• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Woodsman broadheads

Are you shooting bare shaft vertically or canted? Nock right is stiff with I’m assuming the 125 grain head and if you cut arrow 1” past your draw length I bet 200 grains Is gonna get you right there with 2016 shaft and if you use the 1916 shaft 125 grains will get you there
 
Assuming all things equall in a perfect work, will shooting three under normally cause a bit higher (or lower) nock height after relese?
Just curious as I have read what seems to be most people using a higher nock point when shooting that way vs. split.
 
Petrichor said:
Nocking points are typically higher with 3 under.
Click to expand...
I'm experiencing that right now. A couple months ago, I switched from split to 3 under and I immediately needed to raise my nock point to a point that it was hard to believe that it should be that high. But even then I would still get some arrows that seemed tail-low. I started to realize that the "good" arrows were when I would shoot the bow with a bit less palm pressure on the handle...not really a natural hand position for me and it was something I really needed to concentrate on doing. That's not ideal. So I raised the nock set even a little higher and it fixed the issue. My bow hand is back to a natural push on the handle, no need to even think about hand position.

This confirmed to me that there are a lot of variables that dictate where the nock set should be. Tiller, hand position, 3-under, shelf/strike plate construction in relation to the throat of the grip, FOC, and shooter form all interact to determine where the perfect nock set should be for that individual's particular set-up.

Don't be afraid to try an extremely high nock point. You can always move it back down if it doesn't help.
 
Allegheny Tom said:
I'm experiencing that right now. A couple months ago, I switched from split to 3 under and I immediately needed to raise my nock point to a point that it was hard to believe that it should be that high. But even then I would still get some arrows that seemed tail-low. I started to realize that the "good" arrows were when I would shoot the bow with a bit less palm pressure on the handle...not really a natural hand position for me and it was something I really needed to concentrate on doing. That's not ideal. So I raised the nock set even a little higher and it fixed the issue. My bow hand is back to a natural push on the handle, no need to even think about hand position.

This confirmed to me that there are a lot of variables that dictate where the nock set should be. Tiller, hand position, 3-under, shelf/strike plate construction in relation to the throat of the grip, FOC, and shooter form all interact to determine where the perfect nock set should be for that individual's particular set-up.

Don't be afraid to try an extremely high nock point. You can always move it back down if it doesn't help.
Click to expand...
Well said Tom
 
No paper tune with trad bow as to many variables especially with fingers. Bareshaft first to get you 90% there then minor tweaks then your all set!
 
I like paper tuning for trad. With point of impact tuning, arrow location will will only be as good as your aim. And if our form isn't good enough for paper tuning, then how is it that we can depend on the point of impact?
I will admit that with paper you can get some inexplicable tears because of a pluck or other flaw, but with enough shots thru paper, you'll see what you need to adjust in your tuning.
 
Lots of good stuff in this thread, for me anyway. So, when I started the processs of wanting to build and shoot wood arrows, I had talked with Andy from Addictive Archery, bought several test spine arrows, and began the process with paper tunes. However, I paper tuned with four inch feathers, not sure why I never thought od doing same with some bare shafts woods as well. All part of the learning process I guess.
 
On the whole tuning method debate- personally, I think people should stop and think for a second. If a person cannot shoot consistently enough to get even a rough tune with bareshafts, should they really be trying to hunt? I get that hunting is the end goal, but I also believe we owe it to the deer we launch pointy sticks at that those pointy sticks are flying straight as possible and that we can put it in their vitals very, very consistently. Trad isn't an excuse to skip tuning, obviously, but it also isn't an excuse for missing or for being a bad shot. I think the vast majority of stickbows hunters would be surprised at how poorly they do on paper targets, and how good you can actually get with a stickbow. Some dedicated practice should get you similar to better accuracy than someone with a compound shooting a few times a year.

Edit: I'm by no means referring to anyone in the thread, by the way. I trust that you all know yourselves and can make good decisions, just thought I'd give yet another thing to think about
 
styksnstryngs said:
On the whole tuning method debate- personally, I think people should stop and think for a second. If a person cannot shoot consistently enough to get even a rough tune with bareshafts, should they really be trying to hunt? I get that hunting is the end goal, but I also believe we owe it to the deer we launch pointy sticks at that those pointy sticks are flying straight as possible and that we can put it in their vitals very, very consistently. Trad isn't an excuse to skip tuning, obviously, but it also isn't an excuse for missing or for being a bad shot. I think the vast majority of stickbows hunters would be surprised at how poorly they do on paper targets, and how good you can actually get with a stickbow. Some dedicated practice should get you similar to better accuracy than someone with a compound shooting a few times a year.

Edit: I'm by no means referring to anyone in the thread, by the way. I trust that you all know yourselves and can make good decisions, just thought I'd give yet another thing to think about
Click to expand...
Yep, you have a point on the hunting part. But conversely. To develop consistency a tuned batch of arrows does help. I agree though in a sense. New shooters get so hung up on bareshaft tuning and rarely get the results they want then they leave trad super flustered and think it’s way too hard. Arrows that are kinda close to where you need to be with a field point will fly fine to develop form.
 
Petrichor said:
Yep, you have a point on the hunting part. But conversely. To develop consistency a tuned batch of arrows does help. I agree though in a sense. New shooters get so hung up on bareshaft tuning and rarely get the results they want then they leave trad super flustered and think it’s way too hard. Arrows that are kinda close to where you need to be with a field point will fly fine to develop form.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, of course you don't want it to be super out of wack. I was referring more to when your arrows are flying ok fletched with field points, but broadheads or bareshafts are a little wonky.
 
Allegheny Tom said:
I like paper tuning for trad. With point of impact tuning, arrow location will will only be as good as your aim. And if our form isn't good enough for paper tuning, then how is it that we can depend on the point of impact?
I will admit that with paper you can get some inexplicable tears because of a pluck or other flaw, but with enough shots thru paper, you'll see what you need to adjust in your tuning.
Click to expand...

I have used paper tuning for the starting point when tuning a new to me bow. It will sometimes show you something you can’t see otherwise. I rarely got bullet holes and consistent bullet holes are hard to get because of the human factor of our sport. It does help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top