|
Post by Buckfever on Mar 18, 2006 21:54:56 GMT -5
"My theory has to do with recovery from oscillations. I think the aluminum tube wrapped with carbon recovers from the initial oscillation of shot quicker thereby reducing wasted energy."
If I had any confidence in my shooting I would test through a chrono at 30 yards. I may fashion something to protect the front of the chrono and run some through out to 40 yards.
|
|
|
Post by Buckfever on Mar 18, 2006 22:21:36 GMT -5
"My theory has to do with recovery from oscillations. I think the aluminum tube wrapped with carbon recovers from the initial oscillation of shot quicker thereby reducing wasted energy."
I need a .300 spine deflection all carbon arrow the same diameter as the ACC.
|
|
|
Post by ncboman on Mar 18, 2006 22:30:55 GMT -5
"My theory has to do with recovery from oscillations. I think the aluminum tube wrapped with carbon recovers from the initial oscillation of shot quicker thereby reducing wasted energy." I need a .300 spine deflection all carbon arrow the same diameter as the ACC. Why???
|
|
|
Post by Buckfever on Mar 19, 2006 2:34:34 GMT -5
Because that would be the same spine as the 3-71 and I could isolate the effect of the aluminum tube wrapped with carbon.
|
|
|
Post by ncboman on Mar 19, 2006 11:48:54 GMT -5
Because that would be the same spine as the 3-71 and I could isolate the effect of the aluminum tube wrapped with carbon. I'm not sure you can isolate it as the two materials together are probably the catalyst for the superior performance. We know that aluminum or carbon by themselves respectfully don't come close. We have ACCs and I really don't see any gain in trying to duplicate the performance (if it can be done at all). sidenote, I took one of my ACCs to the local archery store to get some field points of the correct diameter. The guy looked at my arrow and told me 'those bend real easy'. I offered to take my arrow and one of his best out back and shoot each into a cinder block to see. He declined. ;D I've already seen the ACCs are as durable, most likely more durable, than carbon arrows. I've yet to bend one and I've rattled a few of em around pretty good. IMHO gold tips are not nearly as durable as ACCs. All this testing is good for the mind but we already know, or are learning, the ACCs are superior shafts. I'm happy with that. My own calling seems to be for reverting back to more primitive bowhunting and shooting a rock thru one with a recurve. I'm not yet willing to trophy hunt like that but for fun with regular deer, it seems a good challenge.
|
|
|
Post by Buckfever on Mar 19, 2006 15:59:45 GMT -5
"I've already seen the ACCs are as durable, most likely more durable, than carbon arrows. I've yet to bend one and I've rattled a few of em around pretty good. IMHO gold tips are not nearly as durable as ACCs."
That 3-D target tipped over the other day with the ACC sticking out of it. I thought for sure that would bend the shaft. Nothing. Spins absoltuely true.
"All this testing is good for the mind but we already know, or are learning, the ACCs are superior shafts. I'm happy with that." Yeah me too. Really the only thing I have left to figure is if I can get away with an 85 grain point or if I need to add 15 grains to the insert to improve FOC.
I'll tell you I put the 85 grain Rocky Ti fixed head on the 3-71 and it didn't even act like there was a broadhead on there.
|
|
|
Post by Buckfever on Mar 19, 2006 16:21:49 GMT -5
You know I just wanted a little more penetration without sacrificing too much trajectory. But for sure, just adding point weight didn't do much as compared with going to the ACC.
|
|