When I started shooting trad I started with carbon. The last time I shot aluminum was when I had a shop make some up for a compound bow. I will someday try aluminums. I generally shoot GT 600's out of my 40-45# recurves. I can trade a quiver I no longer want for a dozen 2016's 32". I usually run 200 or so up front. Draw 28". Are these or would they be compatible to what I use in carbon? I looked at the easton spine chart and read up some on them. I don't know how easily affected alum is by weight , length, etc as far as tuning. Would I be better leaning toward a 1916? Thoughts. Thanks.

Check out the spine charts at the 3 Rivers website. It should get you what you are looking for.

With a 32" 2016 that should be fine with 200 up front. That would be too much front weight for a 1916. I pretty much shoot aluminum 90% of the time. You didn't mention bow type (centershot) or string type.

2016 is what Easton labels as 500 spine in the black game-getters, but I don’t think I would mess with that kind of weight up front on a 1916, and I have my doubts about the 2016s as well.

On the other hand, a 1916 is 10.0 GPI, so (full length) you’d be at about 10 GPP with just a 125 up front. I shoot those (cut to 28”) with 125 up front out of my RER LB at about #50-#52 and a 27” draw, and they bare-shafted beautifully out to 20 but broke right (weak) between 20 & 30.

Nice thing about both 1916 and 2016 is that they are available in the Tributes, which can be had for about $3/shaft.

Not really a particular bow. Probably an older Bear. I like to gather things for future use but didn't want something that would be of little use to me. My eventual goal is to have every bow I own set up and ready to grab and walk out the door with. I also want to incorporate alum and woodies into the mix. Learn as I go. I'm sure I'm not the only guy to buy a bow that's a good deal then never get around to doing much with it. I'm on a mission now. Here's one - How about a 2016 with 200 up front out of a 45# Bear Minuteman? Sounds reasonable from what being said.

Why do you want 200 up front? 175 grns on 1916" cut to 27.5" work good out of my BW PLX 43# @ 28" with me drawing 26.5". 2016's with 175 grn tips also work with this bow and worked using my 55# Tomahawk's even better

High FOC. The deal is he wants to trade a dozen full length 2016 shafts Tree Bark Camo for a Thunderhorn Boa quiver. So that's what I'd be tuning to a bow that is around 45# or a little less. That's the weight I'll be at for awhile. I'm not quite what I used to be. I know in GT carbons the spine charts are wrong. Or at least heavy. I shoot 6oo's loaded up front out of 45# all day. So if a 2016 spines out around 500 I would think I would need some good weight up front. Just trying to get an idea. I'll probably trade him. He could really use the quiver and I could eventually use the arrows. Quiver ain't doin anyone any good sittin around. I went to smaller quivers.

I just don’t get why BOTH of you guys seem bent on going so nose-heavy...

I don’t think anybody much bothered with those really heavy points ‘til carbons came along....

Spine charts aren't wrong....mostly it's the way folks read them. Most don't understand how much of an influence centershot nd string material have on arrow spine. If you take the spine of that .600 GT and convert it to wood spine equivalency it spines 52lbs.. You can get away with 200grs. on the nose of it simply because carbon recurves very quickly from the initial bend.

Aluminum doesn't do as well as carbon for high FOC shafts for a couple of reasons. 1 is that it recovers differently, and 2 is because of the diameter. Now, if you want an aluminum shaft that spines almost exactly the same as the GT .600 and is closer to the same diameter the answer is the Easton 1820. But....1820's are heavy on their own.

2016's deflect .530", 1820's deflect .592"

2016's are 10.6 GPI, 307 grains at 29"

1820's are 12.2 gpi, 354 grains at 29"

With that shaft weight 200 grain heads (plus components) would be wicked heavy. imo, of course.

You can order single shafts from Lancaster. Since you draw 28" you have room to trim and see how they fly.

Per Frank's observations, I'd go with 125 grain heads, at 45 pounds draw a 2016 would still come in at around 10 grains per pound.

A 1916 might also work well for you.

I appreciate the input. I don't hang around here all the time but I come here for real answers. This site is where the knowledge is at. I search the threads then ask questions and it never fails that I learn.

For me the high FOC was something I came across years ago and tried. Aside from great penetration it also brings up my total weight with a bare carbon that starts at 7.8 gpi. I know there are weight tubes and such it just seems easy to increase overall weight by bumping up the front. If you're not sacrificing good results it seems ok.

So with an alum at a higher bare gpi total weight will already be up. I'm not opposed to less weight up front if it does the job.

Sparky, I shoot a 1970'ish Carroll's Gentleman Jim takedown, and use low stretch material. I can shoot 2016 at 29" with 125 to 145 grain tips and I get perfect flight. I also get mostly pass through shots on whitetail deer, and I wouldn't hesitate to use those on elk or even moose. Heavy fronts of center are not necessary because aluminum has good mass, and there is no empirical evidence that heavy fronts of center are needed .... nor have they aver been. Anyway, that's more a carbon thing. Fred Bear was killing everything on the planet with his 145 grain Bear Razorhead screw-in on aluminum arrows.

I wish people would learn to understand spine. It's been a recognizable thing now for nearing a hundred years but each year folks have no clue what it is in reality. A number on a shaft is just that...a number, but you still need to learn to analyze what spine does under dynamic circumstances. Just looking to see what everyone else does teaches you nothing...zero, nada. Interactive charts have taken away the need to really learn how spine works.

Us old guys had to learn by doing and digging into "why something works. That still is a great way to learn the gozintos rather than just ask and get a lot of ambiguous information.

I shoot 1916's with 125 grain Zwickeys with no problems. The bear I shot last year had a problem with it tho, lol

Isn’t aluminum shafting the reason they came out with 100 grain broadheads like the Eskilite I the first place? ;)

George - Stu’s calculator only prevents you from understanding the impacts of the guzintas if you only use it to produce an answer. If you just PLAY with it (in the scientific, experimental sense), you can learn an awful lot there, too...

It reminds me of my favorite Anatomy/Physiology professor who used to make his old multiple-choice exams available in the library for anyone to make copies so that they could study. Then after the exam a whole bunch of people would be walking around shaking their heads and wondering why they only got a “B”; all complaining “But I knew all the right answers!“

And I’d say “OK, but did you figure out why all of the wrong answers were wrong? “

Some of them just never caught on… But that’s OK, because not none of them are doctors.

But the Calculator is just a program; garbage in, garbage out.

There’s a bow I’m looking at; plugged in the specs using a Savannah as a placeholder and found several arrows that should work, but they were either too light, too long, or too heavy. Contacted the Bowyer about centershot, updated the value in the tool, and Voila - 9.0 GPP at my preferred length.

No difference in stored or delivered Energy - all of the numbers were the same except the spine figure, which increased by about a dozen pounds.

I shoot #43 at my draw from a recurve, low-stretch string. It bare shafts a 28" arrow with 1816 and 125g head absolutely perfect. I wanted to shoot Zwickey Deltas at 175g and the 1816 showed some weak with the additional weight, so I went to a 1916, 28" long and it bare shaft tuned just as perfectly with the 175g point. The bow shoots each arrow (1816 w/ 125 Simmons heads and 1916 w/ 175g Deltas)great. A little time in the yard shooting and tuning revealed what the bow wanted with each point weight. Its not just the old guys who figure stuff out for themselves....although I am getting some grey and a bit bald...LoL.

I think the 2016's can be made to tune to that bow by leaving them longer than 29" to decrease the dynamic spine and having heavier points. With 200 grains they would probably be fine cut to 29" but you would have to experiment.

My optimum choice would be a 1916 cut to 29" with 145 up front. More than enough weight to get the job done.

But I do understand you can get the arrows in a trade for the quiver and that bears consideration.

So just bought some Easton Legacy 2016 aluminums from 3Rivers. I have a Toelke Chinook that is marked 55# @ 28". I draw her to 27" with an 8 strand 450+ string. I've not scaled the Chinook so not 100% sure of the weight at 27". Should be about 53 lbs and it feels right about that. Cut the first arrow to 27" bop and fletched with 5" parabolics. First tried 175 gr upfront and they showed just a tad weak. Went down to 150 gr upfront and BINGO! Perfectly straight and just great flight and fast to boot. Total arrow weight with 150 upfront is 480 gr.

Stu's calculator says they should be stiff so not sure if the Chinook is just more powerful or what but these Legacy's sure fly great at that length and weight out of this bow. I'll be tipping these with 3 blade 150 gr VPAs. Highly confident in this setup.

Best of luck to you!

I've never found one spine chart that worked for me

Hummmm? This is real "Rocket Science"

Arrow spine is a really confusing thing to most folks. There is no bow that was ever made that will only shoot 1 spine range. All bows will shoot a much wider range of spines than people these days understand. It's just all about understanding the dynamics of what affects spine.

There was an excellent spine chart for aluminums on Arrows by Kelley a while back. Maybe you can still find it. It have the actual spine of aluminum shafts in woody equivalence. Great stuff!

I did find the Arrows By Kelly chart. I also whent to Rick's / Stu's calculator. Anyway it doesn't really matter with these particular arrows because even though me and the guy decided I would get back to him today he already traded them. Smh.

On the calculator I went with a Bear Minuteman I think that will be a bow I'd like to set up with aluminum arrows. Playing around it looks like a good arrow would be a 2114. I was looking at that because the 2 options he gave me to trade were 2016 and 2114. Of course he already traded them both. Anyway the 2114 seemed like it would be a good choice when I go to do this.

Yes Kelly’s arrow chart is very good.

GF, do you really think that is how folks approach a interactive spine chart? Yes, if you already have a good grasp of what spine is, both static and dynamic, then you can utilize it if you wish. If you don't know squat, and just use interactive charts, you still won't know squat and will always have to rely on them. I'm not convinced that even half who post here really understand spine enough to figure it out without someone else's program.

I know all I know is what I have learned doing things after I took someone's advice on what to do originally. I've read on it but you have to learn somehow. Someone said try this arrow then tune it. Then using the info on the ACS site and others I played around. I do know that the advice I've gotten off here and what I have learned since makes for a better setup than when I used to go to the local shop and they picked out my arrows for me. So far in my limited experience charts haven't been to true to me. Following a different thread I went to a chart tonight and played around. Next the only way to find out is make the investment and get started. Thanks again everyone.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here