equivalent spine for aluminium arrows ?

Lammas

Member
Has some one experience with replacing aluminium arrows with carbon one's ?
I have an older 30# bow, with a matching set of 1716 Easton XX75 platinum arrows.
What would roughly be an equivalent carbon arrow spine ?

I'm thinking of using it for 3D occasionally, were lighter arrows give you a greater margin of error for distance estimations ...
 

Geophys2

Active member
AIUK Saviour
Easton's chart give 1716 as 880 spine, I suggest you get a couple of 800 and 900 spine and see which shoot better from your bow. I'd probably go with the 800 and leave them an inch longer than your current arrows.
 

Lammas

Member
Ok, thanks, gonna try.
I only found the shaft type (like 1716) / draw length / draw weight chart at my search.
But none specifying a comprehensible spine/deflection value.

I use to start with full-length bare shafts, and shorten them down until they fly straight.
Just want to exclude excessive lengths or point weights.
 

bimble

Well-known member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
AIUK Saviour
Ok, thanks, gonna try.
I only found the shaft type (like 1716) / draw length / draw weight chart at my search.
But none specifying a comprehensible spine/deflection value.
You want to look at the XX75 page on the Easton site, where it gives the spine deflection for the 1716 as 880
 

Rabid Hamster

Well-known member
Ironman
worth considering point weight as well. heavier points will weaken the spine so depends if you are rocking nibbs or bullets in your xx75's.
bullets tend to be heavier...
 

Lammas

Member
You want to look at the XX75 page on the Easton site, where it gives the spine deflection for the 1716 as 880
Checking out the website, and it's there.
Shouldn't have stopped after finding the copies of the old paper charts ...
worth considering point weight as well. heavier points will weaken the spine so depends if you are rocking nibbs or bullets in your xx75's.
I think it is a 70gn tip for the arrows I have. They are glued in, and I didn't want to kill an arrow.
But 9,0 gpi for the 1716 is quite a lot, compared to carbon shafts.
A 900 spine Skylon radius has 5,34, saving 100 grain at 28". Some of that saved weight would probably be well-spent on a heavier tip and higher FOC.
 

mbaker74

Supporter
Supporter
AIUK Saviour
From the Easton chart, 1716 XX75's are in group T2, with spine of 0.88, and weight 9 gpi
so equivalents would be

Carbon One - 810 spine, 5.8 gpi
ACC's - 2-04, 0.92 spine, 6.5 gpi

either should work well.

I would stick with the point weights recommenced first off, you don't want to switch to a lighter weight shaft with a heavier point weight as your FOC will move massively forward which is fine for indoors, but not so good for any distance.
 

Lammas

Member
I would stick with the point weights recommenced first off, you don't want to switch to a lighter weight shaft with a heavier point weight as your FOC will move massively forward which is fine for indoors, but not so good for any distance.
I think I would have a hard time finding a carbon shaft that is close to 9.0 gpi at a 900 spine.
Hunting shaft with a 300 ... 400 spine are in that range.

I have not yet decided which shafts, but Easton ACCs seem a bit of an overkill for the bow.
Perhaps some one remembers the Samick Mind 10, bought in the mid-90s for roughly 100€ (using today's currency conversion).
Not to mention, shooting 3D usually increases arrow throughput ...
 
Top