Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Easton Selection Charts for Recurve

  1. #1

    Easton Selection Charts for Recurve

    Hi,
    Are the Easton selection charts on the stiff side for recurves. I am shooting 660 Carbon Ones with 100 grain points @ 29.5". My draw length is 29.5" and my draw weight is 33lbs. They seem really stiff and I am having a hard time tuning them.



    I bought some 1716 xx75 platinum arrows that are 29.25inches with a 60 grain nibb and at the same draw length/weight and they fly/shoot great yet the selection chart says they are underspined by 3 groups.

    I would like to by some Easton a/c/e's (720's with an 80 grain point )but don't want to spend that much money if my assumption is incorrect.

    Thanks.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    277
    Yes, the Easton charts show as stiff. I am suggested to shoot a 750 spine arrows, and I'm currently shooting 1000 with 90 grain points.

    Get a copy of OnTarget 2, the spine calculator has shown to be quite accurate for me. Especially with 200+ dollar arrows, the 20 bucks is well worth it.

  3. #3
    The spine chart is different for everyone. For me the chart shows weak. So many variables go into recommended arrow stiffness (one's form/release, brace height, string type and strands, just to name a few) that there's no way they could make a chart that reads true for everyone. Since you already have an arrow that works for you, use that arrow's spine as a guide. 1716's are a 880 spine. So, your best bet is to buy arrows around an 880 spine. And when in doubt, buy the stiffer spined arrow and cut it longer than you're used to and see how it tunes. Cut off more if it's acting weak.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    918
    The chart is pretty much spot on if you go with 100-110 grain points, for 120 grain it usually shows a bit weak.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    277
    I think it really is different for everyone. I used the chart and had bareshafts nearly a foot left with 120 grain points, but going 3 sizes down let me tune. OT2 recommended the size I am shooting at the moment. I do know people who have the charts work spot on though.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    825
    Some time ago, I was talking to Rick McKinney about the Easton chart and it was his opinion that it was much closer for barreled shafts than for parallel. My own experience seems to bear that out: I am good with ACE 620, X10 600 (both barreled), but Navigator 610 are stiff.

  7. #7
    they're stiff for me, I had to go up two spine sizes to get them to tune

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by atjurhs View Post
    they're stiff for me, I had to go up two spine sizes to get them to tune
    Ditto for me and my wife
    The aim is useless without the way.

    Denver Archery Dot Com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chicagoland Area
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by rookcaca View Post
    Hi,
    Are the Easton selection charts on the stiff side for recurves. I am shooting 660 Carbon Ones with 100 grain points @ 29.5". My draw length is 29.5" and my draw weight is 33lbs. They seem really stiff and I am having a hard time tuning them.

    I bought some 1716 xx75 platinum arrows that are 29.25inches with a 60 grain nibb and at the same draw length/weight and they fly/shoot great yet the selection chart says they are underspined by 3 groups.

    Thanks.
    I shoot 32/34# limbs at 28" DL - and 1716s are perfect for me. Also looking to move to Carbon Ones and suspect I will have to experiment quite a bit before I'm settled.
    Compound: Mathews Drenalin LD - BLACK on BLACK
    Recurve: Hoyt Helix and Nexus; G3 Limbs
    USA Archery Level 2 Instructor in Northwest Chicago burbs
    Windy City Bow Strings - custom built to your spec - PM me for details!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WA state
    Posts
    563
    Yes, WAY TOO STIFF, by at least 2 spine ratings.
    I was just about to post a thread about this myself, but here it is.
    -Dan in WA
    (and no, I'm not a bowhunter)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,378
    I agree about 2 spines too stiff I found OT2 to be spot on

  12. #12
    I always found the charts to be a spine weak for me.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sweet Valley, PA.
    Posts
    143
    Way Stiff for me. Easton says 1916 which I bought, OT2 says 1816, Had to add quite a bit of Weight ( Screw in Bullet Points ) to the 1916 and still having a hard time
    Tuning. Spend a few bucks on OT2 save Big Bucks on buying wrong arrows.

    Rick

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Wherever the Navy sends me
    Posts
    557
    Same story here, but the chart was a lot closer for me with barelled shafts (A/C/Es). I got ACCs that were way stiff, based on the Easton charts. When I upgraded, I used OT2 and advice from guys on here, and I got A/C/Es that matched OT2. They actually came out a little weaker than what the program suggested was "dead center," so I ended up adjusting them to be slightly stiff and got a perfect tune. So, I guess that also goes to show that it's a little different for everyone. There are too many variables: string material? strands? brass nock or tied? "fast" limbs or "slow limbs"? clean release, or... less than clean...? What weight in the points? In my case, neither the charts nor the software was dead-on, but I found OT2 to be closer, and the basic shaft choice more "tuneable."

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WA state
    Posts
    563
    Does the Easton chart specify a particular point weight, like 100 grain?
    -Dan in WA
    (and no, I'm not a bowhunter)

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,378
    When I used the Easton shaft selector on line or down load programe you can adjust the point weight but it was way off for me

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Wherever the Navy sends me
    Posts
    557
    Quote Originally Posted by DIV View Post
    Does the Easton chart specify a particular point weight, like 100 grain?
    I was told once, long ago, that the Easton charts are made to be based on the recommended point weight as listed for the specific shaft/spine that you choose. If you look in the Lancaster catalofg, for example, there's the main Easton chart with all the "groups," but elsewhere, on the page for A/C/Es, for example, there's a chart just for A/C/Es whioch lists things like gr./inch spine @ 29", etc. In that chart, it lists a recommended point weight range, generally a spread of 20 grains. I was told the Easton charts are based on the mid point of that recommended range. Whether or not that's correct, I can't say for sure, because I'm just passing on (essentially) hearsay.

    In the end, I just went to OT2, and it got me a lot closer. Right or wrong, I liked the interactive adjustability of the program to recommend spine and arrow characteristics. It recognizes the fact that dynamic arrow spine (which is what REALLY matters), depends on more than JUST the static stiffness in the charts. Vanes, point weights, string count, string weight, brass nock, etc. all make a contribution to the tuning process, and I like the way OT2 accounts for that in the recommendation process.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Wherever the Navy sends me
    Posts
    557
    Quote Originally Posted by DIV View Post
    Does the Easton chart specify a particular point weight, like 100 grain?
    I was told once, long ago, that the Easton charts are made to be based on the recommended point weight as listed for the specific shaft/spine that you choose. If you look in the Lancaster catalofg, for example, there's the main Easton chart with all the "groups," but elsewhere, on the page for A/C/Es, for example, there's a chart just for A/C/Es whioch lists things like gr./inch spine @ 29", etc. In that chart, it lists a recommended point weight range, generally a spread of 20 grains. I was told the Easton charts are based on the mid point of that recommended range. Whether or not that's correct, I can't say for sure, because I'm just passing on (essentially) hearsay.

    In the end, I just went to OT2, and it got me a lot closer. Right or wrong, I liked the interactive adjustability of the program to recommend spine and arrow characteristics. It recognizes the fact that dynamic arrow spine (which is what REALLY matters), depends on more than JUST the static stiffness in the charts. Vanes, point weights, string count, string weight, brass nock, etc. all make a contribution to the tuning process, and I like the way OT2 accounts for that in the recommendation process.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •