yesterday, my 2005 model Shadowcat snapped in half. It is not covered by warranty, as I bought it second hand. Well, that's life, and no ill will towards Martin for their warranty policies.

On closer inspection though, I noted the riser snapped just below the handgrip, where the riser had been drilled-out, effectively making it the weakest point on the bow, and at a place where stress would be quite significant.

I know of another SC that snapped in the same place, and the owner (a lady) pulled less poundage than me - I'm on around 55. Because I shoot FITA target, the arrow throughput is quite large - I put over 10,000 arrows through it in 18 months.

When I rang around Australia looking for another bow, one of the shops said "that's another one", so this isn't an isolated incident.

It seems to me that drilling the riser just below the handgrip was basically a bad decision, as it has weakened the riser at a critical point, albeit one that few purchasers would test to the limits I have.

I was deeply disapointed that it happened, and my first thought was to get another, because I was so pleased with how well it shot. (I was eying-off a 1350+ FITA round.) Regrettably, there are no others in Australia, and I wanted a bow rather quickly. None of Australia's Martin dealers had a bow (either a S/C, or similar model) in stock, but then neither did the Hoyt, PSE, etc dealers have a suitable bow for me - I'm left-handed and have a drawlength of nearly 31", so finding a bow at any time is quite an exercise.

I don't know what degree of destruction testing Martin does, but I feel some amendment of the protocol might be worthwhile in light of my experience and that of others.

Necessity has forced me to shift camps, but it will take quite a bow to replace the SC.

So, I won't be returning here for some time but hope Martin will ponder my words, and perhaps use them to determine if changes to future bows are worthwhile to improve what seems to me an otherwise very fine range.