First and foremost, cylindrical weights are often cheaper. If you are someone who is trying different brands of risers, they’re also universal. You can easily move them from your starter Galaxy, Kinetic, or WNS bow to your flagship Hoyt then to your Gillo. So you buy them once and they last effectively forever.

Secondly, they work well. The center stabilizer bushing is generally the best place to start adding weight if you want to move the bow’s center of gravity towards the target and the ground. That’s why stabilizers go there, after all. Personally, for a barebow riser, I think the weight is best added a couple inches below that (see where Demmer’s giant, offset disk’s center is, which is close to where Hoyt’s pro weight sits, or the Gillo blade, or where basically everyone puts their front hammers). But that can be approximated with weight in the middle and bottom bushings.

Hoyt’s pro weight works well, but the minimum configuration is 40oz. Their regular plates don’t quite balance the riser on their own. So traditional cylindrical weights work well for anyone who doesn’t want a very heavy bow. It’s noticeably worse on the 27 than the 25.

Gillo’s hammers are the best system for balancing a bow how you like (although they’re just a little too long to make the full range of rotation WA legal on a GT). But pre-dampeners being legal, they did add a noticeable vibration to the bow. That’s an easy fix now, but many archers still prefer a simpler solution. The second best choice is the blade weight, although that is a “love it or hate it aesthetic” for many. So then you’re looking at configuring weight covers or cylindrical weights. The weight covers have so many options that cylindrical weights seem like a safer choice if you don’t know how much weight you need. Many archers will use them to figure out how much weight and how they want the riser to balance before investing in riser specific options, and a fair number will decide that since they got their bow how they like it already, they don’t need to purchase anything else.

Having used the Gillo weight covers (brass, steel, and aluminum), the hammers (stainless and aluminum), the Hoyt Pro weight (aluminum sides), and Yost weights (16 and 11.7 oz), I have to say that while the Gillo hammers work the best and are my favorite setup, the Yost weights were the best investment because I could use them to experiment on a variety of risers. Granted, at their current prices, Yost weights aren’t cheaper than a dedicated solution.

I got a Gillo bow because I like to tinker, and the weights let me do that. I can be as picky as I like (or, more accurately, as I can afford). But for archers looking to spend less, and who don’t have the option to try different weight kits before investing, a stack of stainless steel cylinders they can attach to the stabilizer bushings are a great choice.

 

I completely agree with the above and would add one other point regarding the Yost weights (which I use with my Gillo GT). Because the Yost weights are drilled off-center you can rotate the weight such that it will have more of the weight either left or right of center if that is desired. This is similar to, but not as effective as the Gillo hammer system. However, it is more versatile than the static proprietary weights that mount within the riser.

Beyond that, for me, as noted above, the Yost weight are far less expensive than the proprietary weights and can be used with any riser in case I someday move on from my Gillo. With the 16 oz weight in the center front bushing and the 11.7 oz weight in the lower front bushing, my 25" GT balances perfectly, so I am very happy with the Yost weights.

 

Proprietary weights are expensive, so folks set them up with weights they already have. If they don't like the riser, and want move on, it is easier to sell without the extras.

 

I have been shooting the cylinders ok, but have to add too much weight to get a tip forward. Will be setting up the Gillo hammers for this coming outdoor season.

 

There is a more simple answer…weights forward of the pivot point of the grip do more for balance than weights internal in the riser…weights in the riser add more mass weight and add to stability but a weight out front does more to contribute to balance with a lesser amount of weight

 

Nothing you’ve said is incorrect, but I’d argue there are some proprietary weights that do this better.

The Gillo hammers let you not only push that weight forward, they let you change the vertical position of that weight as well. And they give you some choices to counterbalance. Essentially, they miniaturized the stabilizer system then adapted it.

The Xceed’s design means you can’t get very much weight out front and pass through the ring. The 16oz steel Yost, for example, doesn’t fit. Their weight covers don’t work super well for balance for exactly the reason you describe, but the pro weight lets you push that CoG further forward than I could with cylindrical weights.

Of course, that pro weight is a conceptual copy of the Gillo blade weight, which does the same thing: it allows you to move that weight forward, then also push that weight down a bit. I recommend the aluminum side plates using the same logic you are though: weight forward is better than weight on the side until the bow starts tipping too far.

 

Only the hammers might provide an advantage for balancing…
At a cost of having a stupid looking bow.
I’m just telling my experiences and I realize people all have a different perception of what works best for them. I for myself have not preferred any internal weight like that on the gillo or the exceed.
These are my preferences and I realize others may have other opinions…
Getting the weight in front provides more lever…a longer skinnier weight will provide more leverage in the same overall weight. I learned that in elementary school science.

 

Only the hammers might provide an advantage for balancing…
At a cost of having a stupid looking bow.

Man I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds them hideous.

For me the answer is simple , whether its the Yost weights or my homemade weights, I can take them from riser to riser and not worry.

 

I appreciate everyone sharing their thoughts and experiences. I figured cost would be a key element.

Am I understanding correctly that generally:

• Weight in front of the riser is better for balance (eg. Keep the bow vertical during and after the shot).
• Weight in the bottom of the riser is better for stability (eg. more steady for aiming).
• Therefore, in some cases the proprietary weights offered may not meet the needs of the archer, so the archer must supplement with other options.

 

I think proprietary stuff is bad in general. Just on principle I avoid it.

 

I use X-Spot weights (cheaper than Yost) on my bow as well as Infitec dampers. I mean a weight is simply mass, not really difficult to engineer. Any hunk of metal will achieve that. But I also chose a riser that gives me a lot of an attachment options--I have six bushings: two front and back at each limb pocket and two just below the grip front and back.

But weights have a number of forces to deal with. Most people focus on the bows reaction to gravity, i.e. balance. But there is also the bow center of gravity, the low-frequency vibration from the archer, and the high-frequency vibration from the shot. Where that weight on the riser the weight is is also important. For example, by moving the weight to the limb pockets, you need less weight to control the vibration from the shot reaction.

 

For example, by moving the weight to the limb pockets, you need less weight to control the vibration from the shot reaction.

Interesting. So this is the purpose of the small pocket weights in some risers (eg. Xceed)? Not so much for added mass, but to tune and minimize vibration?

 

Still newer to barebow and went to the Vegas shoot that just ended. I noticed that most shot a typical cylindrical weight. With the new world archery rule allowing damper and weights on the bow in any combination I saw a few using weights attached to the damper and then to the bow. Seems like a good idea to me.

 

I have an Exceed. I didn't want to buy Hoyt's proprietary weight system because of the colossal amount of weight it could potentially add. As mentioned above, cylindrical weights are way cheaper. I use a stack of weights, with a Ramrods Archery tungsten powder weight in the middle of my "long" stack mounted in the usual olympic recurve mounting hole. I also have one powder weight in each of the limb pocket holes (1 top, 1 bottom). Lastly, I did buy the Exceed pocket weights and use those. I get a bit of a bow roll, as I flip the bow downward (an artifact left over from shooting a lot of OR).

 

Our dedicated solution do not involve controlling balance only, but torsional reactions too. Everything started at the beginning of the G1 design when we were offering 6 steel disks that could be assembled symmetrically or asymmetrically in the lower round seats, under the one-piece brass or aluminum weights. Presently, the disks still make their job inside the composable covers in fine-tuning the rotation of the riser around its vertical axis.
In any case, you cannot tune any bow properly by adding weights (or long rods) in front of the riser, only, as you don't compensate at all torsional mistakes. Same as for Compound and Recurve side rods, you also need some weight on the back too, proportionally set to counteract torsional forces at grip level.
In the photo below, Timo Durckdewald, one of top German BB shooters, is showing how to combine the blade and the Hammer on the same 27" riser for the best results. One of the many solutions possible under present WA rules.

 

When I got my first riser to set up for competitive shooting (xceed) a few months back. I found some 2.5, 2” x1” steel rounds on etsy and got some 1.5x1” from work. Took and drilled them out through holed and counter sunk. Probably in like 15 bucks total with fasteners for a 100 ounces or thereabouts. Keeps experimenting affordable.
Just traded my way into a gt29 with a 25oz integral weight that is pretty nice, and have done some trading for a yost 16oz and grabbed a couple 5 and 8 oz screw ins off ebay for 10 or 15 bucks.
Im not well enough proficient to really articulate whats and whys. Pretty much copy others and try and feel it out. Seems the heavier I get my bow. The weaker an arrows shows. Also of the mind that once Ive got my bow balanced( not tipping back) any extra weight seems to take away from the post shot reaction or jump. I follow that the weights resistance to inertia is a positive. Just not positive I like losing all post shot reaction. Or maybe I just dont have a strong enough post shot bow side to take advantage of the extra weight while maintaining the “jump”

 

And as per new rules (22.3.6.1) weights on top of riser are legal. I assume this includes pocket weights now?

 

Yes. I suspect the rule change was because Olympic recurve manufacturers (Hoyt and Win&Win) were moving that way and without WA input/support, it would be a judging nightmare.

But it is a really good move for archers. I think you will start seeing manufacturers start thinking more about how weight above the grip will benefit shooters and start working on design--all current barebow specific riser designs are still following the previous rules where only weight is allowed below the grip. Olympic recurve archers use weights and short stabilizers above the grip, hence the bushing found near the upper limb pocket. You are certainly seeing barebow archers experimenting with a top weight.

 

I think there is value to proprietary weight systems. They are made with at least some engineering and purpose behind them. Not just a cylindrical mass in the stab hole. The gillo systems have a purpose and optimal usage, built specifiically for the GT. Like vittorio said, not just balance, but torsional reactions too.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk