[limbwalker]

Thank you all for your constructive feedback (except for limbwalker), I never expected so many people to pipe in with good stuff. Especially Rick McKinney

You must have found it inconvenient when he agreed with me not once but twice. But some people need an enemy and I'm big on service so I'll be your huckleberry. LOL

 

[Maggiemaebe]

Wind drift is determined by both velocity and ballistic coefficient. Ballistic coefficient is a relationship of a projectile’s aerodynamic shape and it’s mass. Using the same input energy, two projectiles with similar aerodynamic shapes but different mass and therefore velocity(and ballistic coefficient) will exhibit relatively small differences in down range ballistics with the lighter and faster projectile shooting a bit “flatter” and the heavier projectile showing slightly less wind drift.


Balance, or FOC, has no direct bearing on ballistic coefficient of any arrow. In rifle bullets, the most aerodynamic bullets with the best downrange ballistics are all balanced toward the rear due their their absence of lead in the nose. Having a fast enough twist rate to fully stabilize the bullet and get rid of any wobble is essential to getting the best downrange ballistics possible, though. If FOC makes any difference in the ballistic coefficient of an arrow, it is only as a reflection on its how quickly the arrow flies straight and how absolutely straight it flies.

I was wondering how long this thread would continue before the 30-06 vs 6.5PRC would come up

 

[Stash]

You know, Arrowbender, you’re absolutely right. I’ve been thinking about the wrong thing, momentum. I should have been considering inertia. Thinking about the movement of an arrow towards the target, but should have been thinking only about the movement of an arrow at 90° horizontally. I made a mistake. There, you can quote me. 😄

Another experiment, then.

Hold different arrows horizontally in a crosswind, and drop them. Let’s say, from a height that takes approximately 1 second to fall, about 5 meters. Compare how much the wind blows them sideways and see how far they get blown further from straight down - thin heavy ones and thick light ones.

Easy enough to measure how far each gets blown by the wind per unit of time during the falling and compare that to the time they would be in flight on their way to the 70m target.

Example: in a particular crosswind, arrow A, lightweight, wider diameter, moves 30 cm downwind in a 1 second fall, shoots at 200 fps (average speed) takes 1.15 seconds, should drift 34.5 cm. Arrow B, heavier, thinner diameter, moves 25 cm downwind in the fall, shoots at 180 fps, takes 1.27 seconds, should drift 31.8 cm.

Now, these are made-up numbers of course, and one of those “spherical chicken in a vacuum” things. But might be close to reality in comparing something like an ACE to an X10.

 

[MooseisLoose]

You must have found it inconvenient when he agreed with me not once but twice. But some people need an enemy and I'm big on service so I'll be your huckleberry. LOL

I have no clue what you're talking about. You were disputing FOC, I didn't mention FOC once. I don't think of you as an enemy, in fact I don't even think of you at all. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to this thread, you must care a lot to do so. But you keep bumping my thread to the top of the page, so thanks I guess? I suspect you're still salty about that time I called you out for talking trash about Jake Kaminski.

Oh and I greatly admire Rick McKinney. He's given a ton to the archery community, so he should serve as someone for you to aspire to. And his arrows are top-notch (I've bought several dozen for my barebow rig). He's a true sportsman and is a positive force in the archery community, as is Kaminski. I think very highly of them both.

 

[jason miller]

I was wondering how long this thread would continue before the 30-06 vs 6.5PRC would come up

Differences in arrows are probably more like comparing a 140 Berger with a 147 ELD.

 

[lees]

Go outside on a windy day. Find a wall that is parallel to the wind direction. Mark an X on the wall at eye level.

Now step back about 5 yards.

Take a ping ping ball and throw it as hard as you can at the X. See how far the wind moves it.
Then take a ball bearing and toss it gently at the X. See how far the wind moves it.

Then tell me what’s going to be more accurate in the wind - a slow, heavy, small projectile, or a fast, light, large one.

Yes, the difference between a ping pong ball and a marble is much greater than an ACE and an X10, but the example illustrates the situation.

Well, take the same wind and the same ping pong ball and throw it at the wall 5 times faster than you did before. See how far the wind moves it now compared to the 5x slower trip to the wall. That's where you'll see the effects of different flight times from point A to B.

But your point is well taken - making it heavier/reduced aerodynamic profile/both is exactly what you do as a practical solution when you can't go faster with the ping pong ball...

lee.

 

[limbwalker]

I have no clue what you're talking about. You were disputing FOC, I didn't mention FOC once. I don't think of you as an enemy, in fact I don't even think of you at all. I'm not sure why you keep coming back to this thread, you must care a lot to do so. But you keep bumping my thread to the top of the page, so thanks I guess? I suspect you're still salty about that time I called you out for talking trash about Jake Kaminski.

Oh and I greatly admire Rick McKinney. He's given a ton to the archery community, so he should serve as someone for you to aspire to. And his arrows are top-notch (I've bought several dozen for my barebow rig). He's a true sportsman and is a positive force in the archery community, as is Kaminski. I think very highly of them both.

Just having fun at your expense. I admit it. You rubbed me the wrong way by already having an answer to your own question when there were at least two Olympic archers willing to reply to your question. That's all.

And I never trash talked Jake. But you wanted to turn my comments into that which is why I say you need an enemy. Might want to ask yourself why friend.

The 2nd part of this post I agree with. Rick has given a ton back and would be -as an archer- someone for anyone not named Darrell Pace, to aspire to. His book was all I needed to make an Olympic team, which I would think is the highest praise one could get as an author.

 

[>--gt-->]

Differences in arrows are probably more like comparing a 140 Berger with a 147 ELD.

Comparing spin-stabilized projectiles with arrows is a fool’s errand, but I think you know that.

 

[limbwalker]

LOL

 

[jason miller]

My original point was that ballistic coefficient and velocity determine downrange drop and wind drift for any projectile and that just like proper barrel twist fully stabilizes a bullet to help it achieve its maximum ballistic coefficient, a properly tuned arrow that recovers from paradox quickly and flies as true as possible will also get down range more efficiently.

Is there something wrong with that logic?

The post you quoted was in response to someone posting that I was comparing a 30-06 to a 6.5 PRC. I was simply replying that comparing arrows out of one bow is more like comparing two bullets from the same rifle, not two different cartridges and bore diameters.

 

[UK_Stretch]

This is another of those “how did we get here threads”.

If you read “I don’t think I have met many top archers who thought much about arrow speed.” And your mind transposes that statement to “don’t care” or “doesn’t matter” - then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation - you’re seeing words that are not there. Just concentrate on your shooting.

The top archers cares about results - if shooting different limbs, heavier limbs, different string, lighter or heavier arrow etc etc gets them the results that is what they shoot. They are likely shooting a “typical” draw weight so speed will be enough. Do they pick the 210fps setup of the 202fps setup? They pick the one that works best across a range of conditions. (Exceptions of course apply - I recall Vladimir Escheev (did I spell that right?) always tuned for speed). But Nespoli - who has probably the fastest bow on the mens line - says he shoots what he shoots because IT WORKS BETTER FOR HIM. (And I think he prove that in Tokyo - respect earned).

Very few actively go in search of “more speed”. They go in search of results.

Stretch

 

[lcaillo]

Just about anything you do to get more speed will affect tune and arrow flight. If you tune for results as Stretch correctly points out most do, speed is simply not a big priority. If you want more speed you increase the draw weight then work the other variables like arrow selection for the best tune and groups. But most find a weight range that they can be consistent with and go from there. You end up with the speed you end up with. Not that it does not matter, just way down the list.

If you want speed, btw, Rick’s arrows have a relatively high spine to weight ratio. I have them and x10s and like them but do find they drift a bit more. Mainly don’t happen to tune quite as well at the setup I prefer. If the did happen to tune better or I change my weight I could easily shoot them. The point is the tune and grouping is more important than speed. It is just one factor but I don’t think most rate it as a high priority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lees]

This is another of those “how did we get here threads”.

If you read “I don’t think I have met many top archers who thought much about arrow speed.” And your mind transposes that statement to “don’t care” or “doesn’t matter” - then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation - you’re seeing words that are not there. Just concentrate on your shooting.

The top archers cares about results - if shooting different limbs, heavier limbs, different string, lighter or heavier arrow etc etc gets them the results that is what they shoot. They are likely shooting a “typical” draw weight so speed will be enough. Do they pick the 210fps setup of the 202fps setup? They pick the one that works best across a range of conditions. (Exceptions of course apply - I recall Vladimir Escheev (did I spell that right?) always tuned for speed). But Nespoli - who has probably the fastest bow on the mens line - says he shoots what he shoots because IT WORKS BETTER FOR HIM. (And I think he prove that in Tokyo - respect earned).

Very few actively go in search of “more speed”. They go in search of results.

Stretch

Agree with Stretch. The basic practical "mental game" for items like dealing with the wind are the same as for basically everything in archery:

• Bows & arrows are compromises, not more-X-is-better or less-X-is-better.
• The best compromise on a piece of gear is found by trial-and-error, and not back-of-the-envelope (or even Phd. level) math.

The problem with lowering the priority of the latter is it can distract you into holding ideas that are wrong ("speed doesn't matter", etc.) as well as tie you to the bench, tape measure and micrometer instead of out on the line shooting. This is a particularly obnoxious problem on the compound bow, which has many more moving parts and therefore offers many more opportunities to seduce the archer into a long, dreary life in the shop, and away from actually shooting the bow.

As for the current topic of dealing with the wind, the practical reality is that all of the items we're talking about affect the performance of the shaft in the wind, and they all interact with each other. The effects of changes in speed can be counteracted by the changes in overall weight which can be counteracted by changes in aerodynamic performance which can be counteracted by ....

So ultimately the true answer is you have to find the best performing setup The Old Fashioned Way by trial-and-error with different setups. What we know about the various effects of different dimensions can be guidelines to help us get into the ball park. But at the end of the day we just have to experiment to find the right combination.

That's a roundabout way of saying more or less nothing at all. But that's the practical reality. The right gear can only really be found by actually shooting it. And shooting it some more. The result may or may not correspond to our best guess about the right combination, and we have to be prepared for that too.

Strange but true.

lee.

 

[limbwalker]

To Lee's point about "trial and error" - Very few, if any, archers have put in enough objective testing to truly know the difference between limbs or arrows or risers or pick whatever piece of equipment you want to talk about. Even the best archers in the world who shoot full time only have a "feeling" that they shoot a certain thing better than another thing. There are two things going on here. First, most amateurs aren't skilled enough to objectively test equipment and second, they lack the time required to objectively test equipment.

 

[lees]

To Lee's point about "trial and error" - Very few, if any, archers have put in enough objective testing to truly know the difference between limbs or arrows or risers or pick whatever piece of equipment you want to talk about. Even the best archers in the world who shoot full time only have a "feeling" that they shoot a certain thing better than another thing. There are two things going on here. First, most amateurs aren't skilled enough to objectively test equipment and second, they lack the time required to objectively test equipment.

Totally agree. And we have this same argument format on a wide number of topics, including this one, up in the compound forums too. And the results tend to be the same.

You have the camp that says "don't worry about why X produces result Y. Just do X and it'll give you Y" and then you have the camp that says "Here's why X produces result Y. Accordingly, that's how you know you're doing what isn't X and getting what isn't Y all the time. That can help you decide whether you even want to try X or not., etc". And varying gradations in between.

I tend towards the latter camp, because I think that, in general, it's better to know than to not know. Depending on how much it costs to know, I think knowing yields a better result than not.

As for this particular topic, one thing I do think is true is that it tends to produce detectably better results at the target when you're dealing with the extremes.

For example, for sheer physical endurance reasons, I shoot compound at peak weights at least a full 20lbs less than my competitors do. So if I want to be competitive, optimizing both the speed and the aerodynamic advantages of my setup for the particular conditions is vastly more important than it is for my competitors. They may get the same results at 50 meters shooting a XX75 and an X10, or if there's an improvement with the X10, it's negligible. OTOH, because I'm shooting the same bow up to half the peak weight lighter, I stand to gain a lot more if I experiment with my outdoor arrows, knowing what I know about how lift, drag and momentum contribute to performance in the wind.

And so on. That's the general idea.

Most folks who aren't hindered in that way aren't as affected by these phenomena and they can safely ignore them. Up to and including incorrectly concluding "they don't make any difference"....

lee.

 

[archerynooblol]

Not true. Momentum is more important for a cross wind. This is why top level RECURVE folks pay $240.00 for a dozen 120 grain TUNGSTEN points for X10 arrows.

BUT, the stainless points that are also 120 grain points are ONLY $38.00.

 

[Arrowbender]

You know, Arrowbender, you’re absolutely right. I’ve been thinking about the wrong thing, momentum. I should have been considering inertia. Thinking about the movement of an arrow towards the target, but should have been thinking only about the movement of an arrow at 90° horizontally. I made a mistake. There, you can quote me. 😄

Another experiment, then.

Hold different arrows horizontally in a crosswind, and drop them. Let’s say, from a height that takes approximately 1 second to fall, about 5 meters. Compare how much the wind blows them sideways and see how far they get blown further from straight down - thin heavy ones and thick light ones.

Easy enough to measure how far each gets blown by the wind per unit of time during the falling and compare that to the time they would be in flight on their way to the 70m target.

Example: in a particular crosswind, arrow A, lightweight, wider diameter, moves 30 cm downwind in a 1 second fall, shoots at 200 fps (average speed) takes 1.15 seconds, should drift 34.5 cm. Arrow B, heavier, thinner diameter, moves 25 cm downwind in the fall, shoots at 180 fps, takes 1.27 seconds, should drift 31.8 cm.

Now, these are made-up numbers of course, and one of those “spherical chicken in a vacuum” things. But might be close to reality in comparing something like an ACE to an X10.

Heh, pretty sure you've some examples of me being wrong you're sporting enough not to bring up

I do understand your point re weight, I do agree. And N&B did also point out the OD being important, which I had forgotten to consider.
But at lees has said better than I could- none of this makes speed unimportant or irrelevant to the issue.

I'll keep reading as I think it's been really interesting so far but I'll bow out of commenting - as another user said, " then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation".
I genuinely do seem to be interpreting those quotes I, er, quoted incorrectly then.
Let's chalk it up to it not being my first language, my apologies.

 

[chrstphr]

I'll keep reading as I think it's been really interesting so far but I'll bow out of commenting - as another user said, " then your basic language comprehension is not sufficient for the conversation".
I genuinely do seem to be interpreting those quotes I, er, quoted incorrectly then.
Let's chalk it up to it not being my first language, my apologies.

everyone is free to post their opinion.

To elaborate on my quote "speed is irrelevant" . For a english second language reader, i should have been much more precise. Poundage or bow limb load is needed for any distance in shooting an arrow out of a bow. Arrow speed coming out of that bow is a byproduct of that. There will always be some speed or the arrow falls flat to the ground and the speed will then be the falling speed in gravity. To say speed isnt NEEDED is ignoring reality and physics.

In the context of shooting and tuning a bow for groupings at 18- 90 meters, speed is not a factor to consider for that. Archer form, Archer body and face specifics, bow poundage, sight marks, arrow diameter, arrow weight, arrow spine, point weight, FOC, fletchings all are more important.

Arrow speed is a byproduct of all those things and no archer i know starts out saying i need a 240 fps arrow to shoot 70 meters. Once all tuning is done and the bow is consistent and accurate at said shooting distance, then speed could be checked, but then it has no bearing. It will be what it is.

If its 198 fps or 204 fps or 175 fps, all irrelevant. Does the arrow reach the target? Is the sight mark such that it can be used? Does the arrow fly mostly straight to target without fishtailing or minnow-ing? Is the bow poundage or load something the archer can handle?

All of this is more important than what the speed is.

I could say the same thing for string blur. Makes no difference really where it is, as long as you have it in the same place each time. Is one side of the pin better than the other? up for debate. Is string blur important? Many archers never pay attention to it at all. And shoot very well.

I guess i posted assuming that the language would be understood without its context. So for that, I am at fault.

I guess i could make the comparison i have owned and driven cars for 40 years. Never once have i figured out the top end speed any of my vehicles could go, nor did i care. I needed the cars to function to get me from A to B, and do the jobs i required. The top speed of the car was irrelevant as long as it could do the speed limit.

So in the end, arrow speed isnt relevant to the end result of tuning a bow and shooting the distance you need as something to worry about. If your bow wont cast more than 5 feet, doesnt matter the speed. And to cast 70 or 90 meters, the bow already has enough poundage and enough speed so i dont need to worry what exactly that speed is. Enough to target is enough speed.

So Speed is relevant to the physics of casting an arrow 70 meters,.

how much speed i have to do that is irrelevant to me as an archer as long as the bow sends the arrow that distance.

We also need air to shoot an arrow 70 meters. But i never worry about how much or how thick air there is that i am shooting in. Sea Level vs 6000 feet above sea level, just changes my sight marks slightly. So the sea level reading i am at is irrelevant, yet I need air for archery.

Lastly, say you shooting X10 arrows. At 42# i have an arrow speed of 196fps and i shoot 550 spine arrow. To go faster i need basically more poundage on the bow. Yet doing so makes me have to get the next arrow spine up to 500 which is stiffer and heavier than the previous arrow. So now i shoot 46# 500 spine and guess what? My arrow speed is 196 fps. Because as i go up in poundage the arrow spine changes for the tune thus negating the speed. And even if i gained or lost 2 fps, i wouldnt notice it due to the load draw changes and change in tune on the bow.
Thus again in that context i say, the speed is irrelevant.

I hope i have clarified.

Chris

 

[Arrowbender]

everyone is free to post their opinion.

To elaborate on my quote "speed is irrelevant" . For a english second language reader, i should have been much more precise. Poundage or bow limb load is needed for any distance in shooting an arrow out of a bow. Arrow speed coming out of that bow is a byproduct of that. There will always be some speed or the arrow falls flat to the ground and the speed will then be the falling speed in gravity. To say speed isnt NEEDED is ignoring reality and physics.

In the context of shooing and tuning a bow for groupings at 18- 90 meters, speed is not a factor to consider for that. Archer form, Archer body and face specifics, bow poundage, sight marks, arrow diameter, arrow weight, arrow spine, point weight, FOC, fletchings all are more important.

Arrow speed is a byproduct of all those things and no archer i know starts out saying i need a 240 fps arrow to shoot 70 meters. Once all tuning is done and the bow is consistent and accurate at said shooting distance, then speed could be checked, but then it has no bearing. It will be what it is.

If its 198 fps or 204 fps or 175 fps, all irrelevant. Does the arrow reach the target? Is the sight mark such that it can be used? Does the arrow fly mostly straight to target without fishtailing or minnow-ing? Is the bow poundage or load something the archer can handle?

All of this is more important than what the speed is.

I could say the same thing for string blur. Makes no difference really where it is, as long as you have it in the same place each time. Is one side of the pin better than the other? up for debate. Is string blur important? Many archers never pay attention to it at all. And shoot very well.

I guess i posted assuming that the language would be understood without its context. So for that, I am at fault.

I guess i could make the comparison i have owned and driven cars for 40 years. Never once have i figured out the top end speed any of my vehicles could go, nor did i care. I needed the cars to function to get me from A to B, and do the jobs i required. The top speed of the car was irrelevant as long as it could do the speed limit.

So in the end, arrow speed isnt relevant to the end result of tuning a bow and shooting the distance you need as something to worry about. If your bow wont cast more than 5 feet, doesnt matter the speed. And to cast 70 or 90 meters, the bow already has enough poundage and enough speed so i dont need to worry what exactly that speed is. Enough to target is enough speed.

So Speed is relevant to the physics of casting an arrow 70 meters,.

how much speed i have to do that is irrelevant to me as an archer as long as the bow sends the arrow that distance.

We also need air to shoot an arrow 70 meters. But i never worry about how much or how thick air there is that i am shooting in. Sea Level vs 6000 feet above sea level, just changes my sight marks slightly. So the sea level reading i am at is irrelevant, yet I need air for archery.

Lastly, say you shooting X10 arrows. At 42# i have an arrow speed of 196fps and i shoot 550 spine arrow. To go faster i need basically more poundage on the bow. Yet doing so makes me have to get the next arrow spine up to 500 which is stiffer and heavier than the previous arrow. So now i shoot 46# 500 spine and guess what? My arrow speed is 196 fps. Because as i go up in poundage the arrow spine changes for the tune thus negating the speed. And even if i gained or lost 2 fps, i wouldnt notice it due to the load draw changes and change in tune on the bow.
Thus again in that context i say, the speed is irrelevant.

I hope i have clarified.

Chris

You have, and thank you for taking the time.
Also, a thank you for all others who have expressed their thoughts and taken the time to get into detail.

Not sure what to conclude yet for me personally, but I need to reread this thread a good few times and let it sink in. I'd love more takes, if anyone is willing.

 

[Rick McKinney]

Chris, Good explanation and on point for some of us. Everyone has a philosophy on what works and what does not work. I'm ok with that. I tell my students to try everything if they can. That way when they go to a tournament and someone is doing something that didn't work for you, you will not feel mentally disadvantaged because you KNOW it doesn't work for you.

As for speed. I probably said this before on another thread, but my first world title was with the slowest bow speed of the men's field clocking in at 179 fps. This was with a 51# otf and the 2115's were too stiff. So I raised the brace height to 10.5" with a 68" bow. It slowed my bow down substantially but it gave me the results I was seeking. I was humiliated by a few people until I won. Their comment was that since I had a super slow bow I was not going to do well. Hmmmm, I wonder what I could have done with a perfect setup? (snicker) I could have let it bother me, but I was more focused on competing and beating my nemesis (DP). He won the title two years ago and won the Gold Medal at the Olympics and he was truly the one person everyone was going after. Oh, and I didn't know this at the time but I measured my FOC later and it came out at 5.6%. I had light points in it because I couldn't get the distance if I went with heavy points. My arrow just barely cleared the sight pin at 90 meters. The winds were strong at this event and I was comfortable on how to aim in the wind.

Going forward to 6 years later and I was using the AC 1308-3 (I think) I was using a 70 grain point because that was all they had at the time. We learned so much during those years on speed, spin and FOC. The arrows were much skinnier than the aluminums but the weight was virtually the same. In reality I did not notice much difference between the two shafts but since I was sponsored, it was wise to use the new AC arrows. Again, I won due to figuring out what works for me and not anybody else. My brace height was normal however, my tiller became radical with a 5/8" difference (positive). This was because it helped my aim tremendously allowing my grip to be fully relaxed. The weird part was that the arrow flew well until about 70 meters and then they literally popped over due to drift. We attributed that to too much spin on the shaft causing the arrow to "parachute" the last 20 meters. The spin was faster than the speed of the arrow. Not a good thing at 90 meters! After winning that title I tried some new "Futura" points developed by the Troncoso family. It was one of the first 100 grain one piece "bullet" point and it worked great! Most of us headed in that direction at the time. It was very rare to have a point heavier than 70-80 grains back then. This was revolutionary!

Going forward to 4 years later, Beman came along and beat the pants off the AC arrow literally dominating the World Championships. This caused Jim Easton to scribble on a napkin developing the beginnings of the barreled shaft. Thus the ACE shaft was born. Super fast and very critical since most of us were used to a heavier sluggish shaft. It was amazingly super fast. I shot it at the 1988 Olympics and got 220 fps out of it. I felt it was too fast and a few years later I complained to Jim about the speed being too fast so they made up some "BB's" (for big barrel). That was the arrow I used to shoot the 1352, however, in the wind it was a bit squirrelly since the diameter was the same as the ACE. That was when the engineers got to work developing the X10. The same weight as my "BB's" but a lot skinnier and have proven to be the magic elixir. I didn't shoot the regular x10's due to my departure from the company. However, the x10 has proven to be long lasting and as I have told people that would listen, other arrows will shoot just as good but not better and "professional" archers always go where the money is if everything is equal.

One thing that Earl Hoyt told me years ago was that you have a "law of diminishing return". This essentially means that you look for the ultimate but you may try to go beyond that but it doesn't really help. Look for that one magic that gives you the best performance no matter what people say. Use what works even if it defies logic and science. Once you include yourself (human), most of science gets screwy anyway. It's just a good place to start and look for what works for you.

Sorry my posts just get longer and longer....