Some of you will think I'm nuts, but being a machinist, I am pretty sure what I see.

I have some old 24srt-x 1816 and some 1816 Swifts. They all spine the same.

When cleaning the ends up to put inserts in, the Swifts were fine.

But!!! The SRTs are not what the should be.

Same outside diameter, but the wall thickness on the SRTs is twice what they should be. Instead of being 16 thousandths of an inch thick, they are 32 thousandths.

In my 35 years of shooting stickbows and building hundreds of arrows, I have never seen this before.

Go figure.

Just have to find a BOW that the arrows will shoot from? If You can shoot the arrows then ENJOY! If no joy then trade or sell! BLESSED BE! BATMAN

Hmm.....maybe I should check my old 1815's! Strange that the they would spine the same. Do you suppose that just the front end is beefed up a bit?

Weigh them. Somethings not right here. If the wall thickness is really .032 they will be nearly twice as heavy as the others.

MP

Agree something is amiss, or the weight would be twice as heavy, and the spine would be much stiffer. Maybe just on the end of the shaft.

maybe the wall thickness is tapered on the thin one. I have seen that with copper piping.

Interesting as I would figure the 24srt's would have thicker walls as they were tougher shafts in regard to bending near the point when they struck a hard surface than the Swifts. I shot 1816's of both and also 1616's with the 24srt's. That was my experience with errant shots hitting rock bolders in Eastern Oklahoma. The 24srt's were more expensive than the Swifts.

Did have some red anodized Swifts I bought in 1970 for a light hunting weight take-down target bow I used for field archery. They seemed pretty durable. They were less expensive than the XX75's (referred to as "thin walls" then). Don't know if the XX75's would bend easier than the Swifts though.

Sure it is not a burr from cutting or the face is not flattened out from an impact? Is it the same on both ends? >>>----> Ken

Don't know squat about the arrow issue, but Merry Christmas you Old Pirate!!!

The aluminum May be made out of a softer compound thus requiring thicker walls.

Maybe corroded inside, bugs got in?

Yeah, you're nuts. And what a macho machinist you are!

Thats enough Beastyboy 8>P. Though you are right this time.

They are true 1816s. Idiotboy cut them off and also cut off the glue in pount, which at that time also had a 1 1/2 inch tube. And....the wall thickness of the tube is also .016....DUH!

Don’t think Easton’s equipment can make a tube that varies in thickness. Heated aluminum is pushed through a steel die, and the die size determines the diameter and wall thickness.

MP

It can't have thicker walls regardless of the spine or it would not be a 1816. Glad you figured it out. I bet the seam between insert and shaft was invisible after cutting.>>>----> Ken

Shaft cut off behind a Nibb point?.....Yep,that would do it!

I'm guessing someone cut them with a tubing cutter and rolled a burr on the inside

Bobby, you're "ab"normal most of the time but your not this time. I had a similar experience with vintage Easton blue X7 target shafts in 1916's. The s"standard" 1916 insert was a tick loose compared to the XX75, Legacy, GGII, etc.. <')))><

XX 75, Legacy, GGII, etc.

Bob:

You know this story would not be near as funny if you hadn't started out saying "Some of you will think I'm nuts, but being a machinist, I am pretty sure what I see."

Probably should have said "OLD" machinist!

Bob

Real "old"...Happy New years guys

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here