Is the process the same as for carbon. I have not shot aluminum for years and that was with a compound in the early 80's. I am trying them this fall with my new bow.

I select a static spine to match the draw weight, cut to one inch longer than my draw and change point weight and side window to tune. They're not as fussy as carbons.

Don't know about carbons, but as far as I know it would be the same process.

I use Ken Beck’s method. It’s on YouTube.

I'll look it up but I will only use 125 grain points

Forgot to mention I have a bunch of similar static spine shafts for each draw weight range. The shafts are different diameters.

So if a particular bow does not like a 2016 I'll try a 1918 or 2114.

When hunting I have three broadhead weights for lighter to heavier bows.

Zwickey Eskilites, Eskimo's and Delta's.

What is your bow weight and draw length. For me and a few of my bows a 1916 is a very versatile shaft to use. I shoot that shaft out of my bows that are 36# to 45# at 29" with 125 grains up front with no problems at all.

There are many charts out there that will give you a good starting point on what shaft to use.

I have many many aluminum's laying around. If you get a bead on which ones you want to try and I have them I will send a few off to you to try and keep.

Jon's statement illustrates that aluminium shafts are not as fussy to tune as carbons.

1916's, 2016's and 2114's are all go-to choices.

Just buy the right spine in the length you want, matched to the draw weight, and tip weight you want and shoot them.

I actually do the same thing with carbon when I use them but that's another subject. The best spine chart that I have ever found aluminum, and the only one I will use is available on a PDF on line. Just Google K.C. Gerlock Carbon/Aluminum spine chart.

My process sure is. But, now I'm curious- -- what is your process for carbons?

There are many methods of " tuning" and they yield different level of precision.

Aluminum only requires that you understand what spine really is and how to work the gozintos to go from static to dynamic. It's not that hard and there are just a few things to follow....we learned how to do it in the 60's. Today everyone needs an interactive chart rather than have to think it through. Luckily, we didn't have interactive charts to figure dynamics, so we learned in the hard way and it stuck with us. Honestly, you would be better off to learn how it works on your own for those times when you may not have someone else to do it for you.

As George said the same 'gizitos' apply. In my opinion at issue is the carbon that's available spine - .600, .500, and .400 are the main offenders. In that spine range with aluminum you probably have close to 10 different selections you can choose from.

Soooooo, if you think of that, it makes carbon less fussy. In the era that George is talking about almost everyone shot 125 grain tips. They changed the arrow if the setup didn't work, or at least the proshop that I worked with had me do. Nobody knew and they got to sell me more arrows.

With carbon to achieve the proper dynamic spine we increase or decrease tip wieght (which leaves out Babysaph) or shorten the shaft.

Here's the thing about carbon, it recovers fast. But to get it to recover fast you have to make it bend. A 125 grain head cannot make an arrow bend as much as a 250 grain head. I've found once they bend it's pretty easy to go 50 grains one why or the other and still get reasonable flight.

With wood you even have more to choose from. In the 50 to 60 pound range you have 10 different spines LOL.

If you want the least chance for false readings use www.fenderarchery.com/blogs/archery-info/basic-tuning for tuning.

Wood has a better formula for choosing spine so the above would work, but not necessary to cut off beautiful fletching. On the other hand the broadhead tuning at the end of fender should be used for everything. And in fact can be used to tune without a bare shaft.

Bowmania

Only wood tunes easier than aluminum. I have 2 cedar shafts that I tinker with. Well 2 that fly well for me. Rest are underspined. They seem much more forgiving. And weigh out the same as my XX75 2216 aluminums.

So I got an 1816 to shoot real well bare shaft. I read Vipers stuff on another site and he is right on. Like I said I know nothing about carbons.

You have chosen your shaft, 1916, your point weight, 125, your bow and your string. So you have fewer variables to work with. No problem, it should work out fine. I would leave the shafts full length to start with but would have a tubing cutter from your neighborhood hardware store, a stick of hot melt glue, a candle, a pair of pliers and a file.

If they show weak at full length, take off 1/2", chamber the cut shaft with the tang of the file, heat the glue with the candle, apple it to the point in the pliers and stuff it in the shaft. Trim until you just get good tune. When you damage the front of the shaft you should be able to take off a half inch at a time, a couple of times, and still be in tune. If you go still shorter raise point weight a step and you will still have a useable arrow.

Also, get several different kinds of simple tabs to see what the set up prefers. Different tabs or gloves can move impact by a foot a 20 yards.

Easy peasy, should work fine. - lbg

I did just that longbow guy. Thanks.

"Like I said I know nothing about carbons.". Im confused-- you wanted to know if process for tuning alums was same as for carbons, but you then indicate that you know nothing about carbons. Not sure how to help you...

Meant to say I know about Aluminum. Sorry

Wow. Can't type. I know nothing about aluminum .

I have always just got the right spine and cut to the right length, then just played with point weight til it shot well. No bare shafting.

Two things with aluminum shafts, diameter changes spine (the first 2 numbers are the diameter in 64ths and wall thickness changes spine (last 2 numbers is wall thickness in 0.001ths) for those that don't know. Along with length and point weight. The variability in the aluminum arrow weight, but shooting arrows extremely close in spine. a 2018 is very similar in spine as a 2213 but a big difference in shaft weight. DANNY

There's a good way for dummies like me. Buy a big old box of used aluminum arrows of all different sizes, put your favorite broadhead on each one of them and shoot it. Keep the ones that fly just right and get rid of the rest of them.

Then look for a good deal on more the ones that fly just right. For me it's 2216s and 2219s. There's something about charts that just doesn't seem to agree with 190 plus grain broadheads and long draw lengths. Not to mention all the different variableds that different bow setups can produce.

If you are only willing to use a single point weight you lose the big advantage of aluminum, ease of tuning with point weight.

With one point weight stick with carbon which tend to shoot a range of point weight the same.

I'm sure you're spot on Dave for most folks. I've always done things a little (backward engineering) differently. Something about me and tinkering just doesn't work out very well with me, especially when there's charts and numbers involved.

Reverse engineering rather

There is nothing wrong with using only one point weight. You can play with the length of the shaft, leaving it longer or shorten it to a point, if to weak. Aluminum is easily cut with a simple tubing cutter to help you fine tune shaft length, and using Hot Melt Glue to put in and remove the point insert between cuttings if need be. You don't have to worry about breathing carbon dust when using a cut off saw. The advantage of aluminum, is if you are only wanting to use one point weight, is the availability of the different shaft sizes, to find the one that works best at an arrow length you want, and you don't have to load the front end with brass inserts or heavy points, to break down the spine of the shaft, especially if you want to use lighter point weights. The other advantage is with aluminum is the weight is consistent and spine is consistent shaft to shaft. If there is a bad thing about aluminum is Easton doesn't have any competition, as far as I know, that is making them. On the other hand that is what makes them so consistent. DANNY

Just received a Fedora Sr. 560 43# and went out and took several 500, 600 carbons and a couple of 2016 w/ 125 gr head, the 2016 flew like darts. I find carbons to be fickle and aluminums easy to tune along with woods, always believed in the KISS method have enough complication in life and do not need it with a stick bow.

aluminum soup simple to tune for what ever point weight you choose

get an arrow the size(spine) you think you need leave long and bare shaft as cutting off a little at a time and when it flys straight then good to go

if gets too short to shoot go next spine up and start over

if too long then do with spine below

We're a good ways into it now... I may have missed something, but what's the draw weight and your draw length?

Actually you can tune aluminum, wood, or fiberglass the same way you do carbon. It's just all about using a spine that is statically stiff enough to support whatever point weight you want to shoot at a particular length and draw weight. Carbon isn't magic, and the main reasons that folks hang huge amounts of weight on the front is either because they THINK they have to to get a certain GPP weight or HFOC, or they don't understnad spine, and it's split about 50/40 down the middle between those 2 groups.

I shoot 41 pounds at 27 1/2 now. I actually am liking this aluminum. They are much heavier however. But I will get used to that .

Hico is correct-- no trick to tuning carbons. Just like anything where a precise outcome is desired--- go slow.

I believe many have been sold carbons that were way overspined by "pro" shops that have little to no knowledge of trad bows.

I agree most carbons are waaaay overspined

Unless you can find an Easton chart from back in the late 80's maybe early 90's for aluminums, after that the spine chart recommendations were to stiff for Tradiional, it was more for compound. Carbon spine charts are based more for compounds also. I got into an argument with a sales person one day about carbons and what should be used. What he was telling people they should used was 30-50 pounds stiffer than what he should have been recommending. He had never shot a Traditonal bow so was clueless, his answer was always the chart says.... DANNY

Spine is spine

I'm getting to the point where I don't really care what charts tell me to use. I just use what fly's just right

"I'm getting to the point where I don't really care what charts tell me to use. I just use what fly's just right"

And that is the best solution of all.

Shawn, I've done it for nearly 40 years. No one said aluminum would, or would not handle the same point weight in the same spine as cxrbon. Spine is spine regardless of the material that you use. Yes, there are differences in the recovery rate between materials. However, by choosing the correct static, and dynamic spine, you can shoot any head weight you want to on any shaft material. Recovery from paradox is ultimately a product of choosing the correct spine to begin with regardless of what the material.

On my recurves, usually 50-55#s almost always the spine charts tell me 2114 or 2018 - both fly like crap. 2117s are supposed to be way overspined for me (27 inch draw/160 BH) and yet they fly straight to where I look (as far as left/right)

I think those that claim most archers are overspined are not considering all the factors involved. Centershot, rest material, release, can all require a stiffer spine.

I always get the best bare shaft results with a heavier spine than the charts recommend- guess my release or something

its with every bow I shoot- but proof is in the pudding

The efficiency of the bow also dictates what shaft should be used on that bow. All bows are not created equal. Your release, along with using glove or tab, influences the shaft selection. Along with as usual shaft length and point weight. DANNY

So if your bow spines 50-55 lbs are you saying the charts are wrong?

Babysaph,

Bows do not have spine only arrows have spine. Spine charts are "just" recommendations, if nothing else they give you an idea where to start. So they are not wrong. As to your earlier comment "Spine is spine." that is true. Thing is the shaft's spine needed (no matter the mateiral) for a D style longbow of 50#@28", drawn 29", with a 125gr point, will not be the same shaft's spine needed for a recurve of 50#@28" drawn 29" with a 125gr point, even if using the same string material. 50-55 spine arrow at 28 inches to back of point is not a 50-55 on a 27" or at 31" arrow. The 27" arrow would be roughly a 55-60 and at 31" would roughly be a 40-45 spine arrow. So a 50-55 spine is only that for a 28" arrow with a 125gr point. So spine is spine for a given arrow length with a given point weight. You change the arrow's length or point weight you change the shafts spine. It is no different then when you shot compounds back in the 80's. DANNY

Too complicated for me.

Then how about this answer. Arrow shaft based on a 28" arrow. The same shaft cut longer makes it weaker/flimsy, the same shaft cut shorter makes it stiffer. Point weight based on a 125gr point, a lighter point weight make the shaft act stiffer, the heavier the point weight makes the shaft act weaker. That is not complicated. Again none of that is any different than when you shot compounds in the 80's. That is when I started shooting was in the 80's on compounds and that is when I learned it. The physics of it hasn't changed. If "I" can figure out that concept, you can to. Figuring out what arrow shaft you need on a longbow or recurve, is no different than it was in the 80's on a Compound or Traditonal bows. In the 80's arrow shaft recommendations in the Easton Charts were based on Draw Weight, Arrow Length, and Point Weight and they usually gave 4 shaft sizes as recommendations to choose from. They gave a recommendation listing for Compounds. Also a separate recommendation listing, which was different, for Recurves based on Draw Weight, Arrow Length, and Point Weight. It is no different then as it is now. Carbons are not going to be any different. There will be one recommendation for Compounds and one for Traditional Bows. DANNY

My feeling, like I have stated before, is you can only go by the charts to get you into 2 spines. All the charts put me at a 340 spine arrow which is too stiff for my bow unless I want to go way way higher than the 10 GPP. 400 spine arrows shoot great for me and in the aluminum's these are still at 11 gpp with a 145 grain point. I would use the charts, get a test kit to see how they shoot with different points and then use Stu's or any other calculator to get the best efficiency of your bow and arrow setup.

I get that. But to me spine is spine. If a compound take a certain spine arrow then a trad bow the same poundage should take the same spine wouldn't it?

Some of us figured out early that you could alter tip weights to affect spine, but we did have to learn it the hard way...no Leatherwall and no instant, instatmatic charts. I'm thankful for that.

Babysaph,

If that were the case, Trad bows would shoot as fast as a modern Compound. Which isn't the case. There is more energy released, at the release of the modern compound's bow string compared to a Traditional bow. I am guessing here at percentages, the modern compound is we will say 90% efficient with energy release to energy put in, when shot for a certain poundage, a recurve is 65-70% efficient at the same poundage of energy put it. What I mean by energy put in, is the energy it takes drawing the bow for a certain draw weight. The modern compound dumps its energy faster and more of it, than a recurve, do to the difference in the bow limbs efficiency in the two types of bows, and in a compounds case the wheel design. You ever seen the speed ratings for compound bows, different levels of bow quality same poundage different speeds, a lot to do with wheel and limb design. Again same as in the 80's. So you need a stiffer arrow for the modern compound do to its efficiency for it to fly straight "as in tuned" for the poundage being shot. The Recurve is less efficient with output of energy put in, so it shoots slower, and doesn't need as stiff an arrow as the compound to fly tuned. So just because a Compound shoot a shaft size at a certain poundage, because of the bows higher efficiency, that same shaft will be way to stiff for the less efficient Recurve of the same draw weight. DANNY

Aluminum is far easier to tune than carbon. Once you get the length close you simply tune with point weight.

My go to arrows for Mountain Sheep are 2219 Super Slams with 160 grain Thunderheads, the same combo I shot with my compounds in the 90's. The key is modern low stretch string. And the factory plastic vanes work fine.

Folks who feel they need to stick with a particular point weight should shoot carbon or wood.

camodave,

The reason aluminum's are easier to tune: Is there is a wider selection of shafts sizes. So you can shoot the point weight you want to shoot, with the poundage you are shooting, with an arrow length at or near the length you want, and you can fine tune with brace height. Woods are similar with a large offering of spine selections, but there is less of a selection of glue on point weights offered. Carbons there is less offering in shaft sizes. You have to make the closest spine shaft size work by either having to use heavy brass inserts with what point weight you want use, or use heavy points with the standard inserts, in some cases maybe brass inserts and heavy points, and you are usually shooting a longer arrow shaft than you may want, you need a squared up cut off tool to cut them square if you want to shorten them and you have to deal with the carbon dust. Carbons are the shafts you have to tune with point weight or insert and point weight because of the limited selection.

What you are doing is choosing the aluminum shaft you want to use first (2219), then trimming it "close", and then finding a point weight (160gr) that will make it work for you, with the poundage you are shooting. Instead of using the point weight you want to use first, finding the aluminum shaft size that will work best with that point weight, at the shaft length you want, with the poundage you are shooting. Both work, just 2 different ways of getting there, with aluminum shafts. DANNY

“If a compound take a certain spine arrow then a trad bow the same poundage should take the same spine wouldn't it?”

Nope.

What causes an arrow to flex at release is the force of the string pushing against the nock, opposed by the inertia of the point. The nock starts moving before the point does, so the shaft of the arrow has to flex out of the way.

Force = Mass X Acceleration

Increase the rate of acceleration with a faster bow, and you’ll need either a stiffer spine or less point weight.

A longer shaft provides the point with more leverage with which to flex the shaft. Shorter —> less leverage, so the spine reads as stiffer.

That’s why spine ratings are standardized for weight (#2) and the distance between supports.

Ok I got it. Then the same weight recurves could require different spines due to one outperforming the other. Might explain why the carts are useless.

Babysaph,

Yep pretty much, Especially if the chart comes from the factory. Stu Miller's Dynamic Spine Calculator comes the closest with shaft recommendations for Traditional Bows. If you just google it, it pulls up quickly. You put in the information it asks for, it will get you very close, if not right on. It asks for the bow you are shooting, the manufactures draw weight at the manufacture draw length, your draw length, is the bow center shot, left of center, string type, and a few of other things. His calculator take into consideration many factors before making shaft recommendations. If you haven't, you should check it out, he put a lot of time into it for everybody to use. DANNY

Thanks. I will look it up

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here