[PennMan]

Setup:
Matrix 25", 30# medium Epics (30# at fingers), brace height 8.25, DL 28.5",
Easton 1914 with 115 grain points, Duravane 3-D 1.8 vanes, Cavalier plunger and ARE adjustable magnetic rest, 16 strand 8125, even tiller

My bare shaft was 8 inches up and to the left. No fletching contact with riser shelf with the fletched shafts at that nock point. I moved my nock point *UP* 1/8 inch and got my bare shaft to group with my fletched arrows. The shaft is in contact with the upper third of the plunger. However, now I have fletching contact with the shelf.

Any thoughts why this is happening?

 

[xxxxshooter]

Did you check your nock alignment? How much offset (if any) do you have on your vanes?

Also, how can you bareshaft tune when your fletched arrows are hitting the shelf? No point in the bareshaft grouping with something that *isn't* flying straight ....

 

[PennMan]

I did not realize the fletching was hitting the shelf until after I had raised my nock and got the bare shaft to group with the fletched shafts.

Be that as it may, why would raising my nock 1/8 inch send my fletching downward into the riser shelf?

 

[massman]

Well...

Depending on how high above square the nock set is. A high nock set may drive the arrow down on the finger of the rest driving it towards the shelf.

I've always had success setting up a bow with 1/8" tiller difference and a nock set at 3/8 to 1/2" above square. This combination just seems to always work.

Regards,

 

[PennMan]

I had not wanted to play with tiller yet, but I may be forced to at this point. The nock was set square and I raised it 1/8 " above square. I tried some vanetec mini Fita fletched shafts, but they grouped horribly. They would fly higher consistantly. Perhaps those were the fletched arrows hitting the riser and not the duravanes. I'll keep an eye on it now that I refletched those shafts with Duravanes.

Any experience with the Vanetec superspines for recurve?

 

[wmt3rd]

I use the MiniFITA vantec vanes and love them. Very tough vane. This isn't your problem. Something else is going wrong that is hard to diagnose from a distance. Keep working on it, you'll find the problem.

good luck,
Mack

 

[xxxxshooter]

Any experience with the Vanetec superspines for recurve?

Those are fine vanes and very durable. I shot them for a while, but actually found that 45mm Kurly Vanes grouped even better.

 

[calbowdude]

I had not wanted to play with tiller yet, but I may be forced to at this point. The nock was set square and I raised it 1/8 " above square. I tried some vanetec mini Fita fletched shafts, but they grouped horribly. They would fly higher consistantly. Perhaps those were the fletched arrows hitting the riser and not the duravanes. I'll keep an eye on it now that I refletched those shafts with Duravanes.

Any experience with the Vanetec superspines for recurve?

Quick question: when you set the nockpoint square and then raised it 1/8", does that mean that you set the nockpoint 1/8" above where the bowsquare contacts the rest? In other words, you have the bow square on the string, you lower it until it contacts the rest, then you set the nockpoint (top nockpoint if you're using 2 nockpoints) 1/8" above the bottom edge of the bowsquare that's sitting on the rest? If so, then your nockpoint is too low. It would probably be a better setup to set the top nockpoint 1/8" above the rest + the thickness of the nock, which will probably end up being 1/2" or so.

Your arrow will end up pointing just a bit downwards below horizontal when the string is perfectly vertical. This is viewing your bow from the side.

Hope this helps.

 

[zydeco]

I'm struggling a bit with your set up. I'm shooting 32lbs on the fingers and my first shafts were 1914's cut to 28". Even with 120 grains in the points, the shafts were way too stiff. I just entered your data into TAP and the shaft is all the way to the right stiff.

May I ask if you tried tuning for tens, and if so, what kind of paper tears did you get? If your shafts are that far stiff, you may never get a good tune. I moved down to 1716s and have had some success with 1814s with 75grains at the point.

 

[PennMan]

Quick question: when you set the nockpoint square and then raised it 1/8", does that mean that you set the nockpoint 1/8" above where the bowsquare contacts the rest? In other words, you have the bow square on the string, you lower it until it contacts the rest, then you set the nockpoint (top nockpoint if you're using 2 nockpoints) 1/8" above the bottom edge of the bowsquare that's sitting on the rest? If so, then your nockpoint is too low. It would probably be a better setup to set the top nockpoint 1/8" above the rest + the thickness of the nock, which will probably end up being 1/2" or so.

Your arrow will end up pointing just a bit downwards below horizontal when the string is perfectly vertical. This is viewing your bow from the side.

Hope this helps.

I used a Saunders square that sets the zero nock point 1/8 inch high. I was originally an 1/8 inch above that and then I raised it another 1/8 inch. Arrow is now pointing slightly downward.

 

[PennMan]

I'm struggling a bit with your set up. I'm shooting 32lbs on the fingers and my first shafts were 1914's cut to 28". Even with 120 grains in the points, the shafts were way too stiff. I just entered your data into TAP and the shaft is all the way to the right stiff.

May I ask if you tried tuning for tens, and if so, what kind of paper tears did you get? If your shafts are that far stiff, you may never get a good tune. I moved down to 1716s and have had some success with 1814s with 75grains at the point.

Verrrrry interesting. I put the data into Archer's Advantage and 115 grain point, 29.5 inch 1914 shaft at 30# 28.5 inch draw is weak spined. It shows the 1916 and the 2013 as optimally spined with all other variables kept the same.

Haven't shot through paper yet.

 

[zydeco]

I had some of the same issues with AA. I think much of the data base carries the same bias that Easton's charts carry. I don't meana to criticize AA, but I have not been able to get it to work for me. I ran AA with your set up and got a dead center plot for spine, so I may not be using the program properly.

When I charted your set up in TAP, I originally put in the shaft lenght at 28.5 since that was your draw length. I just ran the program again with a 29.5 shaft and it is still way too stiff - not all the way to the right, but well to the right in the yellow (stiff) area. I tried 1914s and 1913s (XX75) and neither would tune. I got up to 120grains in the point in the 1914s and the results were still not very good.

Another archer here on AT advised me to go to 1716s and they have performed great. That same gent shared his experience with me and noted that Easton's charts years ago would have suggested 1716s - now that is quite a change. I had already purchased a set of 1814s and they tuned ok with 75 grains in the point.

Would be interested in hearing about your tears when you get a chance. That should tell you a lot. Don't forget to lock the plunger down and set the center shot down the center of the shaft when you shoot through paper to check nocking point (first step) and spine.

 

[Seattlepop]

PennMan, I get the same results with TAP that you do with AA, see pic below. Are the rest of you using TAP making sure you have clicked on "recurve" (the default is med cam IIRC) and set the performance factor to "1"?

Your brace height is below the minimum 8 1/2" recommended by Hoyt for a med limb, are the Epics different in this regard? Increasing the BH will weaken the arrow somewhat.

I found that my tune reflects TAP's results when TAP shows a stiff (high end of the green) arrow. You have to adjust for your set up. For example, a fast string w/ tie-on nocks will weaken the arrow, so you need to see a stiffer result on the software programs.

 

[zydeco]

My bad, I had selected the recurve option, but failed to select fingers versus mechanical release. Having said that, I still would like to see the tuning for tens results on paper tears. I may have really been bumbling around back last year, but getting 1914s to tune at 32lbs on the fingers at 28.75 shaft length was next to impossible. I took Viper1's advice and went to 1716s with standard Easton points. These arrows shoot great, and tuning was a breeze. That is a significant shift in spine.

 

[Seattlepop]

The charts show a 60gr pt as standard for the 1716, so using some assumptions TAP shows the 1716 is right on, although your FOC is below 6% which is pretty low unless these are strictly for indoor.

 

[zydeco]

I'm shooting outdoor at indoor ranges if that makes any sense. I'm returning to recurve after many years away, and I'm shooting 20 yards in my backyard at indoor targets. Having said that, shooting 30lbs on the fingers with 120grain points sorta reminds me of some of my favorite 45ACP pistol loads with 230 grain ball ammo. Lots of weight that is stable in the wind but not great for long distances. Maybe it's just me, but I could not get the 1914s to group well with 32 lbs on the fingers with 120 grain points even at 20 yards. Despite the FOC numbers which I do not contest, the 1716s group a heck of a lot better. As Viper1 advised, the 1716s are almost a classic at that poundage. Still curious about tuning for tens tears. Maybe it's me, but been there, done that and the results have been different than the programs suggest. I did get the 1914s to give some ok tears in tuning for tens, but groups were not great. Additionally, that set up would hardly suggest great results at ranges beyond indoor ranges given 30lbs on the fingers with a really heavy arrow, unless I missed something. I'm not expert and usually hang around here to sponge off of those with greater expertise. After a 30 year hiatus, and less than a year's shooting with no coach, I'm up to the mid 280s with my 1716s in my back yard, but then again I'm my only competitor.

By the way, my draw length and shaft length is 27.75 and I charted my actual speed with my chrono, and I get a FOC a little better than 7. I'm shooting three fletch feathers and my arrow weight comes out a bit above 300 unllike your re****s. Regardless, my groups are better than the lead sled 1914s and my FOC calcs on TAP are at 7.31

 

[zydeco]

Aplologies for the astericks, strictly a typo. I intended to type the word "results". For the life of me I can't figure out how I typed four astericks.