt figure out what components id need for them. Though with the holiday season I got a bunch of Lancaster gift cards so im going to be switching from X10s to Xtremes once outdoor season starts.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Checking with CX. Will report back.


----------



## Red01 (Sep 4, 2012)

I emailed carbon express last night and they said today that thier were no tool steel points for the sst's hopefully limbwalker knows who to email to get the right answer. 

Arsi, i saw them thier I was referring to thier main web site. 

Cedrake


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Just received word that the CX catalog on their website is incorrect. There are no tool steel or tungsten points available yet for the SST's. Only the stainless points, as shown on the Lancaster's website.

The SST's use a unique size exclusive to the SST shafts.


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

Well that explains that! I was so confused!


----------



## Joe T (Apr 5, 2003)

Arsi said:


> The 2014 catalog is up and it says the Nano Pro points will fit the SST shaft.


Have updated the shaft data file for the Drift program to include:
Nano SST, XT, XR
Medallion XR

update available from Shaft data file


----------

