|
What Sort of
Arrows Should I use?
Once upon
a time, not so long ago, that was an easy question to
answer: you bought the best quality Easton alloys you
could afford. In the early '80's, when I started
shooting, price was a real issue. A dozen X7 shafts
cost around £60 in the UK which, allowing for inflation,
put them on a par with ACE's or even X10's now.
Now the
question is much more difficult. Alloy, carbon or
composite? Barrelled or parallel? Ultra-slim knitting
needles or tree trunk linecutter specials? Thin walls
for speed or thick walls for strength? And so it goes
on as more and more options and makes appear on the
market. So, let's have a look at the main choices...
Minimum Arrow Weight
An
important part of choosing the right type of arrow
revolves about choosing the right weight. It is
tempting to get the lightest possible combination of
shaft and point you can tune. However, it is important
not to go below the minimum safe weight. If you do, you
will, in effect, be 'dry firing' your bow and doing
serious damage to the limbs. You may even shatter the
shaft as you loose. I had that happen to me when carbon
shafts were in their infancy, and it is a terrifying and
extremely dangerous event, to be avoided at all costs!
The
following chart, courtesy of Easton, shows the absolute
minimum acceptable weight for the whole arrow, including
point, nock, inserts and fletchings. DON'T GO BELOW IT!
|
Actual Peak Weight
(lbs) |
AMO Draw Length
(inches) |
|
Recurve Bow |
Round Wheel |
Energy Wheel |
Speed Cam |
25" |
26" |
27" |
28" |
29" |
30" |
31" |
32" |
33" |
|
Minimum
Recommended Arrow Weight (grains) |
|
33 |
32 |
29 |
27 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
|
34-41 |
33-38 |
30-35 |
28-32 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
151 |
165 |
|
42-46 |
39-43 |
36-39 |
33-36 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
163 |
179 |
195 |
211 |
|
47-52 |
44-49 |
40-44 |
37-41 |
150 |
150 |
150 |
167 |
185 |
203 |
222 |
240 |
258 |
|
53-58 |
50-54 |
45-49 |
42-46 |
150 |
163 |
183 |
203 |
224 |
244 |
264 |
285 |
305 |
|
59-63 |
55-60 |
50-54 |
47-50 |
172 |
195 |
217 |
240 |
262 |
284 |
307 |
329 |
352 |
|
64-69 |
61-64 |
55-59 |
51-55 |
202 |
227 |
251 |
276 |
300 |
325 |
350 |
374 |
399 |
|
70-75 |
65-71 |
60-64 |
56-60 |
232 |
259 |
286 |
312 |
339 |
365 |
392 |
419 |
445 |
|
76-81 |
72-76 |
65-70 |
61-65 |
262 |
291 |
320 |
348 |
377 |
406 |
435 |
463 |
492 |
|
82-86 |
77-81 |
71-74 |
66-69 |
292 |
323 |
354 |
385 |
416 |
446 |
477 |
508 |
539 |
|
87-92 |
82-87 |
75-79 |
70-74 |
322 |
355 |
388 |
421 |
454 |
487 |
520 |
553 |
586 |
|
93-99 |
88-94 |
80-85 |
75-80 |
352 |
387 |
422 |
457 |
492 |
532 |
581 |
629 |
676 |
Alloy Shafts
Alloys are
by no means completely superseded by carbons and
composites. They are still the usual - and probably
still the best - choice for beginners, because they are
cheap and easy to work with. In particular they are
usually the best choice at any level for indoors because
of their ruggedness (indoor arrows have to take a lot of
battering in the target) and their large diameter which
puts a few more points on the card for most of us.
It is
worth looking at shaft sizes for indoor shooting a
little more at this stage. Since arrow weight is simply
not an issue, it is usually possible to shoot the
maximum diameter allowed from all but the lightest bows
by cutting the shafts to the correct (long) length. If
you want to do this be careful and make sure your
specific shaft is acceptable. For example not all
Easton 23XX's will pass a FITA judge's gauge, and I am
told that some of the monster carbon shafts (see below)
can cause problems also. You should, however, consider
whether you want to shoot max diameter shafts anyway.
If you are always shooting on multiple faces (ie on
arrow per face) then there is an undeniable advantage in
having the biggest legal shafts available, provided they
group as well as your standard shafts - which is often
not the case, so be careful. However, if you regularly
shoot rounds where all the arrows are shot at the same
face, like the Portsmouth Round, the balance between
line-cutters and kiss-outs has to be weighed carefully.
Personally, as I shoot about 50:50 single and multiple
face competitions and dislike constantly changing shaft
size, I shoot standard length 2014's whatever the round
and find them a good compromise.
Outdoors, alloys have two main disadvantages compared to
equivalent carbons and composites: they are heavy and
they are fat! Because they
are heavy, they are comparatively slow and because of
the area they present to the wind, they are prone to
drift - although their weight is actually a help here,
so the problem is not so serious as it might seem.
Overall,
alloys are not usually a good choice for shooting
unmarked distances, or for FITA-type rounds. For
unmarked distances their low speed makes distance
estimation critical, while their wind drift and high
trajectory are a problem on windswept FITA fields.
However for IFAA-style field archery, where the
distances are all marked and the courses are usually in
woodland, the line cutting potential of alloys still has
a lot going for it, provided you shoot a reasonably fast
bow.
Easton
make an ultra-light alloy shaft called 'Hyperspeed' - in
effect a thin-walled X7. These may have some relevance
to 3D and IBO shooting, where distances are generally
short and unmarked, but they are extremely fragile and
as fat as any other alloy, and I can see no point in
using them for normal Field or Target.

Carbon Shafts
Pure
carbon shafts have only come of age comparatively
recently. Until a couple of years ago, they were not
worth bothering with, but now they are well worth
considering for even the highest level of archer,
compound or recurve. With the advent of ultra-slim
parallel composite shafts (see below) it is more
difficult to place carbon shafts in the weight stakes.
Depending on grade, make and model they are usually a
little heavier than the equivalent barrelled composite
shafts (see below), and all are very much lighter than
equivalent alloys. However compared with parallel
composites, sometimes they will be heavier and sometimes
lighter - check the charts before making any decision
and remember that point weight is sometimes the key
factor.
They come
in two quite distinct types. The first has the nock and
point internal to the shaft. Easton Redlines and the
more expensive, lighter, Vectors are the main examples
of this type for outdoor and general shooting, while the
Carbon Express CXL and Carbon Tech Hippo are examples of
ultra thin walled line cutter specials solely for indoor
shooting. The second is a very slim shaft with
'outsert' nocks and points, typified by the Carbon Tech
range, and the older Beman's, which were perhaps the
only carbon shafts of their day to rate serious
consideration. There are some very cheap carbon shafts
on the market, designed for beginners and club
equipment, but the carbon shafts offered for serious
shooting are generally a little cheaper than their
parallel composite equivalents, but substantially more
expensive than alloy.
The
Redline and Vector-style shafts are nearly as light as
their composite equivalents, but very much cheaper and
they do not have the disadvantage of 'outsert' nocks and
points. Outsert nocks must cause drag and
turbulence, and the points are a pain to pull from even
a moderately tight butt. I am well aware that some
excellent, indeed record scores have been shot with
Carbon Tech's, but I can't help feeling that whatever
the score was, it would have been higher with internal
components.
The
disadvantage of the redline-type carbon shaft is that
they are prone to wind drift - although their speed
helps here, and although I have no personal experience,
the slimmer Vectors should be better in this respect (at
a price).
The main
advantage of the slim carbon shafts is, as will have
become apparent by now, the fact that they are less
affected by wind, because of their small profile and
their comparatively high density.
In
summary, I regard Redline-type carbon shafts as the
ideal choice for most archers for IFAA-type marked
distance Field archery, where wind is not so much of an
issue. If you are heavily into FITA-style target
archery, then slim, Carbon Tech-type shafts, or
composites (see below) may be your best bet, although
Vectors should be worth a try if you particularly want
to shoot pure carbons.
Composite Shafts
Composite
shafts have a central core consisting of a
parallel-walled alloy tube, and an outer layer of
carbon, spun around the central tube. Some composite
shafts are parallel walled, for example Easton ACC's and
Navigators and the similar Cartel shafts. These shafts
are considerably lighter than their alloy equivalents,
but may or may not be heavier than pure carbons,
depending on grade and point weight. Like slim carbons,
they are good in the wind and are still, possibly, the
most popular shafts for compounds although they have
little to offer for most recurve shooters. They tend to
be more expensive than pure carbons, but a lot cheaper
than their 'barrelled' counterparts (see below).
Top of the
range composite shafts - currently this means Easton
ACE's and X10's - are 'barrelled' in an interesting
return to the traditional form, used for centuries on
wooden arrows. The outer, carbon layer is thickest
about two thirds of the way along the shaft, near the
front, and thins out evenly towards each end. This
means that the shaft is stiffest where it needs to
resist the bending force of the shot and since it
carries no unnecessary stiffening, it can be lighter
than if it was parallel; ACE's are, currently, the
lightest, slimmest, fastest shafts of all. However, it
is not all good news. Because ACE's are so light, they
are prone to wind drift, despite their slimness, and
also, while ideal for recurves, they are dangerously
light, in some grades, for compounds (see chart). It
was for these reasons (among others) that Easton
developed X10's, which are heavier, but even slimmer
than ACE's.
The other
bad news about barrelled composites is the price. ACE's
are nearly twice the price of any other shaft, and
X10's, are more expensive still. This is made worse
still because ACE's and X10's are - or should be - only
sold in matched dozens as the carbon outer layers have
to be machined to give the barrelling and it is not
possible to control the weight and spine accurately over
long runs (Easton say). Consequently individual shafts
have to be matched after manufacture.
Overall,
parallel, composite shafts are worth considering for
compound shooters, particularly for FITA-type shooting,
although I wonder if they are worth the extra money
compared to pure carbons. ACE's are a necessary evil
for any serious recurve shooter, as nothing else gives
the same overall results. For compound shooters I am
not so sure about ACE's or any other barrelled shaft.
Some people use them to great effect, but few archers of
my acquaintance think they are worth the extra money,
especially as they are fragile as well as expensive. I
know of no compound archer who buys X10's with his/her
own money. A few sponsored compound shooter use them
and speak highly of them - but they would, wouldn't
they!
Summary
As always,
you pays your money and you takes your choice, but here
are the main points to guide you:
ALLOYS:
Cheap, easy to work with. Take a permanent bend, but
easily straightened if not too serious. Heavy, large
diameter and therefore slow, but size also gives
line-cutters. Not good in wind. Avoid ultra-thin walls
(eg Hyperspeed).
Good
for: all indoor archery
Worth
considering for: marked distance Field archery,
especially with a reasonably fast bow.
Not
good for: unmarked distances. FITA-type outdoor
rounds.
INTERNAL
COMPONENT CARBONS (eg REDLINES or VECTORS): Redlines are
cheapest of the decent carbon shafts. Do not take a
permanent bend, but fairly fragile. Very light - almost
as light as barrelled composites - but comparatively
large diameter, therefore very fast, but less good in
wind than other carbons and composites. Vectors are
more expensive, slimmer and a little lighter.
Good
for: all forms of Field archery. 3D shoots.
Worth
considering for: Everything else.
Not
good for: Least good for FITA-type outdoor rounds.
'OUTSERT'-TYPE CARBONS (eg CARBON TECH): About the same
price as Redline-type carbons. Heavier than Redlines -
about the same as parallel composites. Do not take
permanent bend, fairly robust. Good in wind.
Good
for: All outdoor archery.
Not
good for: Indoor archery.
Doubts
about: 'Outsert' nocks - cause drag and can foul non
drop-away rests.
PARALLEL
COMPOSITES: Expensive. Heavier than Redline-Type
carbons and barrelled composites. Will take a permanent
bend and cannot usually be straightened. However, very
robust - don't bend easily. Good in wind.
Good
for: All outdoor archery (compound).
Doubts
about: Use in recurves. Not as good as pure
carbons in most cases, and more expensive.
Not
good for: Indoor archery.
BARRELLED
COMPOSITES: Very expensive. ACE is lightest and fastest
of all shafts and fair in wind. X10 heavier - about
same weight as ACC - but very small diameter and
therefore low drag. Best of all shafts in wind.
ACE's
Excellent for: - All outdoor archery with a
recurve.
Doubts
about: Use in compounds..
X10's
Good
for: The manufacturer's profits and a tiny handful
of elite Olympic-style recurve shooters (who are also
the only people who seem able to tune them).
Doubts
about: The sanity of anyone who buys them
Not
good for: The bank balance. The size of your
groups.
Original Document: http://www.alansarchery.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Equipment/Arrows/WhatArrowsFrame.htm |