Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Crossbow Hunting
TAC 15/15i Basic Unpublished Information
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Konrad" data-source="post: 487079" data-attributes="member: 26549"><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Modern techniques in carbon composite and alloy construction of archery shafts have virtually eliminated the wooden shaft concept of a spine (a line of less deflection extending the length of the shaft). Alloy shafts have very consistent deflection rates all around the shaft diameter. Newer carbon composite construction techniques have also eliminated this issue. Early carbon composite shafts were actually "wrapped" for want of a better term and did present the tester with a specific area on the shaft with less deflection than in other areas around the shaft (where the material actually over lapped). This construction method also presented weight distribution issues of rotational balance and has been all but outdated over the last few years.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">I would also presume all testing and development was done using the 85 grain point for one of two reasons:</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">A: In order to achieve correct forward of center (FOC) balance point.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">B: It was technically impossible to develop a shaft stiff enough to withstand the forces applied by this system using a heavier point.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">C: Or it was a combination of both situations…</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Modern compound archer's arrows usually hover around the 29 to 30 inch over all length and as such require a heavier point to achieve the 10 to 15% FOC. As a rule of thumb, the lighter the point, the less spine is required for proper flight. Typically, a high to moderate FOC will also produce better flight characteristics assuming the actual spine of the shaft is up to the task. Extreme FOC is seen as over 19% FOC. The use of a too heavy point causes erratic flight when using a weakly spine shaft.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">A broadhead I would seriously consider would be the Muzzy Phantom MX 85 grain two blade.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><a href="http://www.shopatron.com/products/productdetail/Phantom%20MX%202%20Blade%2085%20Grain/part_number=4185-MX/182.0.1.1.1928.7266.0.0.0?pp=8&" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="color: #800080">http://www.shopatron.com/products/productdetail/Phantom%20MX%202%20Blade%2085%20Grain/part_number=4185-MX/182.0.1.1.1928.7266.0.0.0?pp=8&</span></span></span></a></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">Please, don't let me confuse you as I do not actually own one of the TAC15 bows. I am a serious compound archer and life long chucker of projectiles various. The subject intrigued me since I receive an offer to enter the arrow give away. I am not planning on the purchase of a TAC any time soon (and said as much in my first reply to the offer) but know that the information I have gleaned over the decades will apply to this project. It was only after reading some of the posts that I decided to contribute.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-size: 12px"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">My standard practice range is only 50 yards.</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Konrad, post: 487079, member: 26549"] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Modern techniques in carbon composite and alloy construction of archery shafts have virtually eliminated the wooden shaft concept of a spine (a line of less deflection extending the length of the shaft). Alloy shafts have very consistent deflection rates all around the shaft diameter. Newer carbon composite construction techniques have also eliminated this issue. Early carbon composite shafts were actually “wrapped” for want of a better term and did present the tester with a specific area on the shaft with less deflection than in other areas around the shaft (where the material actually over lapped). This construction method also presented weight distribution issues of rotational balance and has been all but outdated over the last few years.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]I would also presume all testing and development was done using the 85 grain point for one of two reasons:[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]A: In order to achieve correct forward of center (FOC) balance point.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]B: It was technically impossible to develop a shaft stiff enough to withstand the forces applied by this system using a heavier point.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]C: Or it was a combination of both situations…[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Modern compound archer’s arrows usually hover around the 29 to 30 inch over all length and as such require a heavier point to achieve the 10 to 15% FOC. As a rule of thumb, the lighter the point, the less spine is required for proper flight. Typically, a high to moderate FOC will also produce better flight characteristics assuming the actual spine of the shaft is up to the task. Extreme FOC is seen as over 19% FOC. The use of a too heavy point causes erratic flight when using a weakly spine shaft.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]A broadhead I would seriously consider would be the Muzzy Phantom MX 85 grain two blade.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][URL="http://www.shopatron.com/products/productdetail/Phantom%20MX%202%20Blade%2085%20Grain/part_number=4185-MX/182.0.1.1.1928.7266.0.0.0?pp=8&"][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][COLOR=#800080]http://www.shopatron.com/products/productdetail/Phantom%20MX%202%20Blade%2085%20Grain/part_number=4185-MX/182.0.1.1.1928.7266.0.0.0?pp=8&[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/URL][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Please, don’t let me confuse you as I do not actually own one of the TAC15 bows. I am a serious compound archer and life long chucker of projectiles various. The subject intrigued me since I receive an offer to enter the arrow give away. I am not planning on the purchase of a TAC any time soon (and said as much in my first reply to the offer) but know that the information I have gleaned over the decades will apply to this project. It was only after reading some of the posts that I decided to contribute.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]My standard practice range is only 50 yards.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Crossbow Hunting
TAC 15/15i Basic Unpublished Information
Top