[Angry_abe]

So I am wondering what everyone here thinks, I am much more knowledgeable with arrow setups for my compound and need some input on arrows for a new Hoyt Satori.

Bow and Archery info:
19" riser
Medium limbs
52# @ 28"
28.5" draw length
three under
30" arrow length
4x3" trad vanes or feathers

With all that said, if I look at both Goldtip and Easton spine charts they both recommend a 340 spine. If I use the 3rivers tool, a 400 spine seems to spine match the bow options much better. I would like to run a bit of weight up front, a 200gr head or combo of insert and head to get around 200-250 grains. I feel that with this much weight a 340 would probably be better and maybe have them cut at 30.5 and slowly hacking a a bit off to see how that tunes out. I know I will have a bit of tuning ability with brace height and point weight but with as long of an arrow as I am running arrow weight starts to really get up there once you turn to adding a bunch of weight up front to get the spine in line. Any experiences?

 

[Angry_abe]

Appreciate the input everyone, I was hoping to avoid having to buy several different spines in different lengths but I think that is going to need to be what happens. That or invest in an arrow saw which seems to be overkill at the moment. I have everything else I need and have built plenty of arrows before so testing fletching combos and insert weights won't be an issue.

I suggest going to the source for this tool...

Stu Miller's Dynamic Spine Calculator download page

This calculator was developed to aid the traditional archer in defining the appropriate arrow setup to match a given bow design. That formulas are derived primarily from modern deflex/reflex longbow and recurve designs based on actual shooting experience coupled with basic engineering principles.

www.heilakka.com

But still, bows are different, even within the same model, draw weights differ from the marked draw weight, your draw length may or may not be what you think it is when you actually shoot, and your personal form and idiosyncrasies all contribute to the ideal 'tune'.

What is more, you can't tune until you shoot consistently, so...

I'm not going to tell you about you, but I will say most people who don't know how to select and tune an arrow don't shoot nearly well enough to learn anyway, so most people should simply grab something close, fletch them up, leave them full length, and then when they're consistently shooting, say 200-220+ on a blue face 300 target, revisit the possibility, try bare shaft tuning with arrows they've got, playing first with point weights, and maybe an arrow saw, and when they figure that out, grab that dynamic spine calculator, enter the data to determine the dynamic spine that actually worked (assuming you can get it with what you've already got), and use that number to go shopping at Lancaster for single shafts of different contenders, depending on if you want more or less arrow weight, more or less FOC, whatever, and when you've got half a dozen options, spend maybe a week or so figuring out what you really, really want, and who knows, you may come full circle and find that those basic full-length shafts with a particular point weight work great, or maybe not.

Regardless, it takes a pile of time, and most people chase equipment changes before they're ready to find out what is actually better for them, because they haven't discovered how they actually shoot, once they've settled in to something that works well, consistently.

Book plug. "Shooting the Stickbow" by Anthony Camera.

Using his sheet it looks like a 340 with 200 grns up front would be the better option. Thank you for the link. I am not necessarily new to tuning arrows, I am new to tuning arrow for a recurve which from my initial dig into information seems to be much more involved than for a compound where you can't really go too stiff unless we are talking extreme spine miss matches. I have his book, its fantastic and I stated a second read through recently when my interest in stick bows picked back up.

I think the calculators are generally pretty good but are dependent on the accuracy of the inputs. Chart or calculator is nothing but a starting point like others have said.

My guess is in this case both are right, you could make a .400 or a .340 work. Since you mention heavier point weights I agree about going with the .340s but I would leave them full length to start. Cut them back slowly if they prove weak with your intended point weight. Cut them too short to start with and you might not like how much point weight you need to get them to tune, if you can get them to tune.

I have similar specifics as you and a slightly shorter .400 with a moderate point or a little longer .340 with a heavy point tune well for me (both ACCs). My bow is cut close to center, an arrow tip is just slightly outside of the string at brace.

A big variable in spine weight for a particular bow is how close to center shot it's made along with the diameter of the shaft. Small fractions of an inch can make a significant difference.

I noticed that when messing around with the calculators. The satori is cut well past center and comes with different strike plates. I was planning on shooting off an elevated rest like the bear weather rest or hoyt hunter rest. I know that has the impact of weakening spine when shooting past center so I may have a bit of flexibility there.

Using a Satori that is cut well passed center just about anything should work. i Use the calculator to get me close. personally I think the Easton chart is made up by wheel bow guys with no clue. When in doubt buy a couple of shafts of different spine and tune using the point/insert weight you want. Lancaster Archery sells individual shafts.

Yeah seems like that is what I am headed for. I'll pick up a couple 340s and 400 in different lengths and see what tunes best. Then fletch up a couple of the winning shaft and fine tune from there.