# Nano Pros or others vs. Barreled Eastons



## Jason22 (Aug 16, 2008)

Can anyone who has done significant testing of X10/ACE vs Nano Pros or other shafts care to elaborate on their findings?

I have read comments about Easton having degraded quality control and that has been my experience with ACE's and X7's. I believe the arrows they used to make were made much better than they are now - but I have not used X10s so I can't comment on them other than they seem to get bent. I shot ACEs for years and the only ones I bent were shot into something very hard.

Frangilli and other Italians have moved away from Easton shafts, as has John Magera so it makes you wonder.

It is true that X10's were almost exclusive in Beijing and they have broken many records, but they are also the arrow pushed hardest by the largest manufacturer in the world... so their dominance could be a result of volume and presence in the hands of top archers, more than their benefits over other arrows.

How do Nano Pro and other competitive shafts hold up in wind vs. the X10?


----------



## AggieX10 (Mar 29, 2004)

Having shot the X10's and the X10 Protours and not havnig shot the nano's, what I can say is that the X10's seem to have better tolerances which you would expect being that they have an aluminum core tube (not exactly a "composite") and the wind drift of the barreled and tapered arrow shafts compared to straight shafts of carbon arrows and ACC's is UNDENIABLY better than the straight shaft counterparts.

Things that I have heard about the nano's are that the tolerances can be a bit off... don't know if that is true... but I have always said there is a reason why the top pros and olympians shoot Easton X10's. Most would sell their soul for another point every match or another 10 points every FITA... so the idea that it is just pushed because Easton is the biggest company... I don't buy it. Archer's want the equipment that is going to give them the best chance to win ($$ included) and they will shoot what they think is the best to get them there.


----------



## Jason22 (Aug 16, 2008)

X10's are obviously fantastic arrows, but the ones Olympians get are hand picked, free, and there is a lot of contention money for those who medal with them. 

Some very experienced archers have been switching from X10's back to ACEs or to Carbon Express and Carbon Tech arrows recently.. so I was hoping some of them would chime in.


----------



## allanmeter (Mar 9, 2009)

Jason22 said:


> I have read comments about Easton having degraded quality control and that has been my experience with ACE's and X7's.


Really? Any evidence to back this up, did u weigh the arrows for weight deviations? Did you check the straightness with any devices?

Brand bashing can be fun, but please before you "degrade" the work and possibly reputation of a good American company please have some facts ready. 

If you're competing for a Olympic medal I think they would pick the best arrow that gives the most points, and not the company with the most to offer financially. 

Allan.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

I got a dz of Protour shafts (only partially cut - unfletched and without points glued in). Here's what I got:
10 of those weigh 237.2 grains.
For one of them the scale can't decide between 236.9 and 237.2 (as it is a CX scale of 0.3 grain precision). So lets say that one weighs somehere in the middle => 237.1
And the remaining one's weight is 237.8 grains.
So, in a dozen of X10 protours I have 0.7 grain variance (at most) with 2 shafts. That should be good, right?
Sorry for not having a decent spine tester, the one I have came with the arrow saw and I can't actually tell unless the arrow is obviously bent that shows even without the spine tester.


----------



## Jason22 (Aug 16, 2008)

allanmeter said:


> Really? Any evidence to back this up, did u weigh the arrows for weight deviations? Did you check the straightness with any devices?
> 
> Brand bashing can be fun, but please before you "degrade" the work and possibly reputation of a good American company please have some facts ready.
> 
> ...


I'm definitely not brand bashing and will most likely still buy X10's but want to know how others have held up against them by people who have tested both.

The last 2 dozen Easton arrows I have purchased had 1 bad arrow in the dozen. An X7 Eclipse had a crease that ran the full length of the shaft, An ACE bare shaft hit 12-18" to the right of the other 11 arrows 20-25 times, so it was not the same spine. I swapped and rotated nocks and verified the arrow was straight. I did weigh it and it was lighter than the others, but I can't recall the variation. The points were identical weight. I marked it on the shaft of the beiter nock and mixed it in with others so I wouldn't be able to tell which arrow I was shooting and every time it hit to the far right of the group.

Dado .7gr variation in a dozen is awesome.


----------



## ArrowNewB (Nov 13, 2008)

Yeah! dont bash a good american company! but if its not american, go right ahead! :thumbs_up:wink:


----------



## Acehero (Nov 2, 2007)

I'm recurve and shoot the Nano pro but havent shot x10 before. With x10's being slightly heavier I think i'd struggle with 90m sight marks, even with 45lb on my fingers (sight is pulled half way in toward the bow even with the Nanos). The Nano's are very good arrows and I've found they group better for me than than the equivalent spine ACE's I had before, though the ACE's had been shot a lot so that might be a factor. Am very impressed with the Nano's so far and managed a great (for me) 654 on a 70m round with them.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> How do Nano Pro and other competitive shafts hold up in wind vs. the X10?


Okay, allow me to de-bunk some popular myths here if I may. Anyone that knows better, or has more experience, please feel free to correct me.

1)


> Things that I have heard about the nano's are that the tolerances can be a bit off... don't know if that is true...


Not my experience AT ALL. The tolerances from shaft-to-shaft on Nano XR's and Nano Pro's are superior to any A/C shaft I've used. Every dozen ACE's or X10's I ever used (as supplied to me by Easton themselves) included at least 2 or more unexplained fliers in the group. The best bare shaft groups I could ever achieve with an A/C shaft were TWICE as large as the bare shaft groups (shot at 70 meters) I can achieve with either CX Nano shafting. To me, that says a lot about the quality and consistency of the shafting. It was one of the first things that sold me on the nanos.

2)


> there is a reason why the top pros and olympians shoot Easton X10's. Most would sell their soul for another point every match or another 10 points every FITA


This is pure myth. The reason is usually that the top shooters are either provided free arrows, or paid a handsome amount or both, and they are afraid of getting off the gravy train. That is fact. I personally know of two top shooters who were offered a chance to shoot the nano pro's and the first thing they did was ask how much they would get to shoot them. CX doesn't pay anyone that I'm aware of to use their nano's, so these shooters replied by saying "no thanks." It had NOTHING to do with the opportunity to gain a point or two, and so long as they know all their competitors will be using X10's, there is little incentive for them to switch.

3)


> X10's are obviously fantastic arrows, but the ones Olympians get are hand picked, free, and there is a lot of contention money for those who medal with them.


 Again, this is not always true. If some archers got or get hand-picked arrows, I certainly was not included in that group in 2004, nor do I think one other of my teammates were. I was left to sort, trim and assemble my own arrows prior to the Olympics with NO help offered or available. I ended up cutting two doz. off-the-shelf ACE's in my garage and assembling them without a grain scale to the best of my ability. Then I went about sorting them by shooting bare shafts alone for a while then comparing those results to the results I got once they were fletched. Not very scientific, I know, but it was the best I could do with what I had and the available help. I always thought that I should have had more help as an archer on contract with Easton, heading to the Olympic games. 

4) People are sheep. Archers are no different. They follow the crowd and make a LOT of assumptions without ever conducting their own tests. There is good reason for that, primarily due to the unbelievable cost of these arrows. Also, the majority of archers aren't shooting at a level where they can realize the difference between a cartel triple, acc, ace, nano, mckinney or x10 shaft. In fact, I'd say (and have said in the past) that there are only about 5-10 archers in the U.S. right now that are capable of seeing a difference between a McKinney, X10, ACE or Nano. That is, a significant performance difference, not just a difference in tuning or being able to reach a certain distance. The primary reason most archers should select a shaft, beyond budet, is the characteristics of the arrow that they need, not the performance. MANY archers would be far better off shooting an ACE over an X10, but like I said, since people are sheep, they drool over X10's without a logical reason for doing so.

In my own experience, I saw a performance difference when I switched from Cartel triples to ACE's in the winter of 2003/2004. I did not see a performance difference when I switched to X10's from the ACE's, and in fact, struggled to shoot the same scores with the X10's. They did not seem as forgiving to me as the ACE's. I saw another performance increase when I switched from X10's to Nano's, and gained consistency (all 12 arrows grouped together all the time) and the forgiveness I had been accustomed to with the ACE. So for me at least, these are the reasons I shoot the Nanos.

One final thought, my nano pro's, fully assembled, have 0.5 grains weight variation in a dozen. This is not difficult to achieve with the CX shafting.

John.


----------



## Toxothise1440 (Nov 30, 2008)

From what I see all the really top recurve shooters (and Limbwalker is not in that category- not internationally competitive, sorry) who tried the Nano/Nano pro fell flat on their faces- see results from Frangilli in France last month as example.

I also know, for a fact, that the top teams all buy the Eastons, they are not given them free. Some individual shooters get a discount, a few others get them free. But Korea buys them as do most others.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> From what I see all the really top recurve shooters (and Limbwalker is not in that category- not internationally competitive, sorry) who tried the Nano/Nano pro fell flat on their faces- see results from Frangilli in France last month as example


Wow, that's an interesting statement to make. Not sure who G. Papoutsaki is (sorry, never heard of you), but I think it would be useful to the discussion if everyone knew what your experience and financial interest is related to this topic however... Especially when you state that you know, for a fact, that the "top teams all buy Eastons." 

Fact is, we have only had 4 or 5 internationally competitive recurve shooters in the U.S. for the past 7 years, and no, I never included myself in that group even when I was shooting my best. One can argue that we still don't have internationally competitive recurve archers - at least when all the countries show up for an event... But that's another topic.

It's easy to say "see - all the top shooters use ... " when so much of the market is either paid or afraid to use anything else. However, I have never said the ACE's or X10's are junk. They are in fact very, very good arrows. Just no longer the best IMO.

Also, your statement about who buys them vs. who is provided arrows is not consistent with what I know. Again, it would be curious to know what your experience and financial interest is on the issue.

Many, many people have asked since I switched to Nano's whether I was paid to do so. I absolutely was not paid, and never accepted any compensation for endorsing them. I was however on contract (paid) with Easton to use their arrows during and following the Oly. games. I was planning to use them anyway, so I signed a very simple (and for not very much money) contract that I saw more as an insurance policy on the part of Easton than anything else. 

I just simply have proven through my personal testing and experience that the CX nano's are a better arrow, otherwise, I'd still be shooting X10's or ACE's (probably ACE's). I was getting free arrows from Easton anyway, so what incentive would I have had to make the switch other than one arrow worked better than another?

Folks can believe what they want, but having a productive career in an unrelated field and shooting for fun allows me much more liberty to call things as I see them than most any other nationally (or internationally) competitive archer.  One last thing - my nano's were good enough to tie one of our "internationally competitive" archers in the ranking round at the recent TX shootout - and I can tell you that my score was only achieved because of the incredible forgiveness of that shaft. As poorly as I was shooting, there is no way I break 640 that day with an X10. 

John.


----------



## Toxothise1440 (Nov 30, 2008)

You sure wrote a lot but you never answered the question. 

Why is it that no international recurve stars who tried the arrow you say is best are not successful with it?

It's a simple question. Don't attack the questioner.


----------



## gig'em 99 (Feb 1, 2008)

Toxothise1440 said:


> You sure wrote a lot but you never answered the question.
> 
> Why is it that no international recurve stars who tried the arrow you say is best are not successful with it?
> 
> It's a simple question. Don't attack the questioner.


Toxo - You never asked this question...you just made the inflammatory statement below.



Toxothise1440 said:


> From what I see all the really top recurve shooters (and Limbwalker is not in that category- not internationally competitive, sorry) who tried the Nano/Nano pro fell flat on their faces- see results from Frangilli in France last month as example.
> 
> I also know, for a fact, that the top teams all buy the Eastons, they are not given them free. Some individual shooters get a discount, a few others get them free. But Korea buys them as do most others.


And then you imply that Frangilli's performance was due to the arrow brand. That's a pretty big leap of faith.

John, you're credentials as a former US Olympian speak for themselves. And the fact that you make clear your relationships with the various manufacturers also lend a considerable amount of credibility to your points. Don't worry about getting into debates with the few members that use their key boards like a gun in a drive-by. I'm pretty certain, that the point of this thread was to get feed back from people like yourself, who've tried out the different types of arrows and can provide real feedback. So thank you for doing that.


----------



## archerydude288 (Nov 10, 2008)

John, I have a question that you might be able to answer. I've heard from several different sources that the diameter of the Nanos at the point end changes the longer you shoot them. Something about the impact with the target butt compresses the point, and the effects are seen more with the all carbon shafts than with the A/C shafts. I've heard they shoot great for the first 5,000 shots or so and then they don’t group well. Have you noticed any grouping spread or shaft inconsistency after shooting the arrows for a while??


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

the year before last I spoke with the gentlemen who was manning the CX both at Vegas. He had said at that time they were offering a contingency check for some events. They wanted to get some of the top archers to at least try the Nano's (they were the XR's then now they have the weight forward Pro's). I don't know if they actually paid any money out on those but they definitively were looking at that as an option. 

This is my take on the X10 vs Nano. By enlarge the carbon arrows take a whole lot more to become deformed than do the any aluminum component. Performance is dramatically affected by confidence in your equipment. So if you feel your arrows may have a bend then you are less likely to trust your shot. You may have guessed by now I shoot the Nano's. Take a look at the recovery times of the two as well. The fact that most people use the X10's is a self fulfilling prophecy. If 95% of the archers shot a goldtip hunting arrow in the Olympics I would be willing to bet that a gold tip would win. Especially if it were a windless day.

I'm hardly a world class Archer but IMO the Nano's are the best arrow on the market. Oh and I wasn't paid to shoot them or hawk them. Just chose them on plain old common sense. Stop following the herd, you don't need to make a judgment based on what everyone else is doing.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> You sure wrote a lot but you never answered the question


Actually, I believe I did answer that question quite well, even though it never was asked. And if I may say so, I'm in a pretty unique position to answer that question that very few others are...

Gig'em - thanks, and you're right...



> I've heard from several different sources that the diameter of the Nanos at the point end changes the longer you shoot them. Something about the impact with the target butt compresses the point, and the effects are seen more with the all carbon shafts than with the A/C shafts. I've heard they shoot great for the first 5,000 shots or so and then they don’t group well. Have you noticed any grouping spread or shaft inconsistency after shooting the arrows for a while??


Short answer: No. I've never heard of this. I suppose it's possible in theory if you used a thin walled all carbon shaft on really hard targets (like those poor excuses for targets they use across the pond from time to time...!) But the nano's have very thick walls for a small diameter arrow. I would actually expect to see something like that, or perhaps seperation between the carbon and aluminum tubes on an A/C arrow before I would on an arrow like the nano.

My second thought is: who was spreading this information and why? Lots of brand loyalty and for some, a lot to lose if market share goes the same direction with target arrows that it has with hunting arrows... And of course then there is this phenomenon:



> If 95% of the archers shot a goldtip hunting arrow in the Olympics I would be willing to bet that a gold tip would win.


Try 99% or perhaps even 100%. 

It's an interesting set of circumstances really when you think about it...

The most skilled archers in the world are getting their arrows free from one manufacturer, and in many cases (a lot actually) are being paid to shoot those arrows. These are actually the ones with the most to lose if they chose to shoot another arrow, simply from the standpoint of endorsements, contingency checks, free supplies, etc. And when you consider the whole animal (not just arrows, but bows, stabilizers, etc., etc.), then there is even more at stake. It's like being assimilated by the borg...

The ones with the least to lose by trying something new are those without connections, compensation, endorsements or strings attached. And usually those are the less skilled archers. So they don't win events...

It is in fact a self-fulfilling prophecy, or at least, a chicken-or-the-egg conundrum.

I'm not going to tell you that my 641 at A&M was a world-class score, but I will say this - it tied the ranking score by the top ranked archer in the U.S., bested not only my Olympic round ranking score, but also one of my teammate's as well, and was shot in more difficult winds, with far less preparation and training. Say what you want, but I think the arrows were the difference. VERY forgiving and VERY little wind drift...

John.


----------



## SoCal Archery D (May 7, 2008)

John and Crowd,

I have to say I have found this thread fascinating and refreshingly honest. I hope we can keep this conversation going...

My son and I just got back from the SI Cup and YWC trials on Carbondale. He is a Cadet Compound Shooter was the only person on the entire field shooting standard diameter Carbon Express arrows (White Tail). 

Do any of you have any thoughts about the overall performance of standard diameter arrows vs. match grade arrows (Nano Pro's) in a compound? The reason I ask this question is that I can see how arrow flight could be more greatly affected by environmental factors with a recurve since the velocity of the arrow is normally less than that of arrow shot by a compound, but does it really make a difference?

Hope my question is clear enough, I know what I want to ask, but I am not sure if I am using the right words...


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

I have shot Nano's from a compound and the thinner diameter does two things bot are related to less wind resistance. Since the thinner diameter creates less drag you get better retained velocity down range. (Minimal factor) Second the profile is smaller so you naturally get less side to side wind drift. THis is the biggest reason why the smaller diameters are important. 

However if you are shooting on a calm day then the larger diameter is probably a bit better since you are increasing the size of the bull by the width of the arrow.

Oh I forgot to mention we're getting into the frog hair splitting arena.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Rick,

All you can expect from me is unbiased honesty about the gear I have tried. Of course, just because it works for me certainly doesn't mean that someone has not had better results with something else...

But buyer beware when there's a buck to be made  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with accepting or offering endorsements or product. That's business, and if I were in the archery business as either a manufacturer, dealer or shooter, then I'd play the same game. It's how you make a living. But thankfully I'm not (at least not until I retire from my present career), and that allows me some liberties that every other true ametuer shooter enjoys - shooting for fun without worrying about sponsors, endorsements, contingency checks, etc. I think that actually can be a negative for most folks. Plus I enjoy trying different products and the freedom to shoot what I think works best, and you can't do that as a "company man". That would just be dull.

Sorry I missed you in S. Illinois. That was home to me for the past 6 years, and I do miss it (from April to November)... I believe those arrows your son uses are Carbon Tech maybe? I don't know that Carbon Express makes a whitetail arrow.

But as far as standard diameter arrows in compounds, I seem to recall some fellows in Australia having excellent results with the larger diameter shafts at longer distances. I think they were using Easton Axis, Axis full metal jacket and Navigator FMJ's. I recall some pretty impressive fita compound scores being shot with them.

You might check the archery-forum.com website. That's where those results were posted. Look for a guy named Marcus. He's pretty sharp.

John.


----------



## marty (Jun 4, 2002)

*Get Real...*

Does it really matter who uses what? What difference will it make to you? If you are made of money, then buy the most expensive or the one that seems to be the best. If being trendy makes you happy, then buy them and use them, because it will make you happy.

Talk to the top guys, you pick them, and if they are honest, they will tell you that they get, buy, etc., a lot of arrows and either measure or shoot them to find sets of arrows that are matched, maybe measure and shoot. They then compete with them in these sets. They have enough arrows that they can do this.

Can you shoot well enough to be able to do these tests? If you can't, then this discussion is entirely moot to you. If you are an 1100 FITA shooter then it really doesn't matter at all. You've got too much to work on to worry about this level of tolerances. Maybe a 1300+ shooter needs to worry about it, but remember that there are lots of 1300+ scores shot with aluminum arrows (yeah they are probably X10's.

I bet the weight variations of finished arrows are more due to the amount of glue used to attach the points and the fletchings than to the bare weight of the shaft.

I also think that competition is good. Imagine that there are other arrows just as good as XXXX (your choice), but cheaper. Honest competition will either drive the manufacturer to higher quality (questionable utility) or lower cost. No compeition means charge as much as the market will bear.

Archers are stupidly trend oriented. I bet a lot of those X10 tungsten points (especially those sold in the USA to Juniors) were bought because they are neat. If you can afford it, go ahead.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

SoCal Archery D said:


> John and Crowd,
> 
> Do any of you have any thoughts about the overall performance of standard diameter arrows vs. match grade arrows (Nano Pro's) in a compound? The reason I ask this question is that I can see how arrow flight could be more greatly affected by environmental factors with a recurve since the velocity of the arrow is normally less than that of arrow shot by a compound, but does it really make a difference?
> 
> Hope my question is clear enough, I know what I want to ask, but I am not sure if I am using the right words...


Have a look at this scorecard. It's from a FITA Star round shot in 2005 by Dietmar Trillus...He was shooting Gold Tip UL400s.

Since then he has used X10s and now Nanos, but I have heard him on many occasions say that _in calm weather_, it doesn't really matter what arrow you use as long as it's good quality and properly tuned.


----------



## Toxothise1440 (Nov 30, 2008)

So, we seem to be saying that, the Koreans and all other successful teams are sheep who spend huge sums to buy the arrows they use (X10), and they rejected the other arrows they get for free (Nano) because ...why exactly?


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Sure, why not?

Look at stabilizer setups as the popular styles change through the years (and change back!). 

Not saying that there aren't advantages and disadvantages to each- but confidence that "it works for everyone else" can be quite important to some people.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

As John says, there are few archers in the world that can really judge difference between arrows. Shooting them with fingers, of course, as with release, differencies are much more difficult to find.
But there are instruments to check differencies, objective performancies, and more, practical ways to check the quality of an arrow set. 
Up to now, best existing arrows have been ACE's. Just go back in the time, compare for instance results of qualification round of 1992 Olympic games, were everyone was using ACE's, in relationship to the bows and limbs of that time, or consider that European 70mt round record 685 points has been shot by Michele in year 2000 with them, or 1369 European women FITA record shot by Natalia Valeeva two years ago. 
But, in the golden age, until Don Rabska was taking care of international level archers for Easton, shafts povided to them were pre-selected at factory level, and the set of 12 was having the famous "RED DOT" mark on it. They were clean internally, and pre tested on radial spine and weight consistency. 
Despite of this, they still needed to be selected, but yield was very good.
This was valid for both ACE's and X10's. But a selected set of ACE's was performing much better than a selcted set of X10, specifically in the wind. 
So, 2 things happened: 1 ) Eston discontinuesd 125 grains points (that were average close to 130 gr.) and heavy insert for ACEs, and introduced Tungsten points 120 gr for X10. 
This made X10 more competitive in the wind (were FOC dominates), tying the situation. 
So, archers using 125 gr steel points were forced to recicle their hevy points for lack of replacement. Michele won the World championship in 2003 with ACE and very old 125 gr Easton steel points... 
So, we went to the Tungsten points for ACE's, specially made, 127 gr, and the advantage went back to ACE's. 
But, new faster limbs in the market were leaving a situation were at 50# there was no more existing arrow usable at >30" with 125 or 120 gr tungsten point. 
Ace 370 and X10 380 were too week ... So, for a while Michele has used Pro Tour 420 to to face the poundage, but these are really not made for fingers, and results were not good. In 2007, anyhow, 1348 and the final victory in the Varese World cup was with ACE 370 and 125 gr tungsten point. And, Ace's were still his choice for Field, but he was forced to change from 430 to 400 with 110 gr tungsten. 
Then, for 2008, Easton was promising to top archers "new" X10 with stiffer spines, but then we had no news about them, and at the same time new ACE's 400 to be used for field were showing terrible inconsistency. Yield in selection was very poor, and it was very difficult to select a good set for 2008 World fileld championship. And he was in need of 370's, too. But, fortunately, Michele recieved some Nano Pro 450 to test, and they immediately shown to be the arrow we were waiting for to replace ACE's. In June last year, he shot 677 in a 70 mt round at the Ambrosiano Tournament in Milano, his 4th score ever, in a rainy day. 
Since then, he has shot Nano pro for target with satisfaction. 

For the friend mentioning results at Riom GPX, just note that in a very windy day, Michele has shot 326 at 70mt, second for the distance (327 the first one). Statistically, being the only one shooting Nano Pro there, the result is what?
And, to mention the Koreans, they are buying tons of X10 from Easton, then they send them to Beiter Center for pre-selction, then they select them shooting bare shafts as everyone does. Including all national teams I know. 
I have calculated that a good competition arrow used at the Olympic games last year was costing around 3 to 4 times its official price. 
What is true, for sure, is that nowdays Easton leves this additional cost 100% to the buyers, while in the past it was shared by them by pre-selection.

For Koreans, let see what they will use in Antalya... They are testing Nano Pro since already two years with good results (and they are driving the development), but simply they did not want to change for 2008 Games...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Anyone that knows better, or has more experience, please feel free to correct me.


Again, thanks as usual Vittorio for an excellent explanation. Taking the discussion even further in fact and detail...

I've never said that the ACE or X10 are not great arrows. They most certainly are. However it would be nice to get 12 usable arrows when you pay for 12 arrows... Especially at these prices! CX nano's are the only ones I've been able to do this with so far.

John.


----------



## iharangozo94 (Feb 27, 2009)

I know everybody wants the top of the line everything, but even if you do have the top stuff it comes down to how good of a shooter you are and what works for you. Dietmar has won the past 2 world championships with CX protours, but plenty other people have done very well with X10's and other arrows. If you were dietmar would you shoot X10's just to get paid??? or would you go on using what you know works.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

iharangozo94/ said:


> Dietmar has won the past 2 world championships with CX protours, but plenty other people have done very well with X10's and other arrows.


??? What's a "CX protour"?

CX Nano XR in 2007, CX Nano Pro in 2008.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
I suspect that most top archers will not compromise their scores for money, but they will have a serious look at all the possibilities and test everything out thoroughly before committing to any particular company for sponsorship.

Dietmar is the only one of the top international shooters I know personally, and while I don't keep track of his equipment, I know he did shoot Hoyt and Easton products for a year (2006 I think). His scores did go down in 2006 and went back up again the next year with Mathews/CX. But, and this is important, he has always acknowledged that both Hoyt and Easton make great archery products, they just weren't the best _for him_. And I have never heard him say a bad thing about Hoyt or Easton.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> he has always acknowledged that both Hoyt and Easton make great archery products, they just weren't the best for him. And I have never heard him say a bad thing about Hoyt or Easton.


This is an important point that bears repeating, and is what I've also said all along. The ACE and X10 are fantastic arrows. As are most of the Hoyt limbs and risers. Quality control is second to none. Unfortunately, they had some issues with certain limbs in the past, and I've not seen any huge performance gains as I have with the Korean limbs in the past 5 years, but the gear is solid and capable. 

Unfortunately, most folks simply don't have or won't dedicate the resources needed to experiment with several types of limbs, risers, arrows, etc. I consider myself very, very fortunate to have had that opportunity since '04, and I've enjoyed every minute of it. And when I report my experiences with equipment, I consider it a responsibility to folks who are in the position I was prior to '04 (struggling to decide what to spend their hard-earned money on) to test fairly and report honestly what I have learned. I'm sorry if sometimes the results don't agree with some people, but they are arrived at as fairly as my feeble brain can conclude.

John.


----------



## scriv (Jan 31, 2008)

limbwalker said:


> Unfortunately, most folks simply don't have or won't dedicate the resources needed to experiment with several types of limbs, risers, arrows, etc. I consider myself very, very fortunate to have had that opportunity since '04, and I've enjoyed every minute of it. And when I report my experiences with equipment, I consider it a responsibility to folks who are in the position I was prior to '04 (struggling to decide what to spend their hard-earned money on) to test fairly and report honestly what I have learned. I'm sorry if sometimes the results don't agree with some people, but they are arrived at as fairly as my feeble brain can conclude.
> 
> John.



I can truly appreciate that. Thank you. 

Dave


----------



## comp1 (Dec 18, 2007)

i say bu nano pro's if for no other reason we need a two horse town


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

For Koreans said:


> Now that could be interesting to watch.
> 
> Not that my 2 cents amounts to much because by no means am I a world class shooter or even a national class shooter-I have won a few tourneys here in Georgia when i can make them and shoot everyday for about 2 hours, but I love my Nano XR's. I only have the compairison between them and Cartel Triple's (which may not be entirely fair) -- but grouping difference is night and day. I have a pile of busted up Pin nocks to prove it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Toxothise1440 (Nov 30, 2008)

Two years now people have been on here saying the Koreans are shooting these (First the NR and then the Pro) at the "next big event" and so far it seems that hasn't happened. It seems there is never an explanation, either...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Do I smell a sock puppet?

JimC, where's your picture at? 

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> stick around folks its just getting interesting cause finally their is gonna be some competition in arrows that might drive the target arrow design forward again.


S.A., I think you are correct and I think desing has been driven forward already with the McKinney II and the Nano's, both of which do things that the A/C Eastons cannot. This will benefit all archers, both competitive and recreational alike. It's just going to take some time before we can get out of this mentality that there's only one leader in arrow design and manufacture. The deck has been so stacked in the past that it was tough for anyone to compete. Finally we're seeing some real competition, but for whatever reason some people still want to deny or ignore it. Lots of reasons for this (money, ego, resistance to change, following the heard, etc.) but I don't buy into any of them. I believe it is entirely possible for CX, Carbon Tech or another company to produce a better arrow, and from my testing, I believe it's already been done.

John.


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

Are we going to see tweaks to existing designs or are we on the cusp of a revolution? What's really in store for the guy like me? I like to shoot "good" equipment but I'm going to be dropping a lot of $$$ since what I already have can perform at levels I'll never attain. Will we be seing ACE's for sale at half their current price or will the new arrows be twice what premium shafts cost now?


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

personally my guess would be you'll start to see Easton trying to get ahead of the curve and producing a comparable arrow to the Nano. They won't step over the line of admitting there may or may not be an advantage you'll just see the arrows arrive. Probably from Beman then as one of the Easton Carbon shafts. 

I'll bet it's a whole lot more profitable for them to make an all carbon arrow and sell it in the X10 price range. if they shoot just as well as the Nano or X10 then as a business it would be irresponsible for them not to do it.

They may as well start offering a directly competing arrow to the Nano.

There is my 2 cents on what's coming.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> are we on the cusp of a revolution?


InKY, I think we're there already. There's just going to be some lag time until the disbelief wears off. Change is so hard for most folks. From my viewpoint, the McKinney II and Nanos represent real progress in arrow technology. And at least for CX, there's more to follow, but probably not soon. I saw some prototypes that if ever perfected and affordable, have tremendous potential. They would be REALLY expensive to make. The folks over there don't have a box that they think within, which is one reason I agreed to help test their products...



> my guess would be you'll start to see Easton trying to get ahead of the curve and producing a comparable arrow to the Nano


Oh, I doubt it. At least for a while. They are already tooled up for the ACE and X10, and have probably paid for the equipment and R&D a long time ago. Now it's all profit for those lines... You can see where they went with their most recent offering for target shafts - the ProTour - aimed at fita compounders and probably built with existing machinery. And so long as "everyone" agrees that you have to shoot X10's in order to be competitive, they have little reason to make a change.

Easton has ventured into the small diameter all-carbon field before, but wasn't very successful with it. Can't even remember what those were called now...

My money would be on Carbon Impact or perhaps Gold Tip venturing into the high-end outdoor target arrow market in the next 2-3 years. But that's just a guess.

Anyway, I think all of this competition results in better products for all of us archers. Look at what's happened in just the past 5 years with risers and limbs! We have 3 times the selection that was available just when I began shooting fita gear. More choices and much more affordable gear than before.

John.


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

*Ok thats not right, to tease and all......*

[QUOTE
And at least for CX, there's more to follow, but probably not soon. I saw some prototypes that if ever perfected and affordable, have tremendous potential. They would be REALLY expensive to make. The folks over there don't have a box that they think within, which is one reason I agreed to help test their products...
[/QUOTE]

Spill the beans.... what's in the works...

Barrelled Carbon Shafts? nah....to predictable....Magnetic nocks? Now that is a hell of an idea...One arrow in the middle and the rest home in on it.....Heat seekers?....Infared? ..warp speeds?..teleportation? lmao.

No seriously us archery geeks need to know what kinda prototype stuff did you see John AND IF its one of those top secret, can't tell you less I kill you kinda things then so be it...I must know. lol


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

*all carbon easton*

I'm still shooting the small diameter, all-carbon Easton VECTOR; bought a bunch with they were discontinued. I don't know that they were unsuccessful from a quality standpoint; my understanding was they didn't find a niche in the market and were discontinued because of low sales (much overlap with other products such as Navigators).


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

*Comment from Vittorio on Vectors*

As a follow up, I thought I remembered this from the Sagi board:

by Vittorio » Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:41 pm 

Vector had exactly same specs as Navigator, at a slightly lower price. I remember asking directly to Jim Easton in Nimes during Indoor WC 2003, looking to them on the catalog, why to introduce two arrows so similar. Answer was something like "the market will chose"... My preference was to them, and my daugter is still shooting Vector arrows with compound outdoor, and they are (were) excellent.... 
Market seems to have choosen differently...


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Ah, I see, well if they have the equipment and specs for a small diameter arrow and the Nano's become more popular as I suspect they will, then I'll bet Easton re-introduces them with a new name and a shinny new coating.


----------



## comp1 (Dec 18, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Do I smell a sock puppet?
> 
> JimC, where's your picture at?
> 
> John.


Take a shower


----------



## ewan (Aug 28, 2007)

Great discussion guys, this is why I read AT.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

*Nano Pro components...*

I'm assuming that because of the smaller diameter, components are limited to CX brand components? I see for instance that starting at 600 spine the CX NP maxes out at 110gr pts. Are there any other options for a 120gr pt? 

Same question about nocks - is Beiter going to make an in-out nock for NPs? Do any other pins/nocks fit these shafts?

Also, how does spine compare to ACE? For instance, because of shoulder issues I was going to get some weaker 620 ACE's. But if I look at the NPs, would I be better off with the 600s or 650s at 29" shaft?


----------



## Brandeis_Archer (Dec 20, 2006)

Seattlepop said:


> I'm assuming that because of the smaller diameter, components are limited to CX brand components? I see for instance that starting at 600 spine the CX NP maxes out at 110gr pts. Are there any other options for a 120gr pt?
> 
> Same question about nocks - is Beiter going to make an in-out nock for NPs? Do any other pins/nocks fit these shafts?
> 
> Also, how does spine compare to ACE? For instance, because of shoulder issues I was going to get some weaker 620 ACE's. But if I look at the NPs, would I be better off with the 600s or 650s at 29" shaft?


I'm using Beiter Pin-Out nocks + pins on my Nano Pros. The A/C/E model fits them with some space between the shaft and nock, but that's not a problem. For the smaller sizes, the X10 Protour size might fit, but don't quote me on that.

I'm using 450 spine (#48 @32.5"ish arrow), which compares to approx a 380 X10. The CX chart put me just where I needed to be (with the adjusted draw weight per their directions)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Spill the beans.... what's in the works...


Nothing that I'm aware of right now. I think they are pretty darn satisfied with the XR and Pro's. And well they should be. The other designs were simply cost prohibitive. 



> IF its one of those top secret, can't tell you less I kill you kinda things then so be it...


Yea, something like that. I sure hated to cut those up after testing. What a shame...

Skybowman, thanks. Vectors. Now I remember. I bought their pins for my cartel triples when I was first starting out...



> Ah, I see, well if they have the equipment and specs for a small diameter arrow and the Nano's become more popular as I suspect they will, then I'll bet Easton re-introduces them with a new name and a shinny new coating.


Probably not. They weren't nearly as small in diameter as X10's or Nano pro's. Not even as thin as ACE's or XR's if I recall.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Seattlepop,

Both the CX shafts have VERY thick walls, so the inside diameter is quite small. No other components will work. Although you can use (and I have) Beiter pin-out nocks if you like. They will be slightly larger than the outside diameter of the shaft, but not too much. I use them on my barebow arrows with good success.

Remember, the dynamic spine of the Nano XR, Nano Pro and McKinney II is significantly stiffer than an ACE or X10, even if they have the same static spine. So if you need a 410 X10 or 400 ACE for example, you will use a 490 Nano XR, 500 Nano Pro or 500 McKinney II. I didn't believe this at first, but three dozen arrows later (both nano and mckinneys) I believe it now. They tried to tell me, but I had to see for myself.

I spent a few months working with different arrows and different archers to develop the CX nano xr and nano pro selection chart for recurves. I feel pretty good about it. It was set up for standard point weights (not excessive FOC's, but reasonable for the total arrow weight) and for an arrow using spin wing vanes. I personally use AAE plastifletch Max vanes, which are 12 grains heavier than spin wings, so I can get by with an ever so slightly weaker shaft than I could with spin wings.

John


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Just a small note: Carbon Express (Soma) also makes Medallion Pro shaft, that is at the opposite side of the price range than Nano Pro, directly competing in price with ACC, but being average much lighter than ACC. In these arrows, you can find also very week spines suitable for children, and presently it sems they are the only arrows used in Korea at archery school level. Soma claims a lot of 360 at 30 mt shot with these arrows (in hteir original Soma version) by children. 
They are becoming also very popular in Italy because of their features, with excellent scores shot with them. 
For sure, research in full carbon arrows still has to show all its potential.
As far as Easton is concerned, I'm sure they altready have a shaft much superior to x10 in their R&D center. We will see it to appear when Nano pro will start winning some major tournament in recurve, too... 
Same thing happened in 1989 when Beman carbon shaft won the world champs with Zabrowsky... Then, ACEs came out from the R/D to fight them... 
Competition helps a lot .....


----------



## Jason22 (Aug 16, 2008)

I went ahead with X10's for this summer. I weighed the dozen and they came out within .6gr of each other which is better than I expected.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Vittorio said:


> Just a small note: Carbon Express (Soma) also makes Medallion Pro shaft, that is at the opposite side of the price range than Nano Pro, directly competing in price with ACC, but being average much lighter than ACC. In these arrows, you can find also very week spines suitable for children, and presently it sems they are the only arrows used in Korea at archery school level. Soma claims a lot of 360 at 30 mt shot with these arrows (in hteir original Soma version) by children.
> They are becoming also very popular in Italy because of their features, with excellent scores shot with them.
> For sure, research in full carbon arrows still has to show all its potential.
> As far as Easton is concerned, I'm sure they altready have a shaft much superior to x10 in their R&D center. We will see it to appear when Nano pro will start winning some major tournament in recurve, too...
> ...


The CX site doesn't show the Medallion shafts, but this thread includes some info from [email protected]: 

http://archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=882121


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

*CX chart*

The CX chart lists both flavors of the Medallions. Alt Svcs had 550's (regular, not Pros) on clearance for less than $100 when I was looking for shafts a week or two ago.


----------



## massman (Jun 21, 2004)

*Different slant*

From some I'm reading a somewhat condisending attitude that seems to read that you shouldn't be shooting some particular equipment until you can shoot some particluar number. To do so you are just wasting your money.

Well..................it was expressed already that Easton discontinued one arrow because they couldn't sell enough of them. Did anyone stop to think that it is the archers buying the arrows that some would consider a waste of money that keeps Easton making these "elite" arrows so that the "elite" archers have them available to them?

I always suggest that, except for limbs, an archer purchase the best equipment they can afford. Especially when it comes to risers and sights and stabiizers. Arrow are also a function of the poundage you can shoot and the distances you need to shoot at a competition. Case in point is an archer with 35# on his fingers that has to shoot 90 meters. Unless you shoot an ACE, X10, Nano or Mckenny you cannot reach 90 meters and have any down range velocity to keep the arrows from balloning

BEST Regards,

Tom


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

*Vector diameter*



limbwalker said:


> They weren't nearly as small in diameter as X10's or Nano pro's. Not even as thin as ACE's or XR's if I recall.
> 
> John.


FYI, Vector 700s=ACE diameter, whereas the 580s I shoot are slightly larger.

Roy


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Thanks Roy. I was thinking the stiffer (larger) spines of Vectors were about the same size as a Cartel Triple or Navigator. Still pretty thin, all things considered.

Massman, I've often said that it takes an archer of a certain level to be able to tell the difference between say, an ACC and an ACE, or a Navigator and a nano. Folks can spend as much as they want for all I care. But I just don't understand how they can justify spending $300+ / doz. on arrows when they couldn't break 1200 on a prayer. Not my kind of economics, but then, I grew up poor, so what do I know...

John.


----------



## InKYfromSD (Feb 6, 2004)

How many lessons with a good coach will $300 buy? Which pays back bigger dividends for the under-1200 crowd?


----------



## DariusXV (Feb 18, 2009)

Massman, I've seen the condesention for some time. 

It's quite the paradox where on one hand it is pointless to use equipment beyond your skills and on the other hand it is important to test equipment and find what brings out your best.

Personally, I've been a strong supporter of Carbon Express for about 3 years running. I believe in the product and love the "underdog" aspect. Aside from cost, it has been my experience that carbon arrows are superior to aluminum/carbon in almost every way.

I have one word of caution regarding the Nano-Pros: Due to the thinness of the shaft, Carbon Express has made the stainless steel points longer in order to keep FOC, and these can give you massive trouble until your bow has been properly tuned. Ever had a bareshaft hit at anything other than flush? With an inch of stainless out in front of the shaft you risk losing the front of the arrow. I lost three of them this way until I walked up and found out what was happening.

I was told by the CX people after I called about the bareshaft issues and was told that they recommend the tool steel points. Great idea...and tungsten would be even better...but it is hard forking over that large amount of money before even getting a fair idea how the shaft will fare.


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

*Bow or arrows?*

Since even the least expensive modern riser and ilf limbs have the potential to shoot better than many archers, I've always wondered if bucks wouldn't be more efficiently spent on high end arrows than the latest/greatest riser and limbs. 

Roy


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Roy, I guess it just depends on whether a person is concerned about saving cash. Some people obviously have plenty of money, or don't worry about using plastic. :sad: Or they really are convinced that they have to use the latest and greatest.

A former student of mine is a perfect (good) example - finishing 4th in the world at the Jr. World Championships and setting several national records that year with a pair of rather old Radian risers that I found for $100 each, and two sets of old Carbon Plus limbs (one pair even had white glass!) that we got him for about $125 each. His double 70 national record in '06 was a 639 I believe. That old gear is more capable than most all archers, yet the new stuff keeps flying off the shelves into hands that are far less capable for some reason... Marketing I guess, or status? I don't know.

You are correct about the arrows though. The need to be very good to shoot top scores. The bows, not so much. Consider the scores they were shooting with magnesium risers and wood/glass limbs and dacron strings with alum. arrows years ago. Not too much below current scores really. Most of that was the arrows.

John.


----------



## ig25 (Feb 19, 2005)

*ttt*

great thread guys. this is why i look at Archery Talk. great info.
i have been try to talk my selk into the nano xr's. its just hard to narrow down what size to by for me. i have a crackers Dec IV 63# at 31.5 draw length with 29.5" arrow length and 65% letoff. it shoots 400-410 spined arrows the best.
so some say nano 450's or 500's. others say 380's.
so i don't know


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

Beman makes a small diameter shaft arrow for youth called the "Flash". I think it has a .006 straightness. The bare shafts are $29 a dozen. I'm curious, could you buy 9 dozen and mix and match to find spine consistency and weight consistency that would give you a similar performing set of arrows to the $269.00 Nano's? 

I'm really a big Nano fan, I'm just trying to stir the pot a little. 
What do you think limbwalker could you do some bare shaft tests for us?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That's an interesting question. I saw those Beman shafts and at one time considered buying some for my son (before he quit shooting target recurves). Somehow I doubt the spine consistency on those is going to be very good. But I don't know that for sure. 

Hey, I'm open to possibilities. I have used several $29 golf clubs that worked every bit as good as their $199 counterparts and in some cases, better. So if I were really trying to save a buck, I might look at options like that. But this thread ain't about how to save a buck - not when we're comparing $270+/doz. arrows! 

I will say that for the archer on a budget, there are many more good options these days than there used to be just 5 years ago... No reason a fellow couldn't achieve a 1200 score with some of these arrows that cost less than $100/doz. IMO.

John.


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

*Carbon flash*

Ask Jim C. about the Beman Diva, which I think was similar technology but higher end. Many of the points, etc. are interchangeable with the flash.


----------



## b0w_bender (Apr 30, 2006)

I bought 5 dozen for my 4H youth group but I cut them to different sizes with out testing the spine. Ah well maybe with the next group I buy I'll fiddle around with them a bit.


----------



## marty (Jun 4, 2002)

It's really too bad about Beman. I don't know what the reasons were, but Beman closed up shop. Easton bought the technology and for a short time produced quite a few of the Beman products. After a time they stopped making most of the products. At least that's what I remember.

I believe that competition is a good thing, it keeps the prices under control. The Beman Divas had problems, but they were great shafts holding a bunch of world records back in the day.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

I got a bunch of Beman Carbon flash in my club. They differ from shaft to shaft, from order to order, and some of them are as straight as a random tree branch 
Other than that some tend to crack, some tend to last quite long, but getting them all to spine decently for 70/90m challenge would probably cost you like a dz. of Nano XRs, at least


----------



## drift_puncher (Jul 20, 2007)

.......


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

http://www.archery-forum.com/showthread.php?t=28073

I have done a lot of testing.
Here is a link showing one of my groups at 50 metres using Protours and a shooting machine.
The group was about 3 cm across. On a 40 cm indoor face 5 of the arows scored X and the 6th arrow was a little less than 1 mm out of the X ring.
My experience is that they are a wonderfully accurate arrow.
(I did not pre-select any arrows for this testing - they were the first 6 of my set that I picked up.)


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

James - good thing you used those Eastons for that test. At least you'll be able to use them again now... 

Sorry, couldn't help myself 

Any pictures you can post here? I don't want to have to register to view them. And results are even better if you can offer some comparisons... 

John.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> James - good thing you used those Eastons for that test. At least you'll be able to use them again now...
> 
> Sorry, couldn't help myself
> 
> ...


Here is the pic


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Great discussion.....

I haven't shot X10s......but I have shot ACEs and MK IIs. I shoot XRs from a compound.....and there is NO WAY. I would put XRs down to shoot ACEs. PERIOD. 

The sheep comment hit the nail on the head IMO.:wink:


----------



## Jason22 (Aug 16, 2008)

If it's done indoors without wind, temperature or human error, perfect arrows "should" all go in the same hole, right? It would be good to see this test done in comparison to other shafts, as well as noting which arrow goes into which hole.

Though that is a good group, it's not perfect. If shot from a consistent bow that is properly tuned and placed in a shooting machine I would think you'd have destroyed some shafts. But thanks for posting, that's a great photo!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I spent a few months working with different arrows and different archers to develop the CX nano xr and nano pro selection chart for recurves. I feel pretty good about it. It was set up for standard point weights (not excessive FOC's, but reasonable for the total arrow weight) and for an arrow using spin wing vanes. I personally use AAE plastifletch Max vanes, which are 12 grains heavier than spin wings, so I can get by with an ever so slightly weaker shaft than I could with spin wings.
> 
> John


What are the point weight assumptions in the Easton charts? I find it a little frustrating that they aren't mentioned so I feel like I'm choosing blind. I'm wondering if you know why Easton leaves them off?


----------



## marty (Jun 4, 2002)

Dado said:


> I got a bunch of Beman Carbon flash in my club. They differ from shaft to shaft, from order to order, and some of them are as straight as a random tree branch
> Other than that some tend to crack, some tend to last quite long, but getting them all to spine decently for 70/90m challenge would probably cost you like a dz. of Nano XRs, at least


I was referring to the pre-Easton acquisition of Beman. It seemed that Beman products just went away and some of the names went to Easton products.

In any case the Beman Divas were very consistant and accurate, at least accurate enough to set several records.


----------



## Archerycat (Mar 1, 2007)

Toxothise1440 said:


> From what I see all the really top recurve shooters (and Limbwalker is not in that category- not internationally competitive, sorry) who tried the Nano/Nano pro fell flat on their faces- see results from Frangilli in France last month as example.
> 
> I also know, for a fact, that the top teams all buy the Eastons, they are not given them free. Some individual shooters get a discount, a few others get them free. But Korea buys them as do most others.


I know of at least 4 archer who have been given FREE Easton Arrows, and at least 3 who get a 50% off for 2 sets per year.


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

Jason22 said:


> If it's done indoors without wind, temperature or human error, perfect arrows "should" all go in the same hole, right? It would be good to see this test done in comparison to other shafts, as well as noting which arrow goes into which hole.
> 
> Though that is a good group, it's not perfect. If shot from a consistent bow that is properly tuned and placed in a shooting machine I would think you'd have destroyed some shafts. But thanks for posting, that's a great photo!


The greatest error was in aiming the shooting machine.
I did break nocks.
The Protours did group very consistently from end to end.
I also tried some LightSpeeds, and did Robin Hood shafts at 50 metres.
(That indoor target face looks very tiny at 50 metres).


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well now the title of the thread alone begs the question...

Did you perform the same test with Nano Pro's? 

I think I read another thread where Deitmar may have done this already though...  Now HE'S a shooting machine!

John.


----------



## James Park (Jan 4, 2003)

I have shot Nanos, etc, but did not do so when I did the testing above.
Yes, Deitmar definitely counts as an expert shooting machine.


----------



## straat (Jan 22, 2009)

I recently asked Peter Elzinga why he shoots Protours and if he ever tried shooting nanos. He told me he had not because he has a very good relationship with Easton and he doesn't want that to change. Also he had a quick look at Dietmar Trillus' arrows (who is sponsored by Carbon Express, take a look at his website trillusarchery.com, Dietmar Trillus Story (published by FITA)) at a competition and wasn't impressed by their quality.

Probably there are a lot of other international top-level archers who are also tied down by Easton...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Takes courage to jump out of the nest  Especially when it's nicely feathered and you don't know how far the drop may be...

John.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Takes courage to jump out of the nest  Especially when it's nicely feathered and you don't know how far the drop may be...
> 
> John.


Exactly.....They have no reason or need to jump ship. 

But the shooter that isn't on that ship doesn't need to be a "sheep" there are other options that are just as good and some would say better.


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

Brown Hornet said:


> Exactly.....They have no reason or need to jump ship.
> 
> But the shooter that isn't on that ship doesn't need to be a "sheep" there are other options that are just as good and some would say better.


who would want to jump ship if the SS Easton is the one docking on the podium? (fita recurve shoots)

I'm sure the best shooters could get picked up by carbon express, so why haven't they?


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

straat said:


> I recently asked Peter Elzinga why he shoots Protours and if he ever tried shooting nanos. He told me he had not because he has a very good relationship with Easton and he doesn't want that to change. Also he had a quick look at Dietmar Trillus' arrows (who is sponsored by Carbon Express, take a look at his website trillusarchery.com, Dietmar Trillus Story (published by FITA)) at a competition and wasn't impressed by their quality.
> 
> Probably there are a lot of other international top-level archers who are also tied down by Easton...


They both, so to speak, work for Easton and CX, so I wouldn't value their opinion on one another's arrows UNLESS I was a real close friend of theirs (which I'm not)... All in all, I love my Nano XRs for their extreme durability, and I'm yet to discover if Protours I bought (with tungstens) will give me any actual advantage over the scores I shot so far with Nanos.
Yeah yeah, I know Nano Pros should be better than XRs, but the mentioned comparison is currently the only test I can afford...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> I'm sure the best shooters could get picked up by carbon express, so why haven't they?


Vox, it's simple. Money. Either the money that they now get or the potential (even if it exists only in their minds  ) for some down the road... Between the hundreds of dozens of free arrows available for Easton shooters, and the tens of thousands of dollars available in outright sponsorship or contingency money, many folks are simply tied to that. And for good reason too. If I made my living, or even just part of it, in the archery business. I'd be reluctant too. Eaton/Hoyt has a death grip on the industry folks. I'll just go ahead and tell it like it is. They have coaches and archers in their pocket and everyone is scared to death to take the first step off the plank and swim. 

Good companies like CX and CT simply cannot compete with the dollars and lawyers that Easton/Hoyt has lined up to defend their monopoly. 

Well, there goes my potential for ever getting Easton sponsorship again...

Oh well.. Darn.

Look folks, shoot a better product. At least TRY the nano's if you can. Because when I say I've tested them head to head and they are better than the X10, I ain't being paid to say that. And I'm not the only one who has had this experience. There are a few world class archers that are still active who are figuring this out. Mostly compounders (that don't shoot HOYT BOWS, so what does that tell you?), but in time, a few top recurvers will muster the courage, or just get ticked off enough to give them a run, and we'll see then.

Until then, believe whatever you want.

John.


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

I was lucky enougth to have spoke with our CX rep yesterday...I commented to him why CX has little to no contingency program. He was on his way to a meeting of the minds per say to discuss issues with CX and their customers, products etc.
Contingency is one of those BIG issues he eluded to being discussed.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

voxito said:


> who would want to jump ship if the SS Easton is the one docking on the podium? (fita recurve shoots)
> 
> I'm sure the best shooters could get picked up by carbon express, so why haven't they?


Like LW said.....I know I have heard from more then one person that is a Big Dog for Easton that Nano's don't shoot under 30yds.....that's funny since FITA isn't shot under 30 yds anyway. 

But when you ask them when they shot them.....they all have the same answer. "I haven't" :embara:

I am not saying anyone should jump ship.....If I was on the "ship"...I wouldn't jump ship either. But I am not....I paid for my Eastons when I shot them. EVERYONE I have ever shot.....I also pay for my Nano's. 

For me....Nano's shoot just as good or better then any shaft I have shot from Easton or CT.

I am sure that there are Mathews shooters that could get picked up by Hoyt.....why haven't they jumped ship? That's all that you see on the podium :noidea: :wink:


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Brown Hornet said:


> I am sure that there are Mathews shooters that could get picked up by Hoyt.....why haven't they jumped ship? That's all that you see on the podium :noidea: :wink:


I can't recall all of them but I know for example that John Dudley switched from Mathews to Hoyt.


----------



## Brown Hornet (Aug 8, 2002)

Dado said:


> I can't recall all of them but I know for example that John Dudley switched from Mathews to Hoyt.


I was just making a point in response to what was said.....it was more of a "if you are happy with what ya got" kind of comment.....:wink:


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

am sure GT(remember him?) is just chomping at the bit to enter this discussion( and am sure he's lurking)....


----------



## NockOn (Feb 24, 2003)

Dado said:


> I can't recall all of them but I know for example that John Dudley switched from Mathews to Hoyt.


Dudley left Mathews because they wanted to change the job he was doing and that didn't fit with what he wanted. That's according to the man himself in a post or article I read somewhere.

Trillus went from Mathews to Hoyt and back to Mathews. What does that tell you:wink: I'm also pretty sure he shot all his 1400s with a Mathews bow.

I would be curious to know what Clint Freeman shoot for arrows. He used to shoot Nanos and even sold/distributed them in Australia. Did he got to Protours after he switched to Hoyt?


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

NockOn said:


> Dudley left Mathews because they wanted to change the job he was doing and that didn't fit with what he wanted. That's according to the man himself in a post or article I read somewhere.
> 
> Trillus went from Mathews to Hoyt and back to Mathews. What does that tell you:wink: I'm also pretty sure he shot all his 1400s with a Mathews bow.
> 
> I would be curious to know what Clint Freeman shoot for arrows. He used to shoot Nanos and even sold/distributed them in Australia. Did he got to Protours after he switched to Hoyt?


So he switched back to hoyt? Hmmm


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

The level of arrogance by some in this post is astonishing, and a total insult to a large number of great archers and people, and a company that does more for the sport than any other(likely all others combinedx10) 
Claiming that people only choose Easton because they are sheep, because of contingency, because they are afraid to leave Hoyt...etc etc...what about the fact that Easton makes damn good arrows? What about the fact that archers from around the world who have no company ties to Easton, choose to shoot Easton product, and win with it(a great example would be Korea. Their affinity for Korean made gear is well known, yet they continue to bypass Soma Product in favour of Easton.) While I have no doubt that there are some inventives offered by Easton, if the arrows were not capable, I am sure they would switch.
I am personal friends with many top archers. Have they tried Nanos...most have, or have had the opportunity offered to them. The simple fact is, that Easton is a great company to work with, makes great arrows, and supports our sport. Why would anyone want to switch to arrows that can only be touted as "comparable"...made by a company overseas...that doesnt support the sport of archery in any significant fashion(relative to the money Easton continues to pour into programs to develop archery worldwide)
I would take the reputation of Easton for building great arrows and the scores shot by them worldwide over the insinuations of a couple bitter never was who have an axe to grind..


----------



## philipdimondo (Apr 10, 2004)

*quote*

I would take the reputation of Easton for building great arrows and the scores shot by them worldwide over the insinuations of a couple bitter never was who have an axe to grind..[/QUOTE]


best statement ive seen all day

and id like to add since im a no-body here and have nothing to loose

you take your money and you give it to hoyt, you give it to mathews, you give it to easton...
and some of it goes back into promoting the sport
(after school programs with mathews which are AWSOME and thier support in the hunting industry, and the aformentioned realtionship with hoyt/easton and the archery community as a whole)

send your money to other manufacurers, and more, if not all, just goes into deep pockets. 

I support easton becuase I support knowing that my money is going to help grow the sport i love. 
And thats what I want to see for my kids future, for my kids kids. 

And i beleive that its likely the sentiment of many of those pro-sheep out there also


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

The reputation and charity towards archery by companies such as easton is of course unparralled. The question never was about who gives more...its a question of development and improvement in the construction and performance of archery equipment more specifically arrows.....

Easton has been stuck with the X10 design for what 10 years now....you can't tell me that in 10 years that the possiblities of arrow construction and performance hasn't improved. Hell just look at how far Bow construction has come in the last 10 years. Companies Like CX or CT have developed NEW products that address just that issue.

Companies with the most money in their pockets already, have the most money to give....keep that in mind...just because CX or CT doesn't give as much or even anything doesn't mean they arn't building a superior product. Are they not being given a fair chance because of a stranglehold on the industry by Easton, most would say yes. 

So in counter argument to the easton gives more BS...I say why support a company who has buried its heels in the ground, I support technological development in the sport...because I have an axe to grind, because I want to see improvement of my scores...not some companies pockets get deeper.


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

ScarletArrows said:


> The reputation and charity towards archery by companies such as easton is of course unparralled. The question never was about who gives more...its a question of development and improvement in the construction and performance of archery equipment more specifically arrows.....
> 
> Easton has been stuck with the X10 design for what 10 years now....you can't tell me that in 10 years that the possiblities of arrow construction and performance hasn't improved. Hell just look at how far Bow construction has come in the last 10 years. Companies Like CX or CT have developed NEW products that address just that issue.
> 
> ...


On what basis do you consider the Nano Pro to be advanced beyond the X10/Pro tour? Aside from mediocre scores shot by some using them, there are no real results proving them to offer any advantages for recurve shooters. For compound archers they are at best the equal of Protours....so what you are saying...is that Easton was 12 years ahead of its time when they introduced X10s in 1996...or is Soma 12 years behind the times introducing the Nano pros in 2008?


----------



## lorteti (Apr 14, 2008)

One of the biggest advantage of NANO PRO over X10 is the lighter weight. For compound and professional recurve archers pulling 50lbs is not a big problem. Others that are pulling 40lbs and some with very long drawlength will have too much trouble with the low sightmark. The very low sightmark effect the form consistency enormously. Unless you have very solid form, but than you are already a pro.
And the report from Mr. Vittorio the NANO is much better in shaft selection, 23 out of 24 shafts are good for competition.
jx


----------



## Acehero (Nov 2, 2007)

I think the argument over which is the better shaft is pointless. They are different, and therefore some people will find that one suits them better than the other.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Acehero said:


> I think the argument over which is the better shaft is pointless. They are different, and therefore some people will find that one suits them better than the other.


Pointless? Is Consumer Reports pointless?

At my level, these are both shafts that are way better than I can benefit from, so price is really more of a factor. But I think that in archery, where arrow tolerances make quantifiable, testable differences to top archers that discussing the objective qualities of arrow shafts is highly pertinent.


----------



## Acehero (Nov 2, 2007)

But its like arguing over which top level riser is better - people prefer different ones for their own reasons, but all are excellent in their own right. I shoot Nano pros at the moment because I struggle a bit with good sightmarks at the longest distance, and shooting x10's which are ever so slightly heavier would make me struggle a bit more possibly. The Nanos shoot fantastic btw.


----------



## GIGABOW (Feb 1, 2009)

What is better for 40lbs. - CT McKinneyII or CX Nano - ... and why ?


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

On what basis do you consider the Nano Pro to be advanced beyond the X10/Pro tour? 
Lighter weight, more consistancy of spine tolerance in a dz. (proven several times over by more than a few archers using them-in bareshaft testing) Several top archers using them have also stated they find them to be more forgiving an arrow than the X10. (I understand that this is a unquantifiable ideal)

Aside from mediocre scores shot by some using them, there are no real results proving them to offer any advantages for recurve shooters.

Again lighter weight for those archers who arn't drawing 45+ pounds. makes a differance in accuracy to have some more speed. 

For compound archers they are at best the equal of Protours....so what you are saying...is that Easton was 12 years ahead of its time when they introduced X10s in 1996...or is Soma 12 years behind the times introducing the Nano pros in 2008?

Equal of protours but...they hold the 70 meter world record.
I am saying that easton was with the times introducing in 96 the x10...13 years later they are still building the same arrow. How is that improving upon the sport or pushing the technology of arrow design foward.
To me it screams "don't tell them, but we could do better." Bow design in the last 13 years has jumped forward leaps and bounds....you mean to tell me you shoot a Hoyt ProVantage still...I doubt it. Maybe a Vantage Elite....definately not a 90's model compound.

ALL I am saying is that Easton could push arrow design foward, really make something that would revolutionize arrow design (they have the power...;-)
I just don't understand why they are not. CX an CT are, so what is the real reason no one shoots for them....again back to the argument of money vs. money vs. money vs. money.....vs.....money


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Xs24-7 said:


> On what basis do you consider the Nano Pro to be advanced beyond the X10/Pro tour? Aside from mediocre scores shot by some using them, there are no real results proving them to offer any advantages for recurve shooters. For compound archers they are at best the equal of Protours....so what you are saying...is that Easton was 12 years ahead of its time when they introduced X10s in 1996...or is Soma 12 years behind the times introducing the Nano pros in 2008?


I'm not taking sides here (yet), but you should know that Dietmar Trillus shot new world record at 2x70m (I know it's not recurve, but it has to count for something)...


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

I know of Dietmars score...I also know Peter Ezinger shot a 1419 2 weeks ago using Pro tours...what of it? They are both good archers with good equipment who work very hard to shoot well. I don't care what anyone else chooses to shoot, but the BS spewed by limbwalker and others is not fair to a lot of good people and a good company. Somehow Easton sponsors people and they are evil...carbon express sponsors Dietmar and others and they are Robin Hood...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2009)

after reading this I was wondering what kind of advancement do you feel is needed in arrow design????

Yuo need a long shaft that is consistant from one to the next the only real design is the X-10 that being barreled like a javelin all the rest are staight with a carbon make up of some kind

lets see previous record.....1414 with McKinney Royals
current 1419 with X10Pro

Documented Fita in Australia of 1418 with Nano Pro
Documented Fita in Canada of 1414 with X10 Pro and 350 90m with same

Double 70 previous X10 Pro
current 70 with Nano Pro


2 Fitas with Gold Tips over 1400 along with a 347 90m


What we really have is competition in arrow choice that we never had before as far as performance goes I don't see any tangeble difference between them only price point and even that is close

As far as supporting a company that puts money into the sport well that is a given just by showing up to shoot, Easton has had a sorted past of trying to shut down outside competition like AFC,American arrow, Beman. I firmly beleive that they never saw GT, McKinney,CX as a real threat to their market share. Now that CX has established itself as a high end arrow with real record scores and performances i think you will see more movement from CX than Easton. Like LW said when a country like Korea has a system that works I don't see them changing that anytime soon if at all, they may use the Nano's on a lower level until they match the well working system that have now with easton.....that may take a while

for the rest of us that pay for arrows we will still judge there performance on tolerances,price and durability before what the big guys score with them


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

*and the list grows longer*



Xs24-7 said:


> I know of Dietmars score...I also know Peter Ezinger shot a 1419 2 weeks ago using Pro tours...what of it? They are both good archers with good equipment who work very hard to shoot well. I don't care what anyone else chooses to shoot, but the BS spewed by limbwalker and others is not fair to a lot of good people and a good company. Somehow Easton sponsors people and they are evil...carbon express sponsors Dietmar and others and they are Robin Hood...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok now I get it.....another addition to my ignore list.
...And while I may be upon a few of other peoples. I kinda figured you were talking to/about him all along, not that anyone here needs my defense,I must say...of all the individuals who post regularly on this forum Limbwalker's advice is would do to be listened to very closely. Not many people can say they have shot in the olympics, or have the experiance with equipment that he does, fewer still take the time to share with us their experiances and knowledge. Most of us just can't afford it. I just am dumbfounded by the fact that you think he is spewing BS....what the hell would he have do gain by doing so....I digress, cause I am just wasting my time anyway.

Have a good day.

PS Damn right Dietmar is Robin Hood...look at that score 359.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Xs24-7 said:


> I know of Dietmars score...I also know Peter Ezinger shot a 1419 2 weeks ago using Pro tours...what of it? They are both good archers with good equipment who work very hard to shoot well. I don't care what anyone else chooses to shoot, but the BS spewed by limbwalker and others is not fair to a lot of good people and a good company. Somehow Easton sponsors people and they are evil...carbon express sponsors Dietmar and others and they are Robin Hood...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, even if you're right (and to tell you the truth you may be onto something here), I seriously doubt Limbwalker will reveal what is his real problem with Easton.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

ScarletArrows said:


> Ok now I get it.....another addition to my ignore list.
> ...And while I may be upon a few of other peoples. I kinda figured you were talking to/about him all along, not that anyone here needs my defense,I must say...of all the individuals who post regularly on this forum Limbwalker's advice is would do to be listened to very closely. Not many people can say they have shot in the olympics, or have the experiance with equipment that he does, fewer still take the time to share with us their experiances and knowledge. Most of us just can't afford it. I just am dumbfounded by the fact that you think he is spewing BS....what the hell would he have do gain by doing so....I digress, cause I am just wasting my time anyway.
> 
> Have a good day.
> ...


For your information........
He shoots for them! I’ve seen the CX’s Nano adds in magazines with Dietmar and Limbwalker’s pictures in them!........


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

monty53 said:


> For your information........
> He shoots for them! I’ve seen the CX’s Nano adds in magazines with Dietmar and Limbwalker’s pictures in them!........


I always assumed that those guys who perform on a high level are given stuff by a lot of companies for testing, John would be included in that group.
Well hell even guys who arn't on a high level are given stuff for testing: Paul Jager is sending me a prototype grip to try out-and all I did was talk to the guy one time about grips over the phone.

I too have seen those photo in print. And he has said that he is not sponsored by CX. I don't think he's lying. Just because your photo is in one print ad doesn't mean your sponsered by them, yea I bet he was paid for the ad....sponsorship in archery is funny anyway....very, very few recieve free stuff.... but if you win with what you bought-- then you get the money from manufacturers. 
I think the better way to put anything you supposedly "shoot for" in archery is "you shoot them."

The reason you see Easton at the top most of the time in archery is because most archers SHOOT THEM because of contingancy money.........CX doesn't have that kind of contingancy program hence why you don't see many shooting them....THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THIS ARGUMENT.......
CX is making a good product that is possibly better than the Easton one the reason you don't see people shooting them is because on the top level a world class archery could shoot Gold tip arrows and win....he/ she shoots easton cause they pay the bills if they do.

WHEN the question is asked...Which is Better?...opinions are like ********....Those with the experiance shooting both are truely the only ones qualified to comment imo. The only reason I threw in my two cents today about this subject is because I shoot the Nano, I like them and I got them as a direct influence of Limbwalker's posts...so if I have been sold a set of Nano's then so be it....regardless, the man knows what he's talking about...and I hate to see him getting bashed. Hell I don't even know the guy, I just respect him...why would he waste his time on here giving us FREE advice about archery unless he really enjoys the sport and wants to pass on that information to help other people grow and enjoy the sport too.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but the BS spewed by limbwalker and others


First of all, Xs's, I just go ahead and say you're an idiot. You're rhetoric is not supported by fact, but pure emotion. Call me whatever you want, but the facts are that when I decided to start shooting CX Nano's, I could have shot either Easton or CX arrows for free. So believe it or not, I was in a TRULY unique position to honestly shoot what I thought was the better arrow. 

After weeks of testing, I felt the Nano was a better arrow. This was the result of intensive bare shaft shooting at 70 meters with bows I tuned and de-tuned and tuned again over the course of two full weeks. I was being supported by Easton with equipment at the time, so I did not make the decision lightly. I knew full well the ramifications of switching, and my suspicions were proven right just months later at the NFAA indoor nationals. It is a small, petty world out there. I was never so glad that I made my living away from archery than then...

So, get your fact straight or go away. Nobody is benefitting by your emotional outbursts.

For all of you that consider the "support" that Easton offers the sport in your decisions, I will commend you. There is nothing wrong with that at all and it is a very valid reason to support a company. Easton certainly does have enough market share to comfortably support our sport.

But if we're being TOTALLY honest about what the better product is, then that shouldn't factor into the decision, now should it? 

If you want to shoot Easton products, fine. Go ahead for whatever reason you like. But don't put down another manufacturer's product simply because they don't own enough market share to sponsor archers, programs or have facilities named in their honor. That's not a fair fight. The American way is to root for the underdog, and I'd simply like to see another company out there producing world class arrows so that we archers have a valid choice. If any of you believe that's a bad thing, then speak up. 

I still shoot the arrows that Easton provided me from time to time. Killed a nice sheep with one last fall. If they work, I use them. Heck, I may even get some X10's someday just to prove to myself yet again which outdoor arrow is the best. But until then, I've run my tests and I know what I saw. And it was an easy decision.

For those of you who haven't run intensive tests between the arrows, I can't see how you have a leg to stand on if you want to provide objective information here. 

Emotion don't cut it on the scorecard. Points do. And I've never seen arrows as consistent, tough and forgiving as the Nano pros. When I find better arrows, I'll shoot those.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> For your information........
> He shoots for them!


For the record, Monty, I'm not on contract with any company. In other words, I don't shoot "for" anyone but myself. I recently turned down one of the best offers I've had since making the Olympic team because I want to remain impartial and be able to shoot what I want, when I want.



> yea I bet he was paid for the ad


Nope, wasn't paid a cent.

Some of you may find this hard to believe, but I don't accept any money, sponsorships or any kind of status from any manufacturer. I prefer it that way. I hate doing taxes and I want to be able to call it as I see it. If it's crap, I won't shoot it. If it works, I'll use it. Pretty much is that simple. 

The relationship I have with CX is no different than the one I've had with Whitetail targets, Sure loc sights, AAE/Cav., flex-fletch vanes, Bernardini, Doinker or any other company whose products I've used in the past 5 years. 

It's pretty simple really - if I use their product, they are welcome to tell anyone they want. If I don't, then don't. No contracts, no gimmicks, no money. If they ask me for a picture, then I send it if I have one and if I have the time. CX asked, so I sent one because I told them I was planning to use their arrows. 

With me, what you see is what you get. 

That won't mean anything to the idiots out there, but it still means something to me.

John.


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

nope, wasn't paid a cent.

Never, have I been more happy to eat my words.

John, trust me--it means something....to have someone out there willing to just hand out the information you do......wish there was more like you. I aspire to those ideals when it comes to the recommendations I make to customers on a daily basis on the retail side of archery business.


----------



## Xs24-7 (Aug 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> First of all, Xs's, I just go ahead and say you're an idiot. You're rhetoric is not supported by fact, but pure emotion. Call me whatever you want, but the facts are that when I decided to start shooting CX Nano's, I could have shot either Easton or CX arrows for free. So believe it or not, I was in a TRULY unique position to honestly shoot what I thought was the better arrow.
> 
> After weeks of testing, I felt the Nano was a better arrow. This was the result of intensive bare shaft shooting at 70 meters with bows I tuned and de-tuned and tuned again over the course of two full weeks. I was being supported by Easton with equipment at the time, so I did not make the decision lightly. I knew full well the ramifications of switching, and my suspicions were proven right just months later at the NFAA indoor nationals. It is a small, petty world out there. I was never so glad that I made my living away from archery than then...
> 
> ...


Wow...emotional....hello Pot, meet Kettle...;-)
BTW, I never called anyone names, your the one to throw personal insults. I simply said that you say many things that are BS. That is a fact. 
It is obvious you have gained a great deal of credibility on this site. Its great that you help others. You obviously have no idea who I am, what I do, or my background as a coach, archer or mentor, and that just fine. Obviously results on the line are no match for an Internet guru like yourself.

I have a lot of respect for archers who compete at the highest level. Understanably, this leads me to believe that the archers shooting 1330+ recurve scores have figured out a few things the rest of us havent....and they all use Easton arrows...and you and I both know, that if an archer who was capable of shooting those scores wanted to shoot Nanos...they would have them...and we both also know that some did...and they tried them...and yet they are still shooting Easton....we both also know that the contingency money offered by CX is comparable...we also know that less than 1% of competitve archers will ever see a contingency cheque...so please dont continue with that lame argument...it is factually incorrect....
We both also know, that if there was a product availible that would give an archer an edge, they would use it. If that was the Nano arrow, than you and I both know that the worlds best archers would be lined up to use them. there are more archers shooting better scores than ever before, if there was ever a time for an archer to make the leap and gain this advantage you speak of, now would be it. But instead, the sheep keep shooting X10s, and winning. While the Vanguards like yourself keep using what works for them...
Once again, I have no isses with people using what they like. I know CX/Soma makes a great arrow, that is more than capable of shooting good scores in the right hands. My issue is simply with the tinfoil hat, Diamond Jim conspricy theorists who use half truths and misguided logic to support their own theories.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Wow...emotional....hello Pot, meet Kettle...;-)


Someone once told me never argue with an idiot. It only makes both of you look like one...

Good advice. So I won't argue.

As I said before, if you haven't put the two arrows through their paces (or aren't qualified to tell the difference) then you don't have much of a leg to stand on in this comparison.

Like I've said before. I know what I saw when I ran my tests. I was testing the arrows for my own benefit without any concern for what anyone else thought. If the X10's had won, I'd still be using them. But they didn't. So until Easton brings out something better, I'll choose the Nano for my shooting.

I don't shoot that much anymore, and frankly I'm not worried about winning any events these days. I shoot for fun, just like I always have, except for one event when I had the honor and responsibility of shooting for the United States. 

Archery "business" aside, the facts as I've come to know them are that the Nano (both the XR and Pro) outperform the X10 if given a fair and objective test. I think very few qualified archers have performed these tests, or have been fair and objective about them though. I also believe that the majority of elite recurve archers who use X10's do so because they believe they are the best option, even without having performed objective tests with other arrows. I don't care for that kind of blind faith... How does anyone know they are shooting the best product when they've never tried anything else?

John.


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

Xs24-7 said:


> I simply said that you say many things that are BS.... My issue is simply with the tinfoil hat, Diamond Jim conspricy theorists who use half truths and misguided logic to support their own theories.


Specifically to what perceived BS are you referring?

My perception is that Limbwalker would like to see some healthy competition in the arrow market and has presented his opinions. What's wrong with that? 

Have you conducted any tests or can you cite them? Easton makes good products; no question. But arguing they are the best because most people use them proves little, particularly given their history, sponsorship, and market presence. Its great that Easton supports archery, but I thought we were talking about arrows.

I've often heard the argument that everyone uses Windows, so it must be the best operating system. Some out there would give you an argument darkbeer: Hello, Linux and apple lovers!). Bill Gates is also a great philanthropist from what I hear. But what does that have to do with his operating system?

I wouldn't lose any sleep over whether Easton will be brought down or their reputation seriously besmirched by some competition or criticism.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Limbwalker would like to see some healthy competition in the arrow market and has presented his opinions. What's wrong with that?


Competition. That's what's wrong with that for some folks. Usually those with something to lose.

Geez, you'd think by some replies that it would be better if we all just rolled over and accepted the fact that ONE company found the perfect arrow 12 years ago. No argument, no comparisons, no objective tests. 

Yea, that would be much better for all of us... ha, ha.

John.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

Many value the forgiveness for release, that weak back which comes from the barreled shape, offers.

For compound, I see no reason to use barreled vs others. For recurve, you'd be mad to use anything else than X10 if you're striving for 1340+, apart from some very, very, very special cases (or preferences).

Nano could be newer technology or better made, but unless it can incorporate similar solutions than a barreled shape, it will always be overshadowed by easton. Top archers would shift to use better arrow if there were more points available. They don't do this for money and if there were anything that would give them an edge available, I'm quite sure they'd starve themselves and spend those last dimes on those items.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

Correct me if I'm wrong Limbwalker, but did you once say you shot your PB on practice at 70 or 90m with Flex Fletch VANES?
Do you still choose them for your fletching?


----------



## Jay (Sep 18, 2002)

Just gonna make a quick one, I don't understand why you have to call X's names John, he never called you any so why call him one? Not a good ambassador now are we? 

I know many of the "elite" who have done the test and all go back to X-10's. I prefer the X-10's because they have an excellent track record, not just practice pb's  and have proven to be the best shooting and most consistant arrow for. Just like I choose spin-wings, because of their excellent track record and not just practice pb's .

I don't think the original posters intention was to have this go into a battle of people saying, "X-10's are the best" "No Nana's are!" He simply wanted feedback on what archers think of each arrow and know what each arrow has to offer.

Truth is, an arrow is an arrow, you get the right spine, tune it well and on any given day it'll shoot 10's if you execute the shot properly. But, I prefer X-10's personally, shoot what you want I won't force my views on ya or anything, just letting you know what works for me.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Sorry, I shouldn't have called him an idiot. What I should have said is that he was ACTING like an idiot...

There, is that better? 

If he's halfway intelligent, he can do better than "BS", I think. That's not very specific now is it. And it includes no facts either.

I keep hearing about "all" these top recurvers who've tried the nano pro and have gone back to the X10. Now I throw out the BS flag, because I don't believe that, and based on what I know from the folks at CX, that simply hasn't happened yet. Why? Simple. Because of what I said before. Money. The best recurvers out there are supported very well by Easton either through product, cash or both. I was offered a nice contract by them in 2004, as well as all the product I needed. They do this to protect their interests, just like any other company that has staff shooters on contract. 

I'm getting tired of saying this, but there are few, if any elite recurvers who have given the Nano pro a real fair try, simply because they are afraid of having their support dropped by Easton. 

If there are any out there, they are welcome to speak up. I doubt that will happen though. Anyone on contract w/ Easton won't be seen posting on this board in favor of anything but Easton products. 

This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories or anything of the like. This is simple business. The way things are done today, and have been done for a long time. Buy out the competition, hire a "marketing staff", Advertise, Advertise, Advertise so everyone will think your product is best, yada, yada, yada. Whenever a competitor gets close, things really heat up. And I think that's what we're seeing now between Easton and CX. CX is on to something, and everyone knows it now.

I'll say it once again... Easton makes great products. ACE's, ACC's are fantastic arrows and X10's (if you can get a good batch together) are too. Wonderful products, but they are no longer the best IMO. I think it's time for Easton to release that arrow they've been holding onto for some time now. 12 years of no new development is long enough to recover all the cost and make a healthy profit. So if there's something better out there, I hope we see it soon.

Meanwhile, I'll be shooting my Nano Pro's, not really caring what anyone else thinks about that decision... :darkbeer:

John.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

I wonder if I'm on Limbwalker's ignore list, as he didn't answer a few questions I asked him directly in the past few days...


----------



## x1440 (Jan 5, 2003)

Anyone know if the standard Nano Pro points the same length as X10's or longer?


----------



## shmook (Dec 14, 2004)

I can't say that my pro tours shoot better than nano pros would out of my bow and I haven't seen any true spine testing, straightness test, hooter shooter head to head comparison to prove one better than the other. All I've seen was that Limbwalker had better luck with the CX than the Easton. If it shoots better for you shoot it. I don't think that LW can flat out proclaim CX better either, but they worked better for him. It is a little strange that the Koreans aren't using the arrows that are produced in their own country. Arguably the best team in the world isn't using the arrows made in their home country. I wish I had the resources to to compare the CX against the Easton myself. My hypothesis is there wouldn't be much difference between the two shot out of the hooter shooter.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dado, why on earth would I put you on my ignore list (that only contains one person so far anyway...)? You're posts are honest and objective and polite...

To answer your question, I shot Flex-fletch vanes on my ACE's and X10's from May of 2004 until about 2 years ago when AAE came out with their plastifletch MAX 2" shields. I was looking for a good alternative to the flex fletch since I was so tired of them falling off the shaft. I don't think an added step (cleaning the base of the vane with toxic chemicals) should be required once you purchase a product in order for them to work correctly. I found the AAE's did the same job, were just as tough and accurate, and allowed me to fletch them directly out of the package without added steps. They stick great and peform just as well.

I did shoot some great scores with flex-fletch, including my PB 70 meter score (332 on the first day of the Oly. trials in a pretty good cross wind). However, my PB double-70 was still shot with spin-wings on ACE's at the Tx. shootout (again, with a left to right steady crosswind... hmmm...) in 2004. I was hoping to improve on that this year at the same event, but missed it by 6 points. 

Flex fletch are great vanes, used by many of the world's best archers. Very few recurvers use them however, mostly because recurvers are trying to save weight and they are in love with spin wings  I saw no difference in performance between spin wings and vanes, and if anything, I trusted my vane-fletched arrows more because they require much less maintenance.

But I'm weird like that. I just like to find different ways to get the job done sometimes. If the crowd is all heading one way, you can usually find me going in another direction.

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Shmook, do you shoot recurve?

I hope you get the chance to give them a thorough and objective test. 

I don't really care that much what anyone else shoots, nor should they be too worried about what I shoot. To each their own. I hope everyone gets to shoot the best bow and arrow for their needs. I wish everyone had the opportunity I had to test both arrows in a TRULY OBJECTIVE manner with no concerns about the consequences of choosing one over the other. As I said, I was in a unique position at the time - one that few archers will ever find themselves in. So I took advantage of it and tried to figure out what worked best for me. I consider myself VERY fortunate that I don't have to answer to anyone when I pick up my bow. I think that may also have been a competitive advantage that helped me in the past, and works to the advantage of all unsponsored shooters every time they step up to the line. It's one of the few advantages we have.

John


----------



## Jay (Sep 18, 2002)

I don't think you can use the money excuse in the forum. Easton originally offered $500 or so (can' remember) at the start of 2008 for Olympic Gold, CX said, "we'll do $5000" so most of Italy and several other shooters (even Koreans) switched to the $5000 awarding CX Nano's. Easton later changed and said they'd up to $5000 as well.

Statistics show that 100% (+ or - 1%) of the Archers at the 2008 games were using Easton and I think a very high percentage were using X-10's. Both companies offered the same money.

I don't believe this myth of bad batches of arrows either. I have shot X-10's for a long time now and I can grab any X-10 in my arrow tube and put it in the middle. If I don't, I executed a bad shot. I've never had any magic flyers in any of my batches either.


----------



## Dado (Aug 1, 2004)

limbwalker said:


> Dado, why on earth would I put you on my ignore list (that only contains one person so far anyway...)? You're posts are honest and objective and polite...
> 
> To answer your question, I shot Flex-fletch vanes on my ACE's and X10's from May of 2004 until about 2 years ago when AAE came out with their plastifletch MAX 2" shields. I was looking for a good alternative to the flex fletch since I was so tired of them falling off the shaft. I don't think an added step (cleaning the base of the vane with toxic chemicals) should be required once you purchase a product in order for them to work correctly. I found the AAE's did the same job, were just as tough and accurate, and allowed me to fletch them directly out of the package without added steps. They stick great and peform just as well.
> 
> ...




Ok, thanks! I have a very talented recurve shooter in the club so we were trying to figure out a competitive vane for him (competitive to flex fletch)...

And that other question: is it safe to glance-off the wraps' glue residue with a disolver?


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

Jay said:


> I don't believe this myth of bad batches of arrows either.


No production process creates 100 percent usable product. Quality assurance then takes over. That can be accomplished by the manufacturer or the user. If done by the former, the end user doesn't see any flaws.

However, if there are never any "flyers" among a set of arrows, then I'm curious why some teams (e.g., Koreans) apparently spend considerable time pre-selecting arrows and reject some.


----------



## aussie (Jul 15, 2003)

Fellas, this has got to be one of the best threads I have read. This is a prime example of why this forum is a great place to hang out. Thanks Limbwalker, Ed and all the others who have posted, wonderfully enlightening and very entertaining.

aussie.


----------



## 3B43 (Mar 16, 2006)

I'm NEW to FITA (I'm shoot a compound)and have only been shooting archery for 3+ years, but this 'arrow debate' is VERY interesting, since I've shot two FITA's, both in the last month and have just purchased some Nano XR's. Why not the Pro's? Give me a second . . . 

My FIRST FITA was shot w/a OLD set of ACC 3-49's/125 grn points, that have many/MANY shots on them, but it was all I had. I shot a 1343 w/them, having some difficulty @ 90m (doesn't EVERYBODY?), mainly due to NOT believing how far the arrows were moving to the RIGHT due to the wind. Other then the arrows drifting in the wind, EVERY ARROW went right where I AIMED THE BOW! Anybody w/any skill would have shot a much higher score then that w/those OLD ACC's! On Sunday, I shot a 1353, w/my Nano's, and again, I took a dump @ 90m because I refused to believe the arrow drift. By the time I grabbed a handfull of windage, I had dug myself a very deep hole. 316 wasn't that bad, considering my first 18 shots. 

So why all the 'heated' finger pointing on this arrow issue? ALL LW said, was that 'in his testing', the Nano's out performed the X10's! THANK YOU LW for actually DOING SOME TESTING! I haven't seen ANYONE say, 'in my testing, the X10's out performed the Nano'! And no, I wouldn't know LW if he sat next to me in a bar--never met the guy.

XR's vs Pro's: Deitmer won the World's w/the XR's didn't he? Since I'm shooting the SAME bow as he is . . . when I CONSISTENTLY shoot 1375's . . . maybe I'll move up.


----------



## bmook (Apr 7, 2007)

limbwalker said:


> Shmook, do you shoot recurve?
> 
> I hope you get the chance to give them a thorough and objective test.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to dabble with recurve shooting. I'm strictly compound for field and FITA. I'm part of the CAP program and I enjoy that a lot. That would be a little strange if I was shooting Pro Tours out of a recurve, but you could test that :mg: I've been really happy with how they have been flying and I also used X10 500s that shot very well.


----------



## bmook (Apr 7, 2007)

Jay said:


> I don't think you can use the money excuse in the forum. Easton originally offered $500 or so (can' remember) at the start of 2008 for Olympic Gold, CX said, "we'll do $5000" so most of Italy and several other shooters (even Koreans) switched to the $5000 awarding CX Nano's. Easton later changed and said they'd up to $5000 as well.
> 
> Statistics show that 100% (+ or - 1%) of the Archers at the 2008 games were using Easton and I think a very high percentage were using X-10's. Both companies offered the same money.
> 
> I don't believe this myth of bad batches of arrows either. I have shot X-10's for a long time now and I can grab any X-10 in my arrow tube and put it in the middle. If I don't, I executed a bad shot. I've never had any magic flyers in any of my batches either.


Do you know where I can find that info?


----------



## shmook (Dec 14, 2004)

Ok so the last two posts were me under my Dad's name. My computer automatically logs me out and signs him in after I time out.


----------



## Nick Forster (Feb 11, 2009)

*I think I would like to try something different*

I am a recurve fita archer based in the uk
I shoot mid 1100 scores and have on very good days shot high 1100's
I shoot 520 ACE's which are 30 1/8" long nock groove to end of the pile I have 42LBS on my fingers and the tune is good ( I bare shaft tune at 60yrds 5 fletched arrows in the gold and a bare shaft there as well) all my arrows are knock tuned first.
I own 2 sets of ACE's my competition set tune in as above both sets have been treated exactly the same unfortunately the other set has never grouped as well, I only use this set for training so to limit damage on the competition set. I am down now to only 8 arrows left in my competition set which is worrying.
John 
With the info I have supplied what shaft spine would you recommend.
My arrows are about 1/2" longer than needed but I found the tune was better being slightly long.
Is the sight mark better at 90m with nano pros at present I am scoreing only mid 250's at 90m and making the scores up on the shorter distances, due to injury and being an older archer I do not want to increase my poundage by much.

The only reservations I have in going to nano's is that in the uk we can only shoot them at wrs matches any other level of competition the clubs can ban all carbons.
I shoot at about 17 double fita stars a season as well as some regional and county shoots. 
input is welcome 
Thanks Nick


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Dado, I don't know about removing the adhesive glue with a dissolver. I sometimes use Acetone to wipe my shafts clean before fletching ( I don't use wraps anymore - I just fletch directly to the shaft). Someone will probably tell me this is not correct, but I've never had a problem doing that. I don't soak the shaft - I just wipe it off lightly.

But for the goo left behind by the wraps, I'd use a product called "goo gone". It is a lemon scented (not sure if it's lemon based) liquid that removes all sorts of stuck on goo. I really like it.

Jay,

I find it dissapointing and a little surprising that you would use the terms "myth" and "majic" as if I were making this stuff up. It's obvious that you and your friend don't believe me. To which I ask, why would I provide false information? I have nothing to gain. I simply have provided my findings so that others could consider them when choosing an arrow. I think folks need to know that myself and several other qualified archers have noticed inconsistencies in dozen batches of X10's. For the record, I don't recall ever having that problem with another Easton product - the ACE. I still feel that the ACE's were a more consistent, forgiving arrow than the X10. Which is why several archers in Beijing chose to shoot them over the X10. If I were told that I had to shoot Easton (the way many of our archers here in the U.S. are being told what to shoot), and I didn't have the chance to select my arrows out of two or three dozen shafts, then I'd politely ask for some ACE's with 125 grain tungsten points  As those are what got me to Athens in the first place.

I would love to see all the recurve folks on your list who have actually tested the nano in a fair and objective way, speak up and say so. (we already know what the Nano can do out of a compound, now don't we?) But there is a conspicuous absence of any world class archers here (for good reason) and I would be surprised if any of them would jeapordize their potential support by posting favorable things about a non-Easton arrow here. 

Look, if my experience with the X10 vs. the Nano's showed them to be clearly superior, you can bet I would still be using them. As I've said 100 times, I was given both of them to shoot for free, so what difference would it have made to me? None whatsoever. Whenever I find a better arrow than the Nano Pro for me, then I'll shoot it. Whatever that may be.

Also, you can't really compare compound results with recurve. The two diciplines demand different things from an arrow and inconsistencies (esp. spine) will show up more with recurvers than compounders. This is one area where I think the Nano is better - spine consistency.

Bmook, Brady Ellison was testing X10 ProTours out of his recurve for a while, so it's not unheard of. I don't think he still shoots those however.

3B43, thanks for actually paying attention to what I'm trying to say. FYI, I actually did the majority of my testing between the X10's and the early Nano XR's. Even the XR's impressed me enough that I felt they were the better arrow. Then I was given some Nano Pro prototypes, and I liked them even more. 

I wouldn't hesitate to shoot the Nano XR head to head against X10's if you were not allowed to pre-select shafts out of several dozen (and who here actually has that opportunity?).

John.


----------



## bigdawg (Feb 26, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> For the record, Monty, I'm not on contract with any company. In other words, I don't shoot "for" anyone but myself. *I recently turned down one of the best offers I've had since making the Olympic team because I want to remain impartial and be able to shoot what I want, when I want.*
> 
> 
> Nope, wasn't paid a cent.
> ...


K, to start things off, I am sorry if this is offensive to anybody but sometimes things just have to be said. John, I must ask you what kind of contract were you offered?? The reason I am asking is because I don't know of a single company that would offer any kind of great contract to anybody who doesn't win tournaments. Also, I haven't seen any current FITA results from you so I don't know your current scores, but last I checked 1250's weren't getting offered amazing contracts.

John I know you made the Olympics in 2004. Congrats. I will never say you didn't earn it. What I will say is that sometimes the trial system doesn't always pick the best team. This years compound women are a great example. Jamie Van Natta didn't make the team. Anyways, you worked hard and got the spot, but I don 't ever see Brady, Vic or Butch (some of America's best) ever using their Olympic status (ones who have and will be on the team for many many years) towards commenting on a product. I have never heard one of them say, because I did this it makes me qualified to speak about a product. That would be very un-professional. Also, I would certainly think somebody who can consistantly break 1300, probably 1325 for sure, more qualified than somebody who shoots 1250. 

Like it has been posted many times.....MANY PEOPLE SHOOT BIG SCORES WITH DIFFERENT ARROWS! Easton, CX, Gold Tip, ....who cares! Its the archer!!!!!

I used to get Easton arrows for free. I know for sure I never got paid a dime, and I know a ton of others in the same boat! Easton doesn't pay what you claim, and if you want I will have somebody conduct a survey at the World Championships this year to prove this! I never ever once had a bad batch of arrows. To claim "flyers" you have to be a consistant/Good shooter to know when you have a bad arrow. 

A 1250 shooter usually is less than 50 pts per end at 90m. How the HELL can you know when you have a flyer! It must be in the 1 ring. Flyers could be tuning, fletching, freaking so many different options....... Its the easiest method to point a finger before learning the truth.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Bigdawg, my name is John Magera. Nice to meet you. What's your name? I couldn't find it in your profile...

I find it very interesting that my responses to simple questions I've been asked can cause some people to get so darn upset. I'm starting to think that archery in your country is indeed a contact sport! 

You know how rude it is to ask about contracts and money. And you'd be crazy to think I'd post those figures here anyway. The ONLY reason I mentioned that was in response to some questions that were raised about my sponsorships and support. I felt it was important to establish that, and that's how I chose to make my point. Sorry that it bothered you so much... Maybe Jonathan can come back up there and provide a good example for you, as he is very polite and we got along quite well. I just figured all the 'boys above the border were as nice as him. Deitmar certainly is too...

Anyway,



> I have never heard one of them say, because I did this it makes me qualified to speak about a product.


Please use facts when you make an argument. Nowhere did I ever say that. I am qualified because I have the ability to shoot the arrows to a level where differences begin to reveal themselves. Not sure where you pulled the 1250 number out of, as I've only shot two full fita's in my entire life, but I've shot well enough (and still can at times) to certainly tell when all 12 arrows are grouping together and when they aren't. I don't actively train anymore as I focus my time on my family, my work and other interests nowdays. However, recently I decided to shoot in a USAT event and managed to tie  our top recurve archer in the ranking round after only two weeks of practice. So, I think your evaluation of my ability is not very fair. I would expect that by those statements, you yourself must be an accomplished 1300 recurve shooter then? Would be nice to know your name at least...

And, it doesn't take a 1300 shooter to notice that a few arrows aren't grouping with the rest of the dozen. Whether or not I have that ability is not something I feel I need to establish to you. Please look at all the facts first. 

When I conducted my testing, I was primarily interested in how the arrows grouped at 70 meters. I wanted to know that an archer who purchased a dozen arrows was going to get a dozen arrows they could use. You see, I started all this on a tight budget. I have kids to raise and I don't have the money to sort through several dozen arrows to find a group that I can count on. I didn't seem to have this problem when I was shooting ACE's, but when I began to use X10's, I almost immediately noticed that I would get unexplained fliers. When I stripped off the fletching or spin wings and tested the dozens as bare shafts, I began to understand why. I could get 8 or so to hold gold at 70 meters, but never more than that. I'd usually get a few in the red and even a few in the blue. This was a consistent pattern.

So this is something I looked for when CX contacted me to try their arrows. I wanted to know 1) how consistent they were, and 2) how forgiving they were. I found that I could, and regularly did hold gold with all 12 arrows in a dozen at 70 meters. I can post some pictures of this if you don't believe me. Now I'm not sure which of you "levels" are required to be able to hold gold with a recurve at 70 meters with bare shafts, but I figure that makes me qualified to tell if I have unexplained fliers. Feel free to disagree with that if you have that ability and have performed the same tests. 

Another reason I felt qualified to answer questions about these arrows is that I took great pains in carefully tuning my equipment. I even de-tuned and re-tuned each bow several times over the course of about 3 weeks just to make sure I was seeing the correct patterns. I have a science background, and I understand how to compare things without bias.

Do you shoot recurve? If you do, you will understand why I would be interested in spine consistency and fliers... Much more of an issue with us recurvers. 

Again (for the 100th time), my results are just that - my results. Feel free to believe them or not. If you don't think I'm qualified to provide them, then maybe one of those "1325" shooters will come along and offer theirs instead. Then you can react to their findings. Until then, I guess this forum is stuck with all that I know, since I try to answer all the questions I get.

Fact is, I'm still pretty much the same guy I was back in '03 when I found this forum (and the Sagittarius site). Back then, I depended heavily on the experience and advice of more qualified archers to help me learn and make good decisions about training and equipment. I have always felt the need to repay that help that I so graciously received. Without it, I never would have had the opportunity to make the Olympic team, as I had no coach. So today, if someone asks me for advice, I am honored to give it. 

My advice to you is to not take advice from anyone you don't feel is qualified to give it 

John.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I also think I need to suggest that some of you just need to relax. We're just talking about arrows here. Just arrows. This ain't life or death, and few, if any of us actually make any money from this stuff. Even if we did, I doubt it would be enough to get so upset over. 

Just shoot whatever you want, and enjoy yourselves. Archery is supposed to be fun, right?

I'm done with this thread. Tired of being attacked for just stating the facts. 

Anyone who has a question about my results, or about X10's, Nano's or any other arrow that I have actual shooting experience with, feel free to PM me.

John out.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

John, if I was wrong in assuming you shoot for CX after seeing your picture in their advertisements, I apologize.

Is just that your strong claims of affiliations to no one, and your adamant repeated statements about “Nanos are better than X10s” ‘cause I say so, are hard to take any other way!

Your quote:


limbwalker said:


> It's pretty simple really - if I use their product, they are welcome to tell anyone they want. If I don't, then don't.
> John.


They are in their advertisements and you are here!


----------



## skybowman (Jan 31, 2004)

Limbwalker, thanks for the information as always.

However, to those who say they have never seen an imperfect X10 shaft (e.g., flyer--though perhaps that needs to be defined), I suspect you are overstating the case beyond even what Easton would claim. 

I'd ask again: If all arrows in a dozen are equal, why do some archers and teams apparently spend considerable time pre-selecting shafts and reject some (For instance, see previous posts by Vittorio and others on arrow selection.).

Even in the dark ages, we numbered our arrows and eliminated those that consistently grouped outside the mass. Nothing new there, but I guess nowadays quality assurance is bullet-proof (at least in what's shipped to Canada!:wink


----------



## Jay (Sep 18, 2002)

Flyers are not real, lets be honest. I have had moments where I am in practice and get an arrow that is not grouping as consistant as others but you know what? I refletch it, change the nock, change the pin etc. and it groups again. You gotta look at other factors before you blame it on the shaft. I still to this date NEVER have experienced a bad shaft.

To be honest, unless you shoot 6 x's and a 7 consistantly with the same arrows, then you cannot determine a flyer.

I am sorry, but I still think you need to play around a bit before you say you have a flyer because they still are a myth.


----------



## lorteti (Apr 14, 2008)

Jay said:


> Flyers are not real, lets be honest. I have had moments where I am in practice and get an arrow that is not grouping as consistant as others but you know what? I refletch it, change the nock, change the pin etc. and it groups again.


Shaft selection is done with BARESHAFTS at 70m.
jx


----------



## Jay (Sep 18, 2002)

A person will shoot bareshafts at 70M and then mark one's the don't group. They may not group that end due to human error in the shot etc. Mentally, they will know this and that could play a factor in the next several tests. With no fletching to stabilize the arrow the littlest thing can make the shaft ugly. Put them in a Hooter Shooter and see ALL OF THEM hit the middle with a little bit of tinkering  The magic flyer is still a myth.


----------



## lorteti (Apr 14, 2008)

Jay said:


> A person will shoot bareshafts at 70M and then mark one's the don't group. They may not group that end due to human error in the shot etc. Mentally, they will know this and that could play a factor in the next several tests. With no fletching to stabilize the arrow the littlest thing can make the shaft ugly. Put them in a Hooter Shooter and see ALL OF THEM hit the middle with a little bit of tinkering  The magic flyer is still a myth.


This is not the way how we select shaft. All arrows have it own number, all arrows are shot unsorted(blind picks). Arrows that does not group well get a mark for that specific shaft number on the target face. After so many shots, we know which is not good enough.
A shooting machine can not simulate the human FINGER release. Where the spin match much more important than mechanical compound release.
jx


----------



## Lindy (Nov 7, 2008)

*Nano Pros and other comments*

John,

I for one appreciate your comments and observations regarding a number of topics here.

Don't take some of these comments too seriously.

I personally would add comments regarding tuning on another archery forum and source where I got the information e.g. Easton Tuning Guide. Inevitably I would get a comment that this method or that method was not valid. The person would not identify him or herself. Further there were no references by this person to another published source. I would reply that unless the published source printed a retraction I would stand by the tuning procedure.

Unfortunately the discussion then evolves to another lower level. 

Regards and Good Shooting,


----------



## RWArchery (Apr 2, 2009)

Hey John,

I'm not questioning your methods or anything, but I was curious if you used different grain tips to test the arrows. Like shoot the arrows with 90 grains for a while, then switch to 100, etc etc to see how they group for the two arrows. Also, I'll assume you probably have more than one bow, so did you shoot it out of only one bow or the easton out of one and the nano out of one? Again, these are just questions of curiosity as I would like to test these (I'm a compound user) for a compound and see how it flies vs each other as well.


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

Jay said:


> A person will shoot bareshafts at 70M and then mark one's the don't group. They may not group that end due to human error in the shot etc. Mentally, they will know this and that could play a factor in the next several tests. With no fletching to stabilize the arrow the littlest thing can make the shaft ugly. Put them in a Hooter Shooter and see ALL OF THEM hit the middle with a little bit of tinkering  The magic flyer is still a myth.


 Even though I am x-10 supporter, I can guarantee and bet my right arm that flyers *ARE* in fact real. I did the exact same test as john did. I had 19 bareshaft 500 x-10s. 

My bow was already tuned perfectly to these arrows. I have been shooting the same setup for over 2 years. I decided to do the test when I had to refletch everyone of them after I got a new bag of vanes that I desperately needed. All had needed re-fletching for over a week, so I decided to strip em all to do the test.

I had one shaft hit a 3" group 5 times at 2 o'clock in the 6 ring. I had one that hit everytime 3 oclock in the 7. I had one that everytime hit 7 oclock in the seven.

By no means am I a 1300 hundred shooter, I've never even broken 1200. But thats just scored competitions. I dont ever score unless its a competition, and I've never shot a full FITA that wasnt a national tournament. When I practice at home I shoot at 80 yards so it makes 70m mentally just a bit easier. I shoot 12 arrows at a time and usually keep all but 2 or three in the gold, so I think I have good enough form to perform this test. All of my good bareshafts stayed in the 8 ring, and I knew those were all perfect shots. 

But the other 3? Everytime they hit where they were supposed to. I had numbers written on the shaft in permanent marker, I couldn't read these numbers before I shot them. I write on the target face the arrow's number by the hole I just pulled the shaft from. This throws out your theory on human interaction. Every shot was an unbiased, and perfect to the best of my ability. If I had a bad release, I had to re-shoot that arrow.

But, the reason why I am still 110% satisfied with easton x-10s, a simple 120 degree turn of the nock put all 3 of the flyers back in the gold.


----------



## Jay (Sep 18, 2002)

the turn of the nock proves they don't exist. Because it wasn't a bad shaft, just needed to turn a nock, which is what I have been saying. Don't blame the shaft until you change a pin, change a nock, turn the nock etc. etc.

Magic and myth still


----------



## voxito (Apr 16, 2006)

I believe the turn of the nock fixing a flyer shows a spine variance would it not? 

Two were a little weaker, one a little stiffer than all the rest. A twist of the nock produced a different area for the bow to put its forces on, which corrected that flyer's spine difference. I didn't change out the pin, I didn't change out the nock, I didn't change anything except a turn of the nocks.

A spine variance causes a flyer, a shaft that will not group with the others through no fault of the shooter. 

Not a myth, I saw it, and there was nothing magical about it.


----------



## ScarletArrows (May 25, 2007)

The absolute truth is either arrow will shoot well, Some will argue Nano some X10. 

Honestly, not many can tell the difference as to which one is better. MOST defenders of one over the other are just pointing fingers and saying "Your wrong!" with no objective as to back it up..if you really read those posts...

Ultimately, Shoot what you want. If you make a good shot I am willing to bet they will hit the middle either way. I shoot the nano because I want to, I took the advice of Limbwalker, and I have been very satisfied with the results.

You can take someone's advice on which is better or don't. Its your dollar, spend it where you want. 

Don't call a guy names just cause he likes one over the other or has found one to be better than the other.
For a closed mind there are few possibilities. For an open mind, there are many. Just cause you shoot one over the other for whatever reason doesn't mean that the other can't really be a better arrow. Does it matter as long as it hits the Bullseye?

HAVE FUN! Otherwise, why the hell are you doing this anyway?


----------



## TheShadowEnigma (Aug 16, 2008)

ScarletArrows said:


> Shoot what you want.
> 
> Take someone's advice on which is better or don't.
> 
> ...


I second that.


----------

