Who bare shaft tunes their arrows?

[perry]

Dennis, In all likelihood my Arrows would Fly well if I did not Bare Shaft them, heaven knows I have been Lazy on occasions [ read many ] and just went with the Spine Charts and experience, I've also had my fingers Burnt more than once when I did not Bare Shaft to set up my Nocking Point or when the Feathers get Wet etc.

Due to ever increasing disability caused by numerous Injury's I can hardly shoot an Arrow now Days, I am long retired from Competition, 2005 was my last full Year of Comp. I acheived every Target I set and all but 1 of my Goals that Year, Daryl Reekes the reigning World IFAA Champ beat me into 2nd place at the 3DAAA Nationals. Hardly a failure I could not have stayed with Daryl unless my Gear was perfectly Tuned and my Form was as good as it could be at the time. There where times during that Comp when it rained heavily and our Feathers were wet. I gained ground, actually shot my best Round for the Titles when it was Pouring Rain. Could not have done it without Bare Shaft Tuned Equipment.

Interesting you Cant you Bow most at longer Range. I cant the Bow more at close Range Shots and the longer the Shot my Form dictates less Cant. Point at a close object, then a distant object and see if the Angle of your Hand changes, mine does. I have also observed different impact Points due to degree of Cant and Shooting different Arrows

regards Jacko

[Mick Smith]

Here's a link to a previous Ozbow thread on the same subject. It has some interesting slow motion shots which clearly show the oscillations that are imparted when an arrow is released.

http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.p ... on#p153172

[Dennis La Varenne]

Perry,

Very well done. Good on you. That would have been very fine shooting indeed.

And yes, I have always canted my bow. I don't cant it for any particular range. The cant is completely natural and is the position my bow arm assumes when I hold a bow out at arm's length with a relaxed wrist. Holding a natural cant keeps it consistent. It is not a heavy cant - I doubt it is more than about 10 - 20 degrees maximum, but I haven't measured it. But it does have a considerable effect in the tolerance of the variety of spines I can use from the one bow.

I have always tended to use very overspined arrows for no particular reason that I can suggest and I have always been fortunate with how they flew. I did a period when I matched them according to spine charts and got no better flight. I then just started matching arrows by the spine reading irrespective of what the charts said, but it seems that I seem to be able to shoot arrow within a 20lb range (from -5 to +15 lbs) quite well so long as they are all the same spine and build.

I have become more and more convinced in later years that this spine tolerance is related to the degree of cant, but I have yet to establish just how.

[Dennis La Varenne]

For those interested, I have attached an article I reproduced from one of my books about the business of vibration frequency and amplitud in arrows because it seems to relate to the topic of bare shaft tuning as I understand it now. It is a Word document which can be downloaded dealing with how to make a vibration meter for those so inclined.

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN ARROW VIBRATION FREQUENCY METER.doc

(431.5 KiB) Downloaded 141 times

It would make an interesting investigative tool if the amplitude of the vibrations can be directly related to spine deformation as the arrow passes a bow.

NOTE: I have just reattached the .doc file above because it was pointed out to me that some of the pictures were missing. I have replaced them and added the acknowledgement on the title page. (DLaV)

[Tommo]

I do as it helps me shoot more accurately with fletched shafts, be it in a target or hunting scenario.

This Ken Beck video runs through the why and how of bareshaft tuning. If you have not tried it give it a go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSJ6-HjPMTM

[Dennis La Varenne]

Tommo,

Following Mick's list of references which I watched with interest, I have no doubt of its inherent usefulness as a tool to correct intractable faulty arrow flight, but only AFTER a problem has been established.

From my personal standpoint, it is properly a second line remedy following the normal steps of selecting a suitable arrow from spine charts and making the usual guideline allowances for the degree of centreshot and point weight when these standard guidelines have failed.

Thus far, in my longish career, I have never once had a problem, and my original contention was that it seems as if people are jumping to this remedy as a first line factor in arrow selection involving what seems to me to be a long-winded and unnecessarily complicated way to correct what I have always found to be a simple affair.

What I still do not understand is if this method is used from the outset, how do these archers actually go about selecting the first batch of arrows with which to commence testing. Are spine charts still used as a first reference, or are a bunch of arrows selected randomly and shot using this technique until one is found which shoots to preference?

The guidelines I have always successfully followed without issue are as follows for vertically held bows -
1. Nominally choose spine for arrows based on draw weight;
2. Allow one spine grade lower for every 1/8" away from centreshot;
3. Allow one spine grade higher or lower for every 10grains of point weight above or below 125 grains;
4. If the bow is shot canted, arrow spine can be 10 lbs over nominal spine grade.

The following issue, again from my personal standpoint is why this long established set of guidelines (as long as I have been shooting bows) for arrow selection is proving so troublesome for modern archers or is it a case of - as Ascham sagely wrote back in 1545 -

" . . . never cease piddling about your bow and shafts when they be well, but either with shorting and piking your bow, or either with new feathering, piecing and heading your shafts, can never have done until they be stark nought."

[Mick Smith]

Tommo,

Following Mick's list of references which I watched with interest, I have no doubt of its inherent usefulness as a tool to correct intractable faulty arrow flight, but only AFTER a problem has been established.

From my personal standpoint, it is properly a second line remedy following the normal steps of selecting a suitable arrow from spine charts and making the usual guideline allowances for the degree of centreshot and point weight when these standard guidelines have failed.

Thus far, in my longish career, I have never once had a problem, and my original contention was that it seems as if people are jumping to this remedy as a first line factor in arrow selection involving what seems to me to be a long-winded and unnecessarily complicated way to correct what I have always found to be a simple affair.

What I still do not understand is if this method is used from the outset, how do these archers actually go about selecting the first batch of arrows with which to commence testing. Are spine charts still used as a first reference, or are a bunch of arrows selected randomly and shot using this technique until one is found which shoots to preference?

Dennis,

I disagree with some of the details which you have provided above. Bare shaft tuning is a tool best used before the completion of a new set of arrows, not after as you have espoused. The use of this tool will almost certainly guarantee that you won't have flight problems with your new arrows. Why wait to see if you will have a problem, when the possibility can be circumvented so easily? Why go to the trouble of fletching your arrows, when it is then too late to bare shaft tune them, without ripping the fletches off them?

The ideal situation to be in, for all archers when shooting arrows, is to have them shooting exactly to where they're pointed, right from the start. Unless they have been bare shaft tuned, it just comes down to pot luck as to whether they will shoot exactly to where they're pointed. If all of your arrows shoot perfectly straight to where they're pointed for any specific bow, you will have a huge advantage, especially when you're chopping and changing bows. This is why it is so important to bare shaft your initial shafts for any bow. Once you have established the perfect spine and the perfect length that combines with your point weight of choice, then it just becomes a matter of duplicating them when further arrows are needed in the future.

Bare shaft tuning doesn't replace the necessity of referring to spine charts, etc. It's a tool of refinement of that same process. It isn't a long winded and complicated process, as you have described it. I can't believe that someone, such as yourself, who obviously takes all the care and the time making bows that are as perfect as is humanly possible, why wouldn't you want to do the same with your arrows? It just doesn't make sense to me. The last time I used the bare shaft tuning process, it would have taken me an additional hour or so to achieve the results I was looking for. An hour is nothing when compared to the long term advantages of having arrows that will shoot exactly to where they're pointed. I found the process to be both rewarding and interesting, so the time flew.

You mentioned earlier in this thread that you experienced some puzzling results when you canted your bow and that you found that your arrows seemed to have a greater range than you might have normally expected. I don't think the results are so puzzling at all. I believe I know what was happening in this instance. You admit to often using over spined arrows. In fact, you said that you often use arrows that are up to 15lbs over spined. I believe your over spined arrows were actually shooting well to the left of where they were actually pointed, or they would have been if you had been holding your bow vertically, but you weren't holding your bow vertically, you were canting it. This would have the effect of causing your arrows to shoot a little less to the left, but it would also mean they would be launched into the air at a slightly higher trajectory than expected. This is what would have given you the impression of having a slightly greater range and a higher tolerance to over spined arrows with your canted bow. As to the shooting to the left, you almost certainly would have become used to this and your subconscious would have automatically allowed for it. The thing is, you wouldn't have had this puzzling occurrence at all, if you used correctly spined arrows in the first place and this is just another reason why bare shaft tuning is so important, IMHO.

[Tommo]

I have no doubt of its inherent usefulness as a tool to correct intractable faulty arrow flight, but only AFTER a problem has been established.

But sometimes the problem may never be realised, with feathers correcting the shaft well enough to give what appears to be good arrow flight. Bare shafting from the outset lessens the possibility of the problem in the first place.

Did you watch the video Dennis? Beck´s account of his first hunt with broadheads is the classic ¨my arrows shoot well enough most of the time so lets go hunting¨ story. Well enough till you actually put a broadhead on and you can´t hit what you aim at.

What I still do not understand is if this method is used from the outset, how do these archers actually go about selecting the first batch of arrows with which to commence testing. Are spine charts still used as a first reference, or are a bunch of arrows selected randomly and shot using this technique until one is found which shoots to preference?

Regarding carbon shafts (I have no experience with wood shafts), if you have absolutely no idea of where to start then you can buy a test kit. There are stores which sell you one of each of three to four different spine sizes to tune with using different insert and point weights.
When you get good flight out of both bare and feathered shafts then you simply buy more of the spine size thats bare shafts well out of your bow with your form.
I have tuned three different spine sizes .391, .324 and .300 to the one bow using different overall point weight and lengths. Choosing which arrow to use then comes down to application, be it target, small game hunting, large game hunting etc.

I use a Dremel tool (with cutting wheel) cable tied to a piece of timber to cut shafts.

Bare shafting works as a first line tuning method with carbon shafts.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Tommo,

I have never ever had a broadhead fly badly to need to consider the bareshafting business. I have never had a problem with switching my field points to broadheads and having poor arrow flight. So, where is the point or need for me to bareshaft tune my arrows???

Mick,
Working backwards, there is not and never was a problem with canting my bow and shooting overspined arrows at greater range. I have never been a vertical bow shooter in my life.

You are most probably quite correct in your estimation of what was happening, but it wasn't a problem to begin with. It was an observation of an occurrence for which I did not have an answer. Where you end by saying -

The thing is, you wouldn't have had this puzzling occurrence at all, if you used correctly spined arrows in the first place and this is just another reason why bare shaft tuning is so important, IMHO.

is to miss my point entirely. Your answer depends entirely on my shooting a vertical bow which I have never done, so the supposed benefits of bareshaft tuning have absolutely no benefit.

Your thesis seems only to hold true so long as the archer is a dedicated vertical bow shooter. Indeed much of spine theory goes out the window when a bow is shot with a cant and the normal rules seem not to apply.

I can't believe that someone, such as yourself, who obviously takes all the care and the time making bows that are as perfect as is humanly possible, why wouldn't you want to do the same with your arrows? It just doesn't make sense to me.

For the reasons above, I have never been able to see the sense of going through that process. My arrows are selected according to the criteria I outlined above and I finish and balance my arrows reasonably to FoC greater than 10% and there is no problem.

So we come back to the rather circular argument of why I would need to go through a process which is of no obvious benefit to me since I do not have a problem with where my arrows shoot. They simply go where I look over a canted bow. I can change bows and I can change arrows and they shoot where I look. The only variable apart from a bad day is that of vertical trajectory. Some arrows may hit higher or lower depending upon bow weight, spine and arrow mass, but horizontally, there is no issue. Even with vertical dispersion, it rarely takes more than minutes of shooting to correct that with whatever bow/arrow combination I am shooting at the time.

To me, the very best point you have made thus far is the following -

I found the process to be both rewarding and interesting, so the time flew.

But, I do owe you all the benefit of the doubt and when I get back home, I will give it my best go and see if there is any benefit to a canted bow shooter and let you all know the result. If there is, I will certainly publish that fact for everybody to see here.

[Roadie]

Interesting over 590 people have viewed this, But only 23 have voted. What does this Tell you. Cheers Roadie.

[greybeard]

Interesting over 590 people have viewed this, But only 23 have voted. What does this Tell you. Cheers Roadie.

Roadie,

It is not as simple as that; how many times have you viewed this post?

You will find that respondents [40] would have had multiple viewings which distort the percentages.

Daryl.

[Mick Smith]

Mick,
Working backwards, there is not and never was a problem with canting my bow and shooting overspined arrows at greater range. I have never been a vertical bow shooter in my life.

You are most probably quite correct in your estimation of what was happening, but it wasn't a problem to begin with. It was an observation of an occurrence for which I did not have an answer. Where you end by saying -

The thing is, you wouldn't have had this puzzling occurrence at all, if you used correctly spined arrows in the first place and this is just another reason why bare shaft tuning is so important, IMHO.

is to miss my point entirely. Your answer depends entirely on my shooting a vertical bow which I have never done, so the supposed benefits of bareshaft tuning have absolutely no benefit.

Your thesis seems only to hold true so long as the archer is a dedicated vertical bow shooter. Indeed much of spine theory goes out the window when a bow is shot with a cant and the normal rules seem not to apply.

I can't believe that someone, such as yourself, who obviously takes all the care and the time making bows that are as perfect as is humanly possible, why wouldn't you want to do the same with your arrows? It just doesn't make sense to me.

For the reasons above, I have never been able to see the sense of going through that process. My arrows are selected according to the criteria I outlined above and I finish and balance my arrows reasonably to FoC greater than 10% and there is no problem.

To me, the very best point you have made thus far is the following -

I found the process to be both rewarding and interesting, so the time flew.

But, I do owe you all the benefit of the doubt and when I get back home, I will give it my best go and see if there is any benefit to a canted bow shooter and let you all know the result. If there is, I will certainly publish that fact for everybody to see here.

Dennis,

There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding that's going both ways. Whether or not you shoot with your bow canted doesn't make any difference to the way an arrow will fly from your bow. The angle of your bow makes absolutely no difference to the physics involved. An over spined shaft will always fly to the left of the bow's riser, regardless of which angle it is held at. I mentioned what would happen to the user of a vertically held bow, simply to make the basic physics involved more easily understood. If you cant the bow at 45 degrees (not saying that you actually do), the over spined arrow will still fly to the left, but it wont seem as bad, as a half of the deflection will be converted from the horizontal plane into the vertical plane. Canting your bow might give you the impression of being able to get away with using over spined arrows, but nothing can compensate for having arrows that actually shoot precisely where they're pointed, regardless of whether the bow is canted or not.

I'll be very interested to hear of the outcome of your bare shaft tuning experiments. Bear in mind that when you're actually doing the tuning, a poor release will completely negate any results. You need to shoot lots of shafts, or the same shaft over and over again, into the bale and then judge the results by trends, rather than individual impacts.

[Dennis La Varenne]

but nothing can compensate for having arrows that actually shoot precisely where they're pointed,

But that is precisely my point. They DO and have ALWAYS gone where I pointed. I have used different spines and weight arrows of same length on bows of different draw weight with the same result. They go where I look so long as I have kept up reasonable practice. It has always proven reliable for my hunting and when I shot ABA rounds.

I am not trying to prove you to be wrong in your faith in your system; I remain unconvinced of its necessity or even its genuine benefit.

However, I will do my best with the technique and I will assiduously read up on it and make sure that I am doing it correctly. I will do a proper write-up of the experiment and detail the method used so others like yourself can examine my investigation technique and make comments.

Roadie,
I take your point, but as Daryl points out that it isn't as simple as that. My guess is that the great majority of archers don't bareshaft tune their arrows to their bows, but the topic is perhaps of some interest in case there is merit from either position. They are just looking and assessing the arguments for and against. And, that is how it should be.

Mick has argued his case pretty well as have I, I think, so other readers have a goodly amount of information on which to base some kind of perspective.

[Mick Smith]

I am not trying to prove you to be wrong in your faith in your system; I remain unconvinced of its necessity or even its genuine benefit.

I wouldn't say it was 'my' system Dennis. It has been around for a long time. I only started using it fairly recently. It may seem as though I'm a fierce defender of it, but I've taken on the role of the devil's advocate, to a degree in these discussions. In reality, I see it as a useful tool, but one mainly for synthetic shafts users. Wood shafts vary too much from shaft to shaft to make the process absolutely precise, but it's still worth doing, IMO, particularly if you're unsure if you have chosen the best spined shafts for your purposes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel reasonably certain that you once mentioned that, in the past, when you changed either your arrows or your bow, it would take you just a brief practice session before you would begin to group your arrows into the area where you were looking once again. If my memory is correct and this actually was the case, then surely you cannot say that your arrows have always hit where you've been looking. Why didn't these arrows group where you expected them to initially, unless they weren't spined perfectly for you and your bow? Or, if they were spined perfectly, the previous arrows that you were shooting could not have been. You will not get two sets of perfectly spined arrows shooting to two different points.

[Dennis La Varenne]

I feel reasonably certain that you once mentioned that, in the past, when you changed either your arrows or your bow, it would take you just a brief practice session before you would begin to group your arrows into the area where you were looking once again. If my memory is correct and this actually was the case, then surely you cannot say that your arrows have always hit where you've been looking. Why didn't these arrows group where you expected them to initially, unless they weren't spined perfectly for you and your bow? Or, if they were spined perfectly, the previous arrows that you were shooting could not have been. You will not get two sets of perfectly spined arrows shooting to two different points.

I understand what you are saying, and yes that was and is the case, but the correction is so minor and so brief that the flexibility of shooting instinctively and with a canted bow is of far more practical benefit to me than going through the bareshaft tuning process. The gain to me is negligible and has the significant disadvantage that would then be committed to one bow and arrow set only.

I have many, many bows and arrows numbering in the hundreds and I like to shoot them all over time. I just pick them up and a handful of arrows and start shooting. I am not talking about feet from the mark. I am talking about inches. Very shortly after commencing shooting, the arrows start hitting on/around the mark.

I can then put that bow down and pick up another and do the same with the same result. I can then use the same arrows and do the same on different bows, again with the same result. This is the way it has always been with my shooting. Where you point out in the last line that I could not get two sets of 'perfectly spined' arrows shooting to two different points is true in theory, but in real life, they DO do so for all practical purposes. So it seems to me to be a matter of increasing effort for increasingly smaller return.

[Mick Smith]

Dennis,

I will concede, for you, bare shaft tuning is probably not practical for the reasons you have put forward. You must admit though, you are probably not a good representation of the average traditional archer.

Your ability to quickly adjust to slight differences in arrow spine isn't universal by any means. I know of one highly accomplished traditional archer here in Victoria, who decided one day to change his arrows. He didn't undertake any bare shaft tuning and of course, his new arrows shot to a different point of impact. He told me that this 'mistake' of changing his arrows, ended up putting him way back in his abilities to shoot good scores, even though he went back to his original arrows. So, not everyone is as flexible as what you are when it comes to adjusting to different arrow spines.

It would be interesting to find out exactly how many bows our average traditional archers actually owns, here in Australia. I'm pretty sure the number wouldn't go into the hundreds per archer. So once again, you appear to be unusual in this particular aspect. The essence of bare shaft tuning, is to tune one particular set of arrows to one particular bow and to one particular archer. Obviously, that might not be practical for you in general, seeing as you own and use so many bows. If you're happy shooting your many bows with your selection of 'universal' arrows then I'm happy for you. However, for the average Australian traditional archer, one or two sets of arrows, specifically made for each of his 2 or 3 bows certainly isn't out of the question. This is where bare shaft tuning comes to the fore and this is why it is so popular worldwide.

[greybeard]

I picked up a new set of Wallace Woods about two weeks ago and thought I should try them out before the Wisemans Ferry trad shoot.

Steve asked what I required and I said make them the same as the previous set I got sometime in 2013.

Rather than trying to test the arrows in my workshop I headed down to the practice range at North Albert.

I used the 15 and 30 metre butts, the arrows flew well out of my longbow and there was no sign of fishtailing or porpoising.

Arrow flight was good and I was as happy as the proverbial pig in S.

I have been buying Wallace Woods for quite a few years now and I have never had an issue with bad arrow flight.

In reality it is both time and cost effective for me to buy ready made arrows.

To date I have had no need or desire to delve into bare shaft testing.

Daryl.

[Mick Smith]

No, you wouldn't bother with bare shaft tuning under those circumstances Daryl. I wouldn't either, if my plan involved the reproduction of a tried and tested set of arrows. I would simply make them the same as before.

Obviously, bare shaft tuning isn't for everybody. If you look at the poll at the start of this thread, you will see that less than a half of the respondents said they use this tool all of the time. I don't use it every time I make arrows either. Once you have a tried and tested formula that works like a treat, why would you change it?

Where the bare shaft tuning technique really shines, is in those circumstances where you have a new bow and you want to make your first set of arrows for it. You could go to a reputable company, like Wallace Woods and I feel sure you would get a set of arrows that would work perfectly. Steve and Sue know their stuff. But, if you decided to make them yourself, whether they be alloy, carbon or wood, then bare shaft tuning is an accepted tool that would probably be of some assistance to you.

[greybeard]

Hi Mick,

I neglected to mention that the new arrows were made from a completely different species of timber and yet they came out spot on.

Dealing with professionals certainly makes my life easier.

Daryl.

[asparky]

l always bareshaft my arrows. when done correctly it shows the archer he does not require fletching to hit a target at either 5metres or 60metres.

[Tommo]

I will do a proper write-up of the experiment and detail the method used so others like yourself can examine my investigation technique and make comments.

All you need to do Dennis is whip the feathers off a few field pointed arrows, shoot them alongside some fletched shafts of the same spine, then let us know how they flew and or grouped. Easy.

[UPTHETOP]

Tommo is good to see you still alive and kicking mate it has been to long.

Cheers Wayno.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Thank you Tommo. I gathered that much from my reading already. I won't spoil any arrows I have already. I will just pick six shafts from my stock with the same nominal spine and make up two sets of three as you describe.

[Outbackdad]

Some updates from Dennis with some great information.

[Dennis La Varenne]

Eddy,
Do you reckon that the long form could be put here http://www.ozbow.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2927 in that format and remove both the old pages AND the older PDF please? I have send both you and Daryl the document in Word format which can be converted to text and reformatted to suit that window.

Perhaps also that a notice about its existence and link could also be placed in the SITE ANNOUNCEMENTS too.
Regards and many thanks. There was a lot of research work involved as you would understand and it is historically accurate and referenced rather than my opinion alone.

Dennis

[memo]

Hey Mick, how's things?
Mate, I've always been a "Whack some feathers on and she'll be right" type of shooter. Granted always used spined arrows near enough to what I thought I needed. Now I got a couple of new strings, and bought a new batch of the dreaded carbons, and proceeded to bare shaft them.
Now I have always put it in the "Too hard" basket, but I can honestly say that the results are very impressive. My groups are tighter and the arrows fly like darts. Safe to say, I'll be doing it from now on.
Give it a whirl, you've got nothing to lose except for a few hours,
Cheers.
Memo

[GrahameA]

Morning All.

Their is nothing magical about bareshaft arrows.

However, how a bareshaft 'performs' and a fletched arrow performs are slightly different and if you are trying to get an optimum Arrow and Arrow Flight it helps to understand what is going on.

e.g. If you have an bareshaft that is 'correct' for a bow it will have have a lower exit velocity once it has been fletched, the flecthes add Drag. The difference is minor but it is there. You just need to reason what is happening.

One of the nice benefits of a "Modern Target Bow" is the ease which you can adjust the poundage and thus fine tune the Bow to the Arrow.

[Parrbd]

As a thumbring shooter I use bareshaft shooting to tune my form. I find the spine makes little difference to arrow flight but bareshafts really show up any problems with form. Every now and then I will spend some time practising with bare shafts (Usually of various spine) until they are coming out of the bow straight. All good fun and yes I do break the occasional arrow. I suspect that Dennis is such an accomplished archer that he is subconsciously adjusting his form to suit the the differing spine of his arrows.

[Kendaric]

I was not going to wade into this one, but two beers got the better of me.

Dennis is pretty much on the mark. Bare shaft tuning is not of great value to the average trad shooter.

I know some swear by it, and others who swear at it. If it gives you confidence to bare shaft tune, then by all means do so, as confidence is a great performance enhancer in the short term.

It may also be of some value to those who operate to the extremes of ludicrous FOC's for African elephant's, (but that is not really the Australian situation), where normal charts and compensations become harder to calculate.

As Dennis indicated, use your arrow charts and the offset calculations for set-up.

If bare shaft tuning was the be all and end all, we would shoot without fletches.

Only extremes of spine will generally show that there is something to bare-shaft tuning, and should that be the case, you have either made a great mistake with your spine chart and calculations, there is something very wrong with your bow set-up, or something very wrong with your style. Bare shaft tuning can also give you opposite readings as well, due to spine extreme (nock end bouncing off the window or shelf).

The average trad shooter doesn't shoot consistently enough to get consistant results with bare-shaft tuning unless there is an extreme of spine.

One thing people continually fail to grasp (ignoring absolute extremes here) - an untuned bow/arrow combination is just as intrinsically accurate as a tuned set-up if machine shot. What we are trying to achieve with a more tuned set-up is something that is more forgiving of human error.

Use your charts and offset calculations.

Dennis gave a +/- leeway with spine, after your calculations. Strangely enough, with a longbow, which is outside centreshot, even after the offset calculations, I have found -5lb lower spine to be sweeter for me. Just food for thought.

[bstan86]

I don't see any reason NOT to bare shaft tune my arrows. I always get repeatable, consistent results from doing it.

IMO using some kind of formula (no matter how good it may be) is nothing more than an educated guess. Why do this when bare shafting can give definitive results?

Formulas and spine charts cannot account for things such as individual bow performance, type of release, shelf design, shelf width, bow torquing, the archers hold on the riser and a host of other things.

Bare shaft tuning conveniently works with, and accounts for all of the above factors.





Back in my earlier days of trad archery I used charts, formulas and guesstimates to choose shaft sizes/spines - and on top of that I used what were accepted as "normal" point weights.

When I started bare shafting I felt embarrassed by what I had previously accepted as "reasonable arrow flight". The real-world results of bare shafting have shown me their value time and time again.

Repeatable, evidence-based, highly effective and IMO - not a difficult or tedious chore - especially when there are solid results at the end.