X10 Tungsten vs Stainless Steel points.

[Chris B]

Originally Posted by ASW1973

No one shoots a sub maximum point weight unless a sub 40lbs holding weight female recurve or sub 46lbs gent and there aint many of them around at this level.

A friend told me the average poundage of female international archers is around 32#. I was surprised it could be so low. Are you saying this was mis-informed?

(i recall that female archers in both my clubs get to 80yrd reasonably well with 28 to 32#)

BTW, you say max possible point weight. Would you advocate 120grn for an archer pulling 30# at 27"?? Seems excessive since FOC is already well over 20%.

[ASW1973]

chris b
you have not read my post no i would not recommend 120 grn point for a 32lbs female that is why i said sub 40lbs
the average holding poundage for females at the last world champs (leipzig) of those surveyed 43lbs. The british ladies senior team have been recomended to all be over 40lbs (quite alot over in fact).
I would not recomend any of the female recurves i coach to have less than 35lbs on their fingers to be able to shoot well at fita distances and most all shoot 38lbs + when over 27inch draw length

[worthipa]

Originally Posted by sp220

I wouldn't claim to know what poundage or draw length Park Sung Hyun is shooting.

According to her coach Seo Oh-seok she was shooting 44lbs in 2004 and as she's 5' 6" with her clicker set at the end of it's extension her arrows are probably around 27-28".

Incidentally the Park Sung Hyun issue and, rather obliquely the Tungsten v Stainless Steel issue has been covered before on here: http://www.archery-interchange.com/f...tml#post176622

[whiz]

Originally Posted by sp220

The stainless point is MUCH longer, which means the centre of mass of the arrow is further forward with the stainless point than with the tungsten (giving a difference FOC - as Wendy has found on her nano's too)...

So what you just said is basically incorrect, and in fact the reverse is true.

What?
How can the center of mass of the longer stainless steel point be further forward than the center of mass of a shorter tungsten point?

When they're installed in the shaft, the tungsten point has less overhang from the shaft end, and less insert length in the shaft.
A tungsten pointed arrow the same nock groove to point length as a stainless steel one will have a more forward FOC or CG point.

Work out your CG or FOC movements from calculating the torque moments from the center of mass of the components. That relates to their location or moment arm.

Even without the extra length shaft to compensate for the longer point, the density is so different that the FOC may still be further forward with a tungsten point.

[Gwyn]

Originally Posted by sp220

110gn is a mass and produces EXACTLY the same "weight" as 110gn of a different material.

It's probably best to note I am in fact studying rocket science...

There is actually NO difference between the tungsten point and the steel point, except for the following things:

1: the tungsten point is much harder, and wont flatten on impact with any wood like the steel point may

2: the density of the tungsten point is greater than the steel, and means the point is smaller (shorter in fact), which means the extra length of the steel point makes the FOC of the arrow greater.

3: steel points come in 90-100-110 gn weights, and tungstens come in 100-110-120gn weights.

They are the only 3 differences between the two points.

4: the shorter point length of a tugsten pile will to some extent make the arrow wippier as the working length of the arrow is longer.

[mathewsmainliner]

Originally Posted by sp220

12 fps is an enormous difference for 10gn IMO, and I doubt very very much that that would be gained from changing an arrow which is 350+ grains by 10gn...

Thats a VERY small percentage of the arrow weight, yet 12fps is a much larger percentage of the original arrow speed - the two do not correlate, and i think you may be the only person to make that claim.

PS: and yes I have changed point weight by 10gn before, and have noticed no difference on the bareshaft test at 20 yards.

On a lighter arrow, like an ace the difference is far more apparent, but th X10 is much much heavier, and the like differences between the two should not be held in comparison.

PPS: This is the RECURVE section. In the same way people have been discouraged from providing advice relevant to the 'curve in the compound section, could points please only be made relating to recurve! Examples of compound bow shooting - not helpfull or informative!

this shows you dont know what your talking about.you cant argue with a chronograph thats recently been calibrated...and i do make the claim..and have several witnesses.

[mathewsmainliner]

Originally Posted by sp220

You are talking utter crap.

By your claim, altering an arrow by 10gn when it is 350+gn in the first place will add 12fps

Thats MORE than 1fps for each grain

1 grain = 0.06 grams....

1fps for 0.06grams DONT THINK SO

Ive seen people shoot arrows not even matched to 3 grains all in the gold quite comfortably at 70, every time, and by your reckoning all the arrows should have been flying with more than 3fps difference for each arrow - which would not allow someone to shoot arrows into such a small group... So why can you group them so well - easy, because it doesnt make the enormous difference you are claiming it should have...

1 fps per second for 0.06grams doesnt even fall into the realms of sense or reason.

PS: if you want to talk about compounds DO IT IN THE COMPOUND SECTION

the claim is the difference in speed.......there is NO ARGUMENT...........no other claim made or infered.

[Old Bloke]

Thanks to ASW for giving me some actuals. The reason why I was using the 520 ACE was that I was into field archery and as such the 520 at my bow weight and draw length with 100grns up front was pretty well much spined..bare shaft showing very slightly whippy (weak) at 30mts. The 520 gave me a stable arrow and very fast which is what field archers want.
However, shooting the same shaft in windy conditions down to 90 mts was next to useless ( I guessed they would be based on a past experience of a 2013 shaft..see prvious entry) and following all the threads concerning the Stainless Steel points and Tungsten posted this thread starter to try and get some actual returns from archers experience, rather than speculative accounts, and thanks to those few who posted sensible accounts. I have recently experimented with 410 with 100grns and these showed slightly stiff and as the bow weight is backed right off, a tweek would bring it into line. However, this 410 would still only have a point weight of 100grns and if I chose to shoot a point weight of the 120 would almost certainly mean using the X10 380 based on the sampling of various point weights on the 410.
Much work to do on this subject. There was a day when the arrow tube was the all important thing...my..how things have changed...it now seems that the point is the all important!
Don't forget also, that I'm playing catch up with our top archers who have had about 10 years experience of these shafts and the changes that have been brought about by using them.

[ASW1973]

410 with 100 will tune 410 with 120 with 1 inch out the back using a little extra weight on fingers to tune. bonus is not as heavy as next spine down plus extra point weight

[rstamp]

Sorry for the late post and ASW seams to have given you all info you may require but as for an answer to your original post.

I have two sets of x10 one fitted with the tungsten and one with the normal points each arrow is within a deviation of 3 grain from the mean. The tungsten being competition and the others are leftovers from various sets which have suffered loss, these also being from differing batches.

Shooting both in practice at 80yards (layered foam) I have noticed that the SS points tend to gravitate to the bottom of the groups. The difference in sight mark is around 0.15 of a turn, not much and there is no discernable difference in the grouping either.
(Having shot 5 ends of 24 and marked the SS points)

Bearing in mind I shoot compound 60lbs this would account for the minor downrange loss which most probably will become more pronounced as you change style and lower poundage however I would think that the selection of T is primarily related to durability and stability rather than a dramatic affect on the arrows trajectory.