I'll bite D. We are talking a .005" inch difference. It is not like an arrow goes >>>-----_---___--------> From what I have read a 6' rod is made and then it is sliced into 32" sections of arrows. If at is the case how is the spine any different from one section to the next? They were made from the same rod. They cull out the straightest ones to collect the most money on.
So you think it is not vastly superior. Now tell me, just what difference you expect to see between two comparable arrows of each straightness. What amount really is justifiably more accurate and how can you validate it down to the gnats *** if you are shooting? By you, I mean a human, not Destroyer. A human that can't do the same thing every time like a machine.
Sonny, that is not irrefutable evidence, its advertising 101. Just like Martin Archery's "The fastest and most accurate bows in the world" It is all talk with nothing to back it up. However, I do believe it is their best shooting arrow ever.
When you guys load up a new rifle round and want to test it for accuracy do you do it from a standing position or do you use a shooting bench and vise? At the very least i bet you shoot from the prone position. Why would you do that for a rifle round and not an arrow?
Hey guys, even the best arrows don't shoot all the same out of the box.
I ran the $3 Carbon Exacta arrows and my HT2s thru the F.A.S.T. this morning. The Carbon Exactas took a bit more work to square up on the insert end and were only a few turns more to clean up on the nock end. They actually had less glue on them than my HTAs. I think they are going to be great knock around arrows for my kid.
Something doesn't make sense to me. If the .006 arrows have/have more fiberglass in them that means that each line of arrow has at least two manufacturing methods. I find this very hard to believe.
Using HTA as an example (CX has too many series of arrows) every line of arrow (HT1, HT2, HT3,HT4) has .001", .003" and .006" options. That would mean that they have 2 or 3 manufacturing methods (recipes) for each arrow totaling 8 to 12 ways of making arrows. This just doesn't seem reasonable, practical or economical to me. Does it to you?
What I believe is they have a manufacturing method for each series of arrow: hunting, target, penetration and strive for a the standard (or minimum acceptable) straightness. That minimum standard seems to be .006" in this case. They cut the arrows and check them for straightness and sort accordingly. Now they sell them, more importantly price them, based on straightness. This just keeps it simple, but if they wanted to they could do it a bit differently.
I think, just think as I have no proof, this is what some manufactures do. They'll call the .006 arrows a different name altogether than the .003" or .001" arrows. Say Predator and Mutiny for example. From a marketing stand point this makes sense, maybe having 3 versions of one arrow would make it seem like they have seconds or thirds when that isn't the case. This could be why some arrow manufactures line-up seems so bloated. Maybe some of the smaller guys can't afford all the advertising, cataloging and such to do it that way?
Yes, I would like to see proof that a .001" arrow is superior to a .006". And just how much superior in the form of real hard data. Preferably by an independent testing agency. If such an animal existed proving this I am positive that they (arrow manufacturers) would be citing that study to sell more high dollar arrows. Why wouldn't they? On the other hand if it did exist and the evidence showed there is no real advantage, maybe even because there are too many variables out of their control, then they would be wise not to bring it up.
Even if the .001s have a smaller average group is it enough to justify the cost difference? Say at 100 yards (it was said it shows at further distances) the .001s hold an average of 3 inches and the lowly old .006s hold an average of 8 inches does that make them worth the 50% increase in price? Maybe, maybe not, since the average deer is taken at 19 yards and the group averages would be much smaller. Maybe this is the kind of info that arrow manufactures think is best kept close to the vest?
To me it is easier to sell something to someone's emotions than to sell something based on empirical data. E.G. The top shooters use these arrows so they must be better. These cost more so they must be better. These guys spend millions of advertising on hunting shows and in hunting magazines so they must be better. These are straighter so they must be better.
My parable of the rifle cartridge was not to say one needed a hooter shooter to test their arrows. It was to illustrate that if you are testing something for accuracy you would do it on the most stable platform available verses the least stable. Just as you do when testing your cartridges. It was put out there that testing in the super shooter would be invalid and I highly disagree with that.
I reused the insert. A razor knife and a few cuts all done.