Archery Talk Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,525 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just wondering if one is any better than the other. Does the the length of the vane make any difference? If there is anything of importance you can add, please share. Thank you for answering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,853 Posts
I’ve tested a lot of vanes and really haven’t noticed much of a difference. The most popular, widely used hunting vane on the planet is the blazer which is a 2”/.5” parabolic. I think vane height has a lot more influence then vane shape or vane length.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
shield.cuts stabilze a bit faster,and do cover up some error in form etc.
I like em,and easier for me to fletch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51,121 Posts
One over the other is nothing more than looks. Vast majority is parabolic.
 

·
Huntoholic
Joined
·
1,720 Posts
This is not chiseled in stone, but it seems to me that traditional equipment users prefer shield and modern equipment shooters use parabolic, and I think it has more to do with the look than performance. Traditional guys?
 

·
Blue Marlin
Joined
·
3,001 Posts
Seems like some of the shields make more wind noise going down range than parabolic... I four fletched up some 2.1" Q2 Fusions a few weeks ago and they have a noticeable hiss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,039 Posts
Parabolic seem to hold up better & less noise than shield do. Have shot parabolic since about 68.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
3” fusions: shield cut, fletch like a dream and none of the contact issues of short and fat wether blazers or any of the others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51,121 Posts
3” fusions: shield cut, fletch like a dream and none of the contact issues of short and fat wether blazers or any of the others.
You do realize shield or parabolic has nothing to do with base or fit, it's looks.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top