"Tuning for Tens"

[Desert Archer]

Since I discovered Olympic style, metal riser take-down recurves about a year ago I have followed the tuning guidlines in McKinney's book The Simple Art of Winning and the internet guide The Archer's Reference. I had heard of the "Tuning for Tens" approach but hadn't tried it until I ran into a problem tuning a new set of limbs (long post here on TradTalk). Out of desperation I down loaded the original document fromt the Texas Archery web site and followed it to finally get my arrows and bow set up properly.

The interesting point was that I ended up with a much stiffer arrow than I would have ever believed for that set up. I tried the same tuning procedures for another bow today and again ended up with a stiffer set up than I had previously thought was appropriate.

Ever since my return to archery some 4 years ago, I have read and been told that the Easton charts are too stiff, particularly for "traditional" shooters. Interestingly enough, following the procedures outlined in "Tuning for Tens" I ended up with shafts/arrows right smack dab in the middle of what Easton recommended. Curiouser and curiouser, don't you think?

The proof is that, after getting things set up as they called for, I get excellent arrow flight all the way out to 80 yards. Watching that arrow arch all the way out to 80 will give you lots of time to see if it is flying true or wobbling around (LOL). It will also tell you if you have screwed up your form, but that's a subject for another thread.

If you're curious about all this, go to the Texas Archery web site and down load "Tuning for Tens". I think it is also reproduced in the Archer's Reference but I found it easier reading in the original format. It is interesting and for me very worth while.

Dave

[Esquire]

Dave,

I have read the article and considered doing it. Did you follow every step as outlined in the article??

Mike

[Desert Archer]

Yea, I did. I was having so much trouble initially with those limbs I wanted to get it right. Turned out they really knew what they were talking about. Took quite a while but it was worth it in the end. The sence of confidence you get from having everything tuned is worth the time and work, at least in my opinion.

Good luck, Dave

[Floxter]

I have always used "Tuning for Tens" on my FITA rig and like DA have found the Easton Charts to be spot on. However, for shooting off the shelf with no elevated rest or pressure button, the regular Easton Chart is way too stiff and I rely instead on the Easton Legacy Chart which is correct.

[Pinelander]

Well then, it must be my form and release methods that need to be cleaned up. Even so, I'm getting bullet hole paper-tuning and also good bare shaft comparisons. I've ended up with tuned setups that are NOT spot-on with Easton charts using Warfed bows with elevated rest/plunger. Most of my setups are nearly .100 deflection to the weaker side. Easton says .400 carbon... I tune with .460-.500 carbon. They recommend a 2214 (.425), I tune with a 2114 (.510).

:sbrug:

I've also seen others that are using the equipment that I am and they too are using shafting that is near .100 deflection weaker than the Easton charts. My buddy at the pro-shop even admitted last week that the Easton charts of 20 years ago were the "REAL" deal and that they tend to be on the stiff side nowadays.

Just another perspective DA, not trying to dismiss what you're saying... I know that "Tuning for Tens" works, as I've followed it myself.

[Desert Archer]

Piney,

Not offended at all. In fact, I find the differing results facinating. Wonder what makes the difference? I can't imagine my form is all that wonderful - I get to see me screw up shots on a pretty regular basis (LOL).

When I was following McKinney's instructions I tended to come up about .100 deflection weaker, as you did. Going to the solid plunger technique as described in Tuning for Tens is what turned up the good flight with stiffer shafts...and as I said, much stiffer than I had expected.

To borrow a line from an old movie, it's a wonderment!

Dave

[swampy]

Thanks DA ,I found some interesting links thru this thread.

Not sure if tuning for tens will help me shooting a LB off the shelf but hey any little thing may help

[Desert Archer]

Swamp,

Both McKinney's book and Tuning for Tens are intended for and applicable to plungers and elevated rests.

The best tuning advice I have seen (or heard of) for longbows and recurves shooting off the shelf is on O.L.Adcock's web site. Every Trad web site has posts praising his advice.

Dave

[Viper]

DA -

I have to go with Piney on this one. My concern is that a test, any test, is designed to yield a desired result. If you follow what I'm saying, I can devise a test that would yield any results I, or any one else wanted.

I've been taught the solid plunger thing too, and have used it, the only problem is that when we shoot with a plunger, it has a spring in it, and so the dynamics are a little different. The EXACT degree of center shot will be different with a spring loaded plunger, comared to a solid one, especial if you choose a light spring, with a soft setting. Ditto with the bare shafting, the dynamics of a bare shaft, are "a little" different that with feather or vanes. The FOC has changed, albeit minimally, and then you run in to possible clearence problems with a fletched arrow that you might not see with a bare shaft. Yes I realize the bare shating can help you find fketching clearance problems too! Guess what really bothers me is that, as all I use are aluminums, going by the current Easton charts, or the Tuning for Tens paper, to get the "right" spine, I'd be shooting an arrow that would turn a pretty quick bow in to a dog.

As to Piney's Pro-Shop friend, I've been saying that for years. The old Easton Visual Comparator c1972, does follow "classical wisdom" for arrow spines. So looks like we've gotten a new take on things. Honestly, I don't plan on shooting 90M anytime soon, maybe if I did, I'd have to bare shaft, but then, I'd probably be shooting ACC or ACE too!!!

If the results show an improvement on paper, score wise, not tuning wise, then do it, if not, then take it with a grain of salt.

:2cents:

Viper out.

[Desert Archer]

Viper,

If you are happy with what you are doing, more power to you! I am not promoting this stuff, but rather sharing my experience with everyone out there. I was surprised at the stiffer shafts I ended up with based on T4T and still don't understand how it works or why it's different.

If anybody hits what they're shooting at, doing what ever tuning they like, good for them. I'm not trying to be an advocate but rather a commentator (oh crap, there goes that arrogance someone accused us of - LOL).

Dave

[swampy]

Yea I,m framilar with OL,s web page.I was refering to some of the links I found as a result of your post.
http://www.tenzone.u-net.com/Physio/index.htm has a bunch of stuff in it.

Sometimes I feel like I need to step back and work on basics.Some of this stuff is very interesting.Thanks again

[Esquire]

Viper,

I know that you have discussed this before but I'm going to ask again, and maybe you can just point to an old thread.

I am fixing to get serious about tuning my two bows, one will be an off-the-shelf longbow, and the other my warfer. If you would not mind describing how you tune and select arrow shafts I would greatly appreciate it.

I have found your advice helpful in the past.

Mike

[Viper]

ESquire -

It's not the most scientific method, but it hasn't failed me yet.

1. Get the right arrow, (aluminum) hehehehe
Seriously, I use the rule of 16's (and yes there is overlap)

#25 - 34 1716
#34 - 43 1816
#44 - 53 1916
#54 - 57 2016
#57 - 62 2114
#63 - 70 2117
above #75 start with 2219

This obviously depends on actual limb speed and degree of centershot(if not adjustable), more than simple draw weight. Those numbers work pretty well.

2. Set the nocking point about 1/8" above perpendicular, and make sure there is at least some degree of + offset from centershot, (the longbow may not give you an option, the warfer should start, with the inside of the arrow, just outside the string, when viewed from behind).

3. Visually check the arrow flight. It should be pretty close.

4. Paper tune with the frame at 15'.

5. If the tear is less than 1" in any direction, most folks can stop there, and should.

6. If not adjust accordingly.

Yes, there's experience involved, but 99% really falls into the common sence catagory - honest!

Viper out.

[Scooter]

DA,

Glad you liked the tuning for tens article. I found that on AT and tried it on my warfer and liked it real well. Seemed to get things tuned a lot quicker. Only problem I had was getting the matchstick back out of my plunger. :mistake: Next time I'll use a smaller stick or maybe a shortened roll pin.

[Desert Archer]

Only problem I had was getting the matchstick back out of my plunger.

Scooter,

That gave me a chuckle! The very first time I tried this (months ago) I used to thin a piece of wood and when I screwed the plunger back together I snapped the thing off inside and wedged it in there. I figured it was just too much trouble to go to and never tried it again until recently when I couldn't get my new (used) limbs to shoot with what I had been doing.

Needless to say, I used a much thicker piece of wood this time, but not so thick it got stuck like yours (LOL).

Dave

[Scooter]

Dave,

Here's another link from the texas site on some plunger fine tuning. I haven't tried this one. Perhaps you can and do a review for us?
http://www.texasarchery.org/Documents/Tune/tata.htm

[Gonçalo]

I have used Tuning for Tens (TFT) for some years as my basic tuning method (elevated rest and plunger), it is very easy to follow and very fast to get a basic tune.

The paper method is not intended for tuning - Rick Stonebraker, the author, confirmed this - only for assessing if the shafts are reasonably close to being the right spine. At best, it may be used as a rough tuning indicator to check if the nocking point is about its right place.
Shooting with fingers, paper tuning is useless or, worst, my send one on the wrong track. The arrow may be going through the paper flexing one way or the other or just be in the middle of it - the only case when you get a bullet hole - but one is never sure which. At least in olympic archery it is no longer considered worth bothering with.

Viper,
I am sure you know one can always get the same FOC with a bareshaft by rolling a little adhesive tape, of the right size to make for weight, at the fletching location. Basic bareshaft tuning works well for me shooting from an elevated rest and with a button. Don't have a clue if it works shooting from the shelf. Of course, the bottom line is always group size, regardless of where the bareshaft hits.
When you say "nocking point 1/8" above perpendicular", I guess you mean the top of the lower NP. Right?

Scooter - as far as I am concerned I read that once, forgot it just as fast.

I find lots of interesting information in this forum, thanks very much guys.

[Desert Archer]

Wow, Scooter! That is a bunch of shooting (LOL). I thought the procedure in T4T was bad enough but that would wear out my middle aged shoulders (OK, slight exageration there).

It is my hope to move up to Easton Navigators from the current ACCs I'm shooting. When I do I may have to keep your post in mind. I suspect the guy is right about how effective it is. Just not sure my old bod is up to carrying it out. He said rest if you get tired. Heck, it could take me a week to do just the plunger tune he's suggesting (smiley face goes here).

Dave

[Viper]

Gonçalo -

You're correct in that only thing that matters is the arrow placement (accuracy) and group size (percision). In my experience, for moderate distances, paper tuning is more than adquate. Bottom line is what ever works for you, you do, and don't let anyone tell you other wise, unless of course they can prove it in a court of law :).

As for the nocking point. I set the arrow perpendicular to the string, move it up about 1/8" +/-, and then put a nocking point above the arrows nock. Take a few shots, visually evaluate the flight, and then shoot through paper, to confirm. "on top of the lower nocking point"??? Only use one nocking point. When I was competing, only one np was allowed in barebow!

BTW - Unless the arrow were incredibly mismatched for the bow, paper tuning has never given me a false reading. Sorry, Olympic theories do change form time to time, so I might wait until the next theory comes out. For the time being, this has worked.

Couldn't tell ya about bare shaft tuning of a shelf either, except for longbows, I don't shoot of the shelf! The trick with longbows is that you have to nail the arrow spine, as you can only adjust the degree of center shot in one direction, and usually not that much!

Viper out.

[Gonçalo]

Viper,
Thanks for comments. I hope I didn't sound too cathegorical, I am not good enough at this game, just wanted to comment on what has worked for me (it may just be that I can't properly stretch a sheet of paper...). And I came into this forum to learn...

[Viper]

Gonçalo -

No problemo !!!

It depends on your perspective. He's an analogy, that drove it home for me. In rifle competition, for bench rest and prone shooting, I AWAYS did a full case prep. Weighed everything, uniformed everything possible. It really did cut group size in half, from 0.5 MOA to 0.25 MOA. I was also doing that for off hand, for a while and then it hit me, that I would never shoot a 0.5 MOA group offhand, 3-4 MOA was more likely, so the extra work didn't pay off and I stopped the additional prep work.

For my level of shooting, paper tuning at 15', (not 5' like the compound guys) it does work well. If I shot at 90M all day, my perspective might be a little different, don't know. Most of my outdoor shooting was at 60 yds in the old American round, and the paper tuning worked there.

BTW - How do you like the Radian? I recently picked one up, and am setting it up now. Any suggestions?

Viper out.

[Gonçalo]

Viper,
the Radian?
I like it because it is simple and elegant, relatively light, and especially because it has no adjustable limb pockets, so it's just one thing less to worry about, tinkerer that I am. I never even cared to check if the riser is straight or not.
Some people say it is a bit lively, I like it that way.
The grip is a pain in the neck, as the riser is also part of it. In the end I had to file out most of the shelf, I have rather small hands and it impinged on my knuckle. It became a bit painful after some dozen arrows. Rick McKinney told me he had to do the same on a Radian.
Building a new grip is a bit of trouble if you need one that differs a bit from the original one. Some people use car maker's putty or something akin to that directly on the riser, I preferred to devise a way to build a grip without sticking anything on the riser. Steve Ruis asked me to write an article for Archery Focus about it, I think it was on the 2003 Sept-Oct issue. Don't expect too much of it, too.
When I used the Spiga rest I had to drill and tap two holes for mounting it, as I did not care to take the rest out each time I took the plunger out and there is only a plunger hole.

All this being said, I wouldn't trade my Radian for any other bow. If I could afford to buy another one I would, just to keep one in the original shape. If I could buy a more "up-to-date" bow, I would keep that Radian all the same. And some other people probably share my feelings, as I never heard of a surplus of Radians for sale.

But I suspect you know most of this already. It's nice of you to ask, though :)

[Pinelander]

Likewise... I do paper-tuning at 5 YARDS, not 5 FEET. I don't care much what the arrow is doing at 5 feet, but if it hasn't straigtened out by 15 feet, something is wrong. IMO, bullet-holes through paper are consistently attainable shooting with fingers.

[Viper]

Gonçalo -

Thanks for the tips on the Radian. I was leary about the grip as well, and that's why I didn't buy it years ago. I know the guy in the Pro Shop pretty well, and it's been sitting there for about 10 years, he practically gave it to me. Put an old Springy rest on it, made a string and hope to give it a work out on Saturday. It's the 23" riser, so with medium limbs, it's a 66"er, I usually like longer.

I'm not going to start reshaping the bow, except for my Gold Medalist riser, which I really am starting to believe is cursed, I'm pretty good at adapting to most bows. One of the other AA shooter once told me, not to make the bow fit, make you fit the bow, he said it was cheaper that way, and he could shot!

Piney-

Sounds like you've been reading my old posts again!!! :)

Viper out.

[Pinelander]

What... you've said something like that before?

I've always hit the paper at 5 yards. But yes, I was reading an old AT private message about Hoyt PM's a week ago or so.

btw - pro-shop buddy has some X-7 Eclipse 1814's & 1914's in stock at a great price. If I use a clicker, they'de have to be no longer than 28" bop. These guys don't hardly stock the 16's anymore. But still, I'm not going to commit until the bow comes in and I find out what the poundage is at my draw.

[Limbwalker]

Basic bareshaft tuning works well for me shooting from an elevated rest and with a button. Don't have a clue if it works shooting from the shelf.

Hello Goncalo!

Yes, bareshaft tuning does work when shooting from the shelf. In fact, I learned to bare shaft tune off the shelf first, then using a rest and plunger!

Best of luck with that Martin bow!

John.

[Gonçalo]

Hi, Limbwalker, nice to read you here! You have surely noticed I'm still trying to understand how place my feet and how to tackle that Martin. But it certainly drew looks of envy from some of my fellow archers...

The problem, for the time being, will be arrows it seems. It looks like I must reshape all my previous views about shaft selection. But that is only fun, provided I don't waste a lot of money!

[Viper]

Gonçalo -

Just wanted to let you know. I gave the Radian a pretty good workout today. The riser fit like a glove, (small hands) and shot beautifully. Still need to do some more tuning, after I get a better rest for it. But this one feels really good.

:D

Viper out.

[Gonçalo]

I'm glad the Radian fits you well, the grip is the only criticism I have about it (mine is a 25" riser)
I have small hands too, but the Radian grip didn't fit me at all. I guess one reason may be that I shot pistol for a long time and got used to carrying my hand very high and firmly against the frame. That angle at the left back of the shelf of the Radian wasn't comfortable at all. As I said before, I had to remove most of the left part.

Tuning for Tens undoubtedly works for me as a fast approach to a new set-up.
I had to retune my bow - was down to 4 good ACEs, and at these hard times a new set of ACEs is out of the question, so I must do with ACCs. Starting from the stiff plunger I had my bareshafts grouping right into the group of fletched shafts and my sight's windage set at 20 yds. in very short order. Then with the medium weight spring in the plunger it only needed a small adjustment. Only a start, of course.
Of course, I had already a reasonably good idea of the spine and point weight I needed for the length of shaft I wanted to use...

I'm working on my Martin. There are still things to do, and I haven't had a lot of time. But judging from the improvement in the flight of the 2012 with 150 gr. points (a bit of solder inside the NIBB points) I will doubtless fall into the 1816 as you and others said.

[Viper]

Gonçalo -

Only problem with the 1816 is that Easton isn't making then in X7's anymore. I've been able to squirril away a few dozen, as they have always been my work horse(s) for the lighter bows. Platinum Pluce shafts are good, but certainly not in the ACC/ACE class, if that's what you're looking for. Next step in X7x would be a 1914, a little stiffer and a little lighter, not a bad combination, and I've shot those well in the mid/high #40 range.

As I said, this was a test fit, and it passed; by next week, a new rest will be on, probably a flipper 11, the plunger will be in. Used an old springy today, good rest, but never could warm up to it.

Think the reason it fits so well is I can actually get my fingers around it, unlike the GM I've been shooting and fighting with for the last year.

Thx again.

Viper out.

[Gonçalo]

I really don't need the X7 if it isn't for durability. I suppose XX75 would be plenty enough for my archery skills.
Would you think one of the current XX75 would be a bad choice - meaning, for instance, would they last so much less that replacing them would in the end make them more expensive than the X7s?
1913 XX75s were my first aluminium arrows when I started in archery, they seemed to bend rather easily if I remember correctly - much more so than the X7s.

[Viper]

Gonçalo -

This may sound silly, but I really don't like camo arrows! The old autumn orange XX75 were great, but I digress ... No, there's nothing else wrong with XX75's!!! They hold up just as well as the X7s.

I've heard that 12 and 13 series shafts do or can bend easier than the thicker walled shafts, personally 14 is about as thin as I've gone, and except for bouncing one off a target frame at 40 yds, haven't bent one yet! And that one was was straightened out pretty quickly too!

Viper out.

[Gonçalo]

Viper,
thanks. I don't care too much for camo either, but if that's what it takes to have properly spined arrows so be it. Looking on the bright side, XX75 are less expensive than X7s and I hate to take nocks out of those UNI inserts. Rather have a cone and a not so sophisticated arrow, at least while I don't shoot that bow well enough to care about minor details.