Thick Carbon Shafts vs. Slim Shafts

[Torsten]

If I remember right: when you double the outside diameter of a pipe the lateral stiffness increases for 8 times.

There seems to be a tendency to provide heavier carbon shafts. Easton's slim line seems to be intended to get heavier arrows with similar outside diameter (maybe related to production facilities). The benefit of deeper penetration is B.S. to my opinion, there is still the thick broadhead.

Put a layer of butter on your shaft to improve penetration and later taste...

In the same catalog they have the fat boys: wider shaft and less wall thickness.

When I get the point right, thin, shafts with a thick wall should improve the durability and resistance against breakage, thick outer diameter should improve the lateral stiffness without adding too much weight.

We are marketing victoms anyway.

Please comment.

[James Wrenn]

I like skinny carbons for 3 reasons.They do seem to penitrate better and I don't like shooting heavy bows.They aslo have less hollow inside the arrow which makes them quieter than aluminum or fatter carbons of the same weight.Both of these are a plus for hunting which is what I mainly use them for.And lastly, the skinny diameter shafts will lay closer to the riser on bows that don't have the shelf cut real deep that makes tunning easier and allows for a larger range to work with spines and point weights.Fat shafts are good when cutting lines is your goal but no fat shaft has anything going for it when hunting with longbows that the skinnys don't do better. :) :2cents:

[the other DWS]

Torsten,
I started shooting carbons when they first came out in the very late 70's or early 80's. Only the "skinny" shafts were available then. (Except for a very shortlived attempt by one company whose bias wrapped tapered shafts were incredibly light but very brittle.) AFCand then Beman had their outsert style shafts and Easton developed the carbon aluminum ACC and ACH. while fueling the controversy of the "dangers " of carbon, until they got their own PC shaft up and running. All of these were the straight aligned fibre shafts. Subsequently newer composits of fibre alignment have allowed for lighter shafts with conventional inserts.

Those early shafts were quite heavy compared to todays and they were marketed on their points of durability and penetration. At this time they were aimed at the compound market. The current "tradbow" revival was just in its early stagesand was taking a very "standoffish attitude" toward carbon arrows. For the most part arrow weight at least as part of the arrow speed thing was not a big issue. Arrow speeds were just not as hot as they are now, in both meanings, and guys who wanted more just used overdraw shelfs and shorter arrows.

Penetration is a significant part of the skinny shafts claim to fame and it is very real. ANY smaller diameter shaft--given equal weight and energy will out penetrate a larger diamater one. (They also present less wind drag and crosswind resistance for longer distance target archery as well.) However when you look at the claims and actual function over the past 20 odd years you can see that the deep penetration/improved penetration etc is usually evaluated on targets rather than game. Living targets have a sufficiency of lubricating liquids and fats to let most any shaft with reasonable energy and a decent head slither through. Other standardized target mediums---various plastic foams for the most part--which can be calibrated are a completely different story. The foam's resiliancy clamps dowm on an arrow shaft like caliper brakes on a vehicle and there the smaller shafts really shine since it has a lot less braking surface. The large head and outsert diameter clearing the way for the reduced diameter shaft following it really went deep. You might get the same thing with a skinny aluminum shaft and a big head and outsert.

I switched to carbons for durability, on my budget losing arrows to bends and breakage was a problem. I still have most of the old AFC Supershafts I bought originally. In 20 years of shooting them I have lost several but only had two break--and one ws done deliberately in some testing. I also quickly came to appreciate their relative quiet in my back quiver. As James Wrenn mentions the old "skinnies" are really great for use on bows with narrow shelves. I had been reserving mine for that use and was very pleased to learn that the Cabelas SSTs are still available. I suspect too that for hunting purposes they might have a slight advantage for hunters who are using lower KE producing bows.

The Axis you mentioned is, I supect, a market-driven shaft. Easton has redeveloped the smaller diameter shaft-for its weight-- and can fairly claim (and demonstrate in their marketing vidio) the deeper penetration that gives. They also have internalized the outsert--giving a sleeker more contemporary shaft. However the shaft part of the head will still plow a larger-than-shaft-diameter hole in foam critters. Its a good shaft and I value the ones I have

[Torsten]

that was a very well evaluated description of your knowlegde and experience.
I must admit for my experience being rather short but in a way I still understood that you share my point ths narrow diameter not becessarily improves performance during the hunt.

I have been quite a few times close to the kill but the big step has still to be made. Not on accuracy but I have no need to just kill everything that is running... There will be many this year.

I do no longer plan to use other carbons as C-E 60/75 Terminator (last part of the name is supid).

These arrows leave my bow like rays, no bouncing, rally quiet and just on. Just came out of frost 5 minutes ago and forest to again prove this exerience. They are by far the fastest arrows out of my bow. I learned that color of feathers only helps to retrieve the arrows, no observation until the arrow hit.

I hope we can all continue this type of conversation.

Happy and satisfying hunting for all of you.

Torsten

[Str8 Shooter]

I recently picked up a dozen Axis shafts and have been really impressed with them. The skinny shaft I think allows for a few things. As others have said, the skinny shaft gets the arrow closer to center on non-centershot bows. Easier tuning. Second a skinnier shaft does have less windplaning. At most hunting shot distances that doesn't mean much but try shooting a fat shaft and a skinny shaft in the wind at 40-50 yds and it does. Lastly, the penetration is, in my opinion, better. I took the fatter carbons (Arrow Dynamics Trad Lites) I was shooting out of my 52# Gamemaster and compared it to the Axis arrows. Arrow weight was within 10 gr. of one another and velocity near the same. Both arrows are tuned and flight is perfect. Shot both arrows into a 1" thick pine board from different distances. At 10-20yds. both arrows busted right through but the Axis would go to the fletch and AD about half. Thirty yards and the Axis would bust through about the 3/4 and the AD would crack the board but not penetrate more than an inch or two through the other side. Forty yards and the Axis would still penetrate about halfway through and the AD would bury about an inch in. Not really the most scientific test but good enough for me. Coincidentally, the tips on the AD arrows were the exact diameter of the shaft but the tips on the axis are about 1/16" wider in diameter.

I think theres something to the skinny arrows... worth giving them a try.

Chris

[the other DWS]

does that mean the tips on both sets of shafts are the same diameter and profile? They would need to be to have a fair comparison. I agree that the Axis is a great shaft and shoot the dozen 340s I've got quite a lot. I hope to pick up some that are a little lighter--spine wise on my next road trip. I just wish they were not quite so gaudily colored---wood grain would be real nice.
I have tried all sorts of test mediums for penetration over the years. sand banks, sand bags, various foam and plastic blocks and slabs, compressed cardboard and carpet strips etc etc. One problem with using pine boards for a test medium is that they are brittle and will split and shatter on arrow impact, often in an erratic inconsistant manner because of their varying grain structure. They used to be a standard test for bullets before ballistic gelatin became more available. some of the more scienticifally oriented gun writers switched to test boxes that used panels of plywood to avoid the inconsistancies.
For arrows I find that the resiliant solid foam (urathane I think) blocks--if not chewed up--are more reliable as a test medium. Even the 4" thick cheap slab targets you find at Walmart as broadhead targets can be pretty good--at least for the first few dozen shots with target points. Simply measure the amount of shaft sticking out of the back of the slab---unless you are shooting clear through them. The way the foam clamps down on the shaft is pretty consistant. Unless you put a little lubricant on the shaft

[Str8 Shooter]

Both of the tips I was shooting were field tips. I agree that the pine boards aren't as consistent a material for testing. I consistently bury the axis about halfway into a block target vs. the AD about 1/4. But I wanted to try something different and breaking boards sure is fun :)

You can strip off the axis logo on the arrows. I'll find out what I used to remove it... can't seem to remember right now.

Chris

[Stagmitis]

Torsten,

If you beleive nothing else beleive this.


Last year when I bought my first set of axis I decided on a torture test.


These were .400 spine and I put a Judo on one and a Hex on the other.

For ALMOST 3 hours I walked through the woods and SHOT THE ARROWS AT every live tree,stump,log and even ROCKS.

On my last shot at a pile of gravel the FIRST and only nock blew off. I killed a deer with one last fall and both are still in my quiver.


I know you hate robin hoods as much as I do. I have had several that blew up the nocks but because of the diameter they will not enter.

The half dozen or so times this happend either the arrow was OK or there was a sliver opened up at the nock end. A little super glue and back in the quiver!

[Torsten]

Stagmitis,

that was a good explanationand I will give axis a try.
Attention: Now I will start becoming diplomatic (very seldom):

It seems that there are as many perfect carbon shaft as there are shooters: there are quite big amount of techniques, equipment and bow weights. If one swears to have found the perfect shaft for him he most certainly is right:

You see it also that someone claims his shaft to be unbreakable, the next one just quit using it because of insufficient reliability.

That is also the reason why there are so many shafts, experience and ferry tales around them.

I will tell you when I got axis and experience with them. First I wait for some 10 arrows to be freed from the snow. I have not seen any neighbor practicing archery. If so and when more clever than me, he might not need to purchase arrows at all...

[Torsten]

Stagmitis,
2 shot this afternoon, one Robin Hood.

I am sorry that this respectable gentleman is used for this type of mishaps.
It got side-cut by a muzzy 4 blade with practicing blades. I HATE THAT.
The new abreviation for this shall be I H T.

I will be looking for the Axis soon. Do you recommend normal C2 version or obsession? I might favor the normal versions due to financial reasons.
Any coments?
Would like to hear/read from you.

Do you know this address: www.yeoldearcheryshoppe.com They are quite competitive on certain items.

Happy shooting and no IHT's

Torsten

[mysticguido]

What does everyone think of PSE Dominator Carbon Arrows? my setup is 51# @ 26" draw (my draw length) from a shrew long bow not cut center flemish B-50 string with 145gr heads.. Going by PSE's chart the 200's is the spine for my setup

[Stagmitis]

I have both Torsten.

It depends on what finished arrow weight I am looking for whether I choose the wrapped or unwrapped version.


The bemans Black Max and Max-4 are the same as their Axis counterparts and cheaper!

I am almost done with my first set of max-4`s that I have set up to accept internal weights loaded from the nock end!

Keeps the FOC a little more palatable and will allow me to switch various broadheads by adjusting the internal weight!

[mjhall]

I was wondering if carbon arrows are really different according to "brand",or are they all made in 2 or 3 places and then "branded" for individual sellers?? I know that quality control plays a big role in straightness, spine tolerance, and weight tolerance--and in this the price is varies. Anyone Know?? :sbrug:

[Papabull]

I shot the CXL 3D selects for awhile. They're 6.2 grains per inch and finish out about 300 grains with the largest legal diameter, which makes them good line-cutters.

I was never very happy with them, though. I've concluded, correctly or not, that the fat shafts are harder to tune and slow much more quickly downrange. I've shot the thin little Redlines better than anything else except maybe the Beman ICS Hunters. The jury is still out on the Carbon TEch Cheetahs. Overall, I've found them to be both fast and accurate and they seem to shoot much better for me than the thick diameter CXL 3D selects (much cheaper, too!).

It just seemed to me that the smaller diameter shafts shot better out of a wider variety of bows than the thick shafts do. I never was able to get 2312 aluminums to act right for me, either.

[the other DWS]

larger diameter = more surface area = more drag. In general the lighter shaft will lose velocity and KE quicker as it goes downrange than an aeordynamically equal but heavier shaft. It depends on how far you need to shoot and for what purpose. as in everything else its a matter of balance.

How far do you need to shoot accurately?

Flight shooters use real light shafts, but they are going for pure distance only and accuracy and penetration, as we look at it, is not a factor.
Formal target archery is looking at factors other than penetration, as long as the arrow stays stuck in the target; so they need absolute consistancy and longer range considerations, low drag and stability in cross wind.
Hunters need stability for broadheads, excellent penetration, and to some extent arrow visibility, but they usually are not having to shoot 50 or 90 meters. They also ,in general, tend to use stronger bows so they need to use stronger arrows---which usually translates to more weigh or diameter to get the required spine.