Archive for the 'Archery Evaluations' Category

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...

Published by admin on 04 Aug 2009

Quest XPB Test Results By Anthony Barnum

Untitled-1

Quest XPB Test Results

image003

By Anthony Barnum

 www.ArcheryEvolution.com

image005

image007

image009image011

Introduction:

A relative newcomer to the archery marketplace, Quest offers three different models in their 2009 lineup, with the Quest XPB designated as their flagship offering.  Utilizing a Twin Track Binary Cam System, the Instead of using a single cam system found on its brothers, the HPS and QS, the XPB utilizes a Twin Track binary cam system that is licensed from Elite Archery.  This cam system offers draw lengths from 27”-30” and provides dual integrated draw stops to fine tune let-off.  It is used on conjunction with the patent pending I-Glide Cable System, which replaces a standard cable rod as well as roller-guard assemblies found on some bows, to provide a smooth draw cycle and good speed.  The I-Glide Cable System also reduces the number of moving parts as the coated ceramic slides contained within the assembly are stationary at all points of the shot sequence.  These features are combined with pivoting limb pockets, a fully adjustable string suppressor, a broadhead guard and BowJax limb silencers, all of which come standard on the XPB, to provide a fine shooting system at a great price.

image012

 The XPB sample that was provided to Archery Evolution was measured to have a brace-height of 7.650 inches, while the axle-to-axle length was measured to be 32 3/16 inches.  The requested 29 inch, 60 pound model was measured straight out of the box to have a 29 1/4 inch draw length and peak draw-weight of 61.4 pounds.  At these settings, The XPB achieved an average speed of 311.0 fps when shot by hand in the out of box configuration with a 300 grain arrow.  When shot from the shooting machine with the addition of a string loop, the XPB achieved and average speed of 309.6 fps at these settings.    Even though the draw-length was within the test specifications, Quest requested that the XPB be set to exactly 60 pounds, 29 inches and five twists were added to the string per their recommendation.

 A thorough examination of the finish quality showed very few imperfections.  The only area where any blemishes were noticeable was on the interior portion of the cams; some machining marks were evident in the string track are where the loop end attachment post is located.  Other than that, the machining on the XPB was flawless and the Realtree® AP® finish was as good as any I’ve seen.  It is very rare to not have any noticeable blemishes on a riser as the surface area, with all of the cut outs, is quite large.  Yet, none were found on the XPB and coverage on the interior portions of the riser was excellent.  The camo finish on the limbs mirrored the riser and smooth edges were maintained throughout.  Finally, the anodized finish on the limb pockets, cams, string suppressor, and I-Glide cable rod assembly was also impeccable.

Detailed Test Results:

Speed / Performance Measurements:

image014

Speed measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average speed of the bow per inch of Power Stroke.  Utilizing the stored energy obtained from the Force-Draw curve, average dynamic efficiency was calculated.

Speed per inch of

Power Stroke:     13.9

Dynamic Efficiency:            83.9%

Vibration Measurements:

image016

Vibration measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average vibration in 3 dimensions as well as the total average vibration.

Positive X-Vibration:               125.6 g

Negative X-Vibration:             -174.3 g

 Positive Y-Vibration:                256.1 g

Negative Y-Vibration:             -266.4 g

Positive Z-Vibration:                144.2 g

Negative Z-Vibration:             -137.4 g

Total Vibration:  300.0 ga

 The addition of a 12 inch B-Stinger Pro Stabilizer with a 14 ounce weight yielded a significant reduction of peak total vibration when measured with a 360 grain arrow.

  B-Stinger Reduction:   19.2%a

Sound Measurements:

image018

Sound measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average sound output, the average A-Weighted sound output (mimicking the human ear) and the average C-Weighted sound output.

 Unweighted Sound Output:             104.1 dB

A-Weighted Sound Output:              86.4 dBA

C-Weighted Sound Output:              95.1 dBC

 The addition of the 12 inch B-Stinger Pro Stabilizer with a 14 ounce weight yielded a reduction of peak A-weighted sound Output when measured with a 360 grain arrow.

 B-Stinger Reduction:   0.9% a

image019

image023Anthony Barnum   image024Jonathan Teater

image003

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...

Published by admin on 04 Aug 2009

PSE Bow Madness XL Test Results By Anthony Barnum

Untitled-1

 

PSE Bow Madness XL Test Results

image026By Anthony Barnum 

 www.ArcheryEvolution.com

image005

image007

image009image011

 
 

Introduction:

The Bow Madness XL is PSE’s flagship offering from the mainline bows for the 2009 model year.  Like its brother, the Dream Season, the Bow Madness XL gets its name from a popular hunting show put together by Drury Outdoors.  Unlike the Dream Season, though, the Bow Madness XL is outfitted with a smooth drawing, highly efficient MC single cam system that provides a great degree of adjustability.  Not only can let-off be adjusted between 65% and 80% without difficulty, but the MC cam also offers 5 inches of draw-length adjustment without the use of a bow press (3 inches of which can be done without requiring any additional module)s.  With a bow press, the MC cam system becomes further adjustable as separate posts are provided to adjust draw length + ½ inch from the standard full inch incremental settings.  Other than the cam system, the Bow Madness XL looks and feels much like its X-Force counterparts in PSE’s Premier line as the riser and highly preloaded limb configurations are maintained.  The addition of the Backstop® string suppressor is also a nice upgrade from the 2008 model bows.

 image012

The Bow Madness XL sample that was provided to Archery Evolution was measured to have a brace-height of 6.313 inches, while the axle-to-axle length was measured to be 35 15/16 inches.  The requested 29 inch, 60 pound model was measured straight out of the box to have a 29 3/8 inch draw length and peak draw-weight of 62.7 pounds.  At these settings, The Bow Madness XL achieved an average speed of 320.1 fps when shot by hand in the out of box configuration with a 300 grain arrow.  When shot from the shooting machine, the Bow Madness XL achieved an average speed of 317.6 fps at these settings.    The Bow Madness XL was set to exactly 60 pounds peak draw weight through a slight adjustment to the limb bolts.  Note:  Per request from PSE, the Bow Madness XL was tested in the “out of box” draw-length configuration; no adjustments to draw-length were made

 Some minor imperfections in the finish of the Bow Madness XL were noticed during our inspection.  There was some minor serving separation on one of the end loops on the yoke cable, and a machining mark was evident on the Backstop® string suppressor.  Some small “pin-prick” areas on the riser void of the Mossy Oak Treestand camo finish were observed, as well, while a minor scrape in the upper limb area was also noted.  Other than these small items, the fit and finish of the Bow Madness XL was quite good and, visually, the bow was quite eye-catching.  Due to its long axle-to-axle length, you get the impression that the distance from the throat of the grip to the string on the Bow Madness XL is quite small.  Yet, it is still quite shootable and maintains and advertised 6 ½” brace height.

Detailed Test Results:

 Speed / Performance Measurements:

image014

Speed measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average speed of the bow per inch of Power Stroke.  Utilizing the stored energy obtained from the Force-Draw curve, average dynamic efficiency was calculated.

 Speed per inch of

Power Stroke:     13.1

Dynamic Efficiency:        84.5%

Vibration Measurements:

image016

Vibration measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average vibration in 3 dimensions as well as the total average vibration.

 Positive X-Vibration:               64.9 g

Negative X-Vibration:             -58.8 g

 Positive Y-Vibration:                116.4 g

Negative Y-Vibration:             -90.2 g

Positive Z-Vibration:                126.6 g

Negative Z-Vibration:             -157.8 g

Total Vibration:  161.3 ga

 The addition of the 12 inch B-Stinger Pro Stabilizer with a 14 ounce weight yielded a slight reduction of peak total vibration when measured with a 360 grain arrow.

 B-Stinger Reduction:   1.0%a

Sound Measurements:

image018

Sound measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average sound output, the average A-Weighted sound output (mimicking the human ear) and the average C-Weighted sound output.

 Unweighted Sound Output:             107.2 dB

A-Weighted Sound Output:              91.2 dBA

C-Weighted Sound Output:              98.8 dBC

 The addition of the 12 inch B-Stinger Pro Stabilizer with a 14 ounce weight yielded a reduction of peak A-weighted sound Output when measured with a 360 grain arrow.

 B-Stinger Reduction:   2.3% a

image020

image024Anthony Barnum   image023Jonathan Teater

image003

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...

Published by admin on 04 Aug 2009

2009 Compound Hunting Bow Evaluation By Anthony Barnum

Untitled-1

image066

By Anthony Barnum 

 www.ArcheryEvolution.com

 

Introduction:

Welcome to the 2009 Compound Hunting Bow Evaluation. The focus of this event is Hunting Style Compound Bows that highlight the cutting edge of those products currently available in the archery marketplace. The goal is to provide those archers who enjoy hunting with appropriate objective information, as well as some subjective commentary, for aiding in the purchasing process. That being said, this evaluation is by no means conclusive; some tests could not be performed due to limitations in resources, time, or budget. Each archer should assess what is important to him or her and interpret the results accordingly.  As always, we recommend that anyone who is in the market for a compound bow shoot as many different makes / models as possible to determine what best suits their individual needs and desires. The format of this year’s evaluation is very similar to 2008, with the only differences being some changes in the test equipment used to conduct the test as well as the inclusion of an additional Bow Segment: Long-Draw models.

image005

The 2008 evaluation expanded on our standard Flagship model evaluations by including both Short-Draw and Speed bow models.  Subsequently, we received some significant feedback regarding the inclusion of Long-Draw models to accommodate some of the larger statured individuals who enjoy this sport.  In an effort to meet this demand, we have provided the participating manufacturers with the option of including an entry in this segment.  We hope you enjoy the results and find the information provided to be both useful and helpful in your quest to find the best compound hunting bow for you!

Initial Conditions and Test Categories: 

Each participating manufacturer was asked to provide the compound hunting bow that they felt best represented their company and would best suit the following categories:

  • Speed per Inch of Power Stroke
  • Vibration
  • Efficiency
  • Noise Output

 

 Note: The criteria outlined in this evaluation were deemed to be the important factors to consider for a compound bow.  This evaluation in no way represents all areas that are important to archers.  Personal experience and preference were used to derive these criteria. 

 Upon receiving each bow, a thorough craftsmanship / quality examination is conducted straight out of the box.  An inspection of the finish and machining is conducted with notes taken on any imperfections that are noticed.  The areas of interest for this inspection are as follows:

  • Grip
  • Cable Guard
    • Cams
    • Strings / Cables
  • Riser
  • Limbs / Pockets

After the inspection is complete, a Revere Model 9363 load cell and TotalComp T500E indicator, adapted for use on a Hooter Shooter, are used to determine the peak draw weight, draw length (see Figure 1), Actual Let-Off and Effective Let-Off; brace height is measured to the nearest thousandth of an inch with a set of Mitutoyo Calipers.

 

Next, a New Archery Products QuikTune 3000 arrow rest is installed and each bow is shot by hand in the “out of box configuration” to baseline the speed of each bow as provided by the manufacturer.  The bow is then outfitted with a string loop of BCY #24 D loop rope and speed measurements are repeated both on the shooting machine, which provides an indication of the amount of speed lost by shooting from the Hooter Shooter.  After this assessment is made, tuning to Draw Length / Draw Weight specifications is made as follows:

  • Draw length is adjusted with modules or integral draw-stops (as applicable).
    • Modification to strings / cables is only used as a last resort with permission from the manufacturer so as to minimize impact to efficiency
  • Draw weight is adjusted through modification of the limb bolts
    • If the specified draw weight can not be reached by the particular bow (i.e. draw weight is too low), modification to the string / cable(s) may be necessary

 image007

Note: A tolerance was placed on both draw weight and draw length specifications as industry standards on how to measure these two items are ambiguous, at best.  For bows that were within these specifications straight out of the box, no modifications were made unless specifically requested by the manufacturer.  Where modifications were necessary to bring at least one of these parameters into specifications, it was recommended that both be corrected and set exactly as defined.

 All modifications requiring a bow press are made with a Last Chance Archery Power press.  This press uses an electric motor and screw-drive mechanism to apply pressure to the limb tips of each bow, reducing the amount of stress put on both limbs and risers.image009

 Draw-Force curves are then created to determine the amount of stored energy for use in dynamic efficiency calculations, after which performance testing based on the test categories begins.

 For the performance tests, 250 and 300 grain Victory Archery V1 Series VForce 300 HV Arrows, 350 grain Gold Tip Ultralight Series 22 Arrows, 360 grain Carbon Express Maxima Hunter 250 Arrows, 420 grain Easton ST Epic N-Fused 340 Arrows, 450 and 490 grain Gold Tip Pro Hunter 7595 Arrows, and 540 grain Easton XX75 2514 aluminum arrows are utilized.  These arrow weights equate to 5, 6, 7, and 9 grains per pound of the specified peak draw weight for all test categories except 70#, where the 540 grain arrow is used in place of a 630 grain arrow.  All arrow weights are verified using an Easton Advanced Grain Scale and confirmed with a Coffey Marketing US Reloader Digital Pocket Scale. 

 A Hooter Shooter is used throughout the performance testing to minimize human induced errors.  The Easton Professional Chronograph is used for all speed measurements in conjunction with the Pro-Chrono Digital Chronograph from Competition Electronics for confirmation.  The Easton Professional Chronograph was used primarily for its ability to display speeds down to the tenth of a foot per second.  Both chronographs consistently provided speed measurement within 1-2 fps of one another.

 Each bow is evaluated on the 4 objective criteria outlined below.  An addition to this year’s evaluation is the inclusion of Noise Output / Vibration testing with 6 grain per pound arrows while each bow is equipped with a 12 inch, 14 ounce B-Stinger Pro Stabilizer; where applicable, a image011

decrease in Noise Output and Total Vibration is noted in the report.

Test Category

Assessment

Dynamic Efficiency 

Provides an indication of the amount of energy output by a bow relative to the energy expended through drawing the bow back.  An assessment is made with multiple arrow weights

Speed per inch

of Power Stroke

Provides an indication of the amount of speed output by the bow over the distance from the valley to the static brace height position.  An assessment is made with multiple arrow weights.

Noise Output

Provides an indication of the noise output characteristics of a bow at the “point blank” range utilizing a series of shots with multiple arrow weights.

  Vibration

Provides an indication of the vibration characteristics of a bow during and after shot execution utilizing a series of shots with multiple arrow weights.

Objective:  The objective of the Dynamic Efficiency test is to provide an assessment of the amount of energy output by a bow relative to the amount of energy expended by drawing the bow back. 

Rationale:  The purpose of the compound bow is to transfer the energy expended in drawing the bow back (Potential or Stored Energy) into the energy propelling the arrow downrange (Kinetic Energy).  Unfortunately, not all of the Potential Energy is turned into Kinetic Energy.  There are various reasons for this, but regardless of the cause you are not getting all the energy out of the bow that you have put into it.  The reason for testing dynamic efficiency is to determine which bows perform the best in transferring the energy that is “stored” into the energy in motion that is released through the arrow.

Procedure:  A Revere Load-Cell, modified to mount on the Hooter Shooter, is used to create Force – Draw and Let Down curves for each bow.  The plot information obtained from this setup is then analyzed to obtain the amount of energy expended in drawing the bow back (See “Stored Energy” in Figure 2 below).  This value in pound-feet (lb-ft), considered “potential energy” (or stored energy) for this assessment, is then compared with the Kinetic Energy output by the bow during shot execution with 4 different arrow weights.  The Kinetic Energy is calculated with the following formula:

Where “KE” is in pound-feet, “Arrow Weight” is in grains, “Velocity” is in feet per second (fps) and 450240 is a conversion factor that accounts for unit changes between arrow weight (grains) and velocity (fps).  The ratio of the Kinetic Energy to the Potential Energy for all arrow weights is assessed. 

 

Example:  The speed of a 350 grain arrow out of the 70# BowTech 82nd Airborne was measured to be 341.1 feet per second (fps).  The speed of a 540 grain arrow out of the same bow was measured to be 281.4 fps.  Using the formula for KE above, we can show that the Kinetic Energy of the 350 grain arrow is 90.4 lb-ft, while the Kinetic Energy of the 540 grain arrow is 94.9 lb-ft.  Dividing these two KE values by the Potential Energy (109.1 lb-ft), a dynamic efficiency of 82.9% and 87.0% is achieved, respectively

Objective:  The objective of this section is to determine the speed properties of a bow based on the length of its power stroke at point blank range with 4 different arrow weights.

 

Rationale:  Because there are so many varying configurations in today’s compound bows (e.g. low or high brace height, reflex / deflex riser geometry), the amount of speed output by each bow per the inch of its power stroke is a reasonable way to compare each bow on more of an equal playing field.

 

Procedure:  Each bow is mounted to the Hooter Shooter. A series of 5 speed measurements are taken with an Easton Professional Chronograph at a distance of three (3) feet from the throat of the grip for each bow with 4 different arrow weights.  These measurements are confirmed with a Competition Electronics Pro-Chrono Chronograph, with the highest and lowest readings removed before averaging the speed per arrow weight.  The brace height of each bow is then measured and 1 ¾ inches is added to this measurement.  This value is subtracted from the measured draw-length to determine the length of the power stroke.  The power stroke value is then divided into the average speed for each of the arrow weights.  The average speed per inch of power stroke over all arrow weights is then calculated for use in the overall results.

 

Assumptions:  An assumption is made that the speed per inch of power stroke more accurately characterizes the speed performance of a given bow than just comparing raw speed of each bow without consideration for its configuration.  Another assumption is made that the string travel past the brace position during shot execution does not impart any energy on the arrow

Objective:  The objective of this section is to determine the noise output properties for each bow at point blank range.

 

Rationale:  A great deal of emphasis is placed on the amount of noise output by compound bows.  Today’s hunting bows have different noise output characteristics with varying arrow weights.  Many hunters use heavier arrows for increased down range kinetic energy, while others use lighter arrows for increased speed.  Because of these issues, noise output readings are measured at point blank range for 4 different arrow weights.

 

Procedure:  Each bow is mounted to the Hooter Shooter, after which a PCB Piezotronics microphone is setup at a distance of 36 inches from the throat of the grip of the bow.  The Microphone is set at a height of 36 inches, and is offset from the path of the arrow by 6 inches.  A series of five (5) shots is executed for 4 different arrow weights from each bow, during which sound output data is captured.  This data is then analyzed, after which the highest and lowest readings are removed; the average noise output is calculated for each bow for dB, dBA and dBC weightings.

 

Assumptions:  An assumption associated with this test is that the sample size of three firings per arrow weight is sufficient to correctly characterize the noise output of the bow at point blank range.

Equipment Used:   National Instruments USB Data Acquisition unit, PCB piezo-electric microphone, Matlab software. 

 

Test Setup:  Microphone mounted 36 inches in front of bow at a height of 36 inches, with an offset of 6 inches from the centerline, as shown in Figure 4

Objective:  The objective of the Vibration Test is to provide an indication of the peak vibration each bow produces under shot execution with four different arrow weights.  To most accurately reflect the vibration felt by an archer, the vibration data is collected on the front of the bow’s riser opposite the throat of the grip.

 

Rationale:  The less vibration output by a bow and felt by the archer during and after shot execution, the more enjoyable a bow is to shoot, especially during long practice sessions.  Our test equipment is highly sensitive; an archer may not be able to distinguish between some of the measured vibration outputs of given bows.

 

Procedure:  A PCB Piezotronics tri-axial accelerometer is attached to each bow on the front of the riser at a point opposite the throat of the grip.  A series of 5 shots is taken with 4 different arrow weights, during which vibration data is collected.  After data collection is completed, each raw data set is analyzed to determine the maximum Total vibration amplitudes (combination of X, Y, and Z vibration amplitudes; see Figure 6 below).  The highest and lowest measurements are removed, after which the average maximum vibration amplitude of the three remaining shots for each arrow weight is calculated.   

 

Assumptions:  An assumption is made that the front of the riser of each bow, opposite the throat of the grip is an area that is representative of the amount of vibration an archer can expect to experience

Equipment Used:    National Instruments USB Data Acquisition unit, PCB tri-axial accelerometer, Matlab software 

 

Test Setup:  Accelerometer mounted opposite the throat of the grip on the front of the riser, with orientation as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Accelerometer Orientation

Objective:  The objective of the Dynamic Efficiency test is to provide an assessment of the amount of energy output by a bow relative to the amount of energy expended by drawing the bow back. 

 

Rationale:  The purpose of the compound bow is to transfer the energy expended in drawing the bow back (Potential or Stored Energy) into the energy propelling the arrow downrange (Kinetic Energy).  Unfortunately, not all of the Potential Energy is turned into Kinetic Energy.  There are various reasons for this, but regardless of the cause you are not getting all the energy out of the bow that you have put into it.  The reason for testing dynamic efficiency is to determine which bows perform the best in transferring the energy that is “stored” into the energy in motion that is released through the arrow.

 

Procedure:  A Revere Load-Cell, modified to mount on the Hooter Shooter, is used to create Force – Draw and Let Down curves for each bow.  The plot information obtained from this setup is then analyzed to obtain the amount of energy expended in drawing the bow back (See “Stored Energy” in Figure 2 below).  This value in pound-feet (lb-ft), considered “potential energy” (or stored energy) for this assessment, is then compared with the Kinetic Energy output by the bow during shot execution with 4 different arrow weights.  The Kinetic Energy is calculated with the following formula:

image013

 

Where “KE” is in pound-feet, “Arrow Weight” is in grains, “Velocity” is in feet per second (fps) and 450240 is a conversion factor that accounts for unit changes between arrow weight (grains) and velocity (fps).  The ratio of the Kinetic Energy to the Potential Energy for all arrow weights is assessed. 

 

Example:  The speed of a 350 grain arrow out of the 70# BowTech 82nd Airborne was measured to be 341.1 feet per second (fps).  The speed of a 540 grain arrow out of the same bow was measured to be 281.4 fps.  Using the formula for KE above, we can show that the Kinetic Energy of the 350 grain arrow is 90.4 lb-ft, while the Kinetic Energy of the 540 grain arrow is 94.9 lb-ft.  Dividing these two KE values by the Potential Energy (109.1 lb-ft), a dynamic efficiency of 82.9% and 87.0% is achieved, respectively

 

image015Figure 2 Force-Draw Curve and Letdown Curve

 

Objective:  The objective of this section is to determine the speed properties of a bow based on the length of its power stroke at point blank range with 4 different arrow weights.

 

Rationale:  Because there are so many varying configurations in today’s compound bows (e.g. low or high brace height, reflex / deflex riser geometry), the amount of speed output by each bow per the inch of its power stroke is a reasonable way to compare each bow on more of an equal playing field.

 

Procedure:  Each bow is mounted to the Hooter Shooter. A series of 5 speed measurements are taken with an Easton Professional Chronograph at a distance of three (3) feet from the throat of the grip for each bow with 4 different arrow weights.  These measurements are confirmed with a Competition Electronics Pro-Chrono Chronograph, with the highest and lowest readings removed before averaging the speed per arrow weight.  The brace height of each bow is then measured and 1 ¾ inches is added to this measurement.  This value is subtracted from the measured draw-length to determine the length of the power stroke.  The power stroke value is then divided into the average speed for each of the arrow weights.  The average speed per inch of power stroke over all arrow weights is then calculated for use in the overall results.

 

Assumptions:  An assumption is made that the speed per inch of power stroke more accurately characterizes the speed performance of a given bow than just comparing raw speed of each bow without consideration for its configuration.  Another assumption is made that the string travel past the brace position during shot execution does not impart any energy on the arrow

 

image017

 

Objective:  The objective of this section is to determine the noise output properties for each bow at point blank range.

 

Rationale:  A great deal of emphasis is placed on the amount of noise output by compound bows.  Today’s hunting bows have different noise output characteristics with varying arrow weights.  Many hunters use heavier arrows for increased down range kinetic energy, while others use lighter arrows for increased speed.  Because of these issues, noise output readings are measured at point blank range for 4 different arrow weights.

 

Procedure:  Each bow is mounted to the Hooter Shooter, after which a PCB Piezotronics microphone is setup at a distance of 36 inches from the throat of the grip of the bow.  The Microphone is set at a height of 36 inches, and is offset from the path of the arrow by 6 inches.  A series of five (5) shots is executed for 4 different arrow weights from each bow, during which sound output data is captured.  This data is then analyzed, after which the highest and lowest readings are removed; the average noise output is calculated for each bow for dB, dBA and dBC weightings.

 

 Assumptions:  An assumption associated with this test is that the sample size of three firings per arrow weight is sufficient to correctly characterize the noise output of the bow at point blank range.

 

image020

 

 

Equipment Used:   National Instruments USB Data Acquisition unit, PCB piezo-electric microphone, Matlab software. 

 

Test Setup:   Microphone mounted 36 inches in front of bow at a height of 36 inches, with an offset of 6 inches from the centerline, as shown in Figure 4

 

image023

Figure 4 Microphone Setup

image025

Objective:  The objective of the Vibration Test is to provide an indication of the peak vibration each bow produces under shot execution with four different arrow weights.  To most accurately reflect the vibration felt by an archer, the vibration data is collected on the front of the bow’s riser opposite the throat of the grip.

 

 

Rationale:  The less vibration output by a bow and felt by the archer during and after shot execution, the more enjoyable a bow is to shoot, especially during long practice sessions.  Our test equipment is highly sensitive; an archer may not be able to distinguish between some of the measured vibration outputs of given bows.

 

 

Procedure:  A PCB Piezotronics tri-axial accelerometer is attached to each bow on the front of the riser at a point opposite the throat of the grip.  A series of 5 shots is taken with 4 different arrow weights, during which vibration data is collected.  After data collection is completed, each raw data set is analyzed to determine the maximum Total vibration amplitudes (combination of X, Y, and Z vibration amplitudes; see Figure 6 below).  The highest and lowest measurements are removed, after which the average maximum vibration amplitude of the three remaining shots for each arrow weight is calculated.   

 

 Assumptions:  An assumption is made that the front of the riser of each bow, opposite the throat of the grip is an area that is representative of the amount of vibration an archer can expect to experience.

 

image028

 

Equipment Used:    National Instruments USB Data Acquisition unit, PCB tri-axial accelerometer, Matlab software 

 

Test Setup:  Accelerometer mounted opposite the throat of the grip on the front of the riser, with orientation as shown in Figure 6.

 

image031 

Figure 6  Accelerometer Orientation

image033

 

 

We would like to thank the manufacturers and sponsors who provided equipment for this evaluation; without them and their support, this evaluation never would have been possible.

 

image035The Stabilizer Company provided a 12 inch B-Stinger Pro stabilizer with a 14 ounce weight for use in the noise output and vibration testing.  This adds an element of realism to the testing as many folks add accessories to help dampen vibration and minimize noise output.

 

image043

Last Chance Archery provided the Power Press Deluxe, which uses an electric motor mated to a screw drive mechanism to compress the limb tips of just about any bow on the market.  This press was extremely helpful in getting the bows fine tuned for the test.

image037

BCY provided the #24 D-loop rope used on each bow for the test.  This rope proved to be consistent, reliable, and easy to use.

 

image045

RAM Products provided their micro adjusting bow vise to aid in bow setup and tuning.  This bow vise proved to be a valuable tool throughout the test and is easy to setup and use.

image039

Carbon Express provided Maxima Hunter 250 Arrows weighing 360 grains for use throughout testing.  These arrows have the built-in weight forward design that helps to provide faster recovery after the shot.

image047

Rinehart Targets provided the 18-1 targets used throughout this testing.  These targets are extremely durable and boast a 1 year warranty; if you shoot out all 18 sides within 1 year of the purchase, Rinehart will replace the target no questions asked..  They are also extremely easy to pull arrows from, helping to make for a smoother testing process.

image041

Easton provided ST Epic N-Fused 340 Arrows weighing 420 grains and XX75 2514 aluminum arrows weighing 540 grains for use throughout testing.  An Easton Profession Chronograph with Infrared sensing devices was also used to capture speed measurements.

image049

Victory Archery provided the V1 Series VForce 400 HV 300 Grain Arrows for use throughout the testing.  These arrows proved to have very tight tolerances and were extremely durable.

 

 

Equipment Used:

General:

·         Hooter Shooter by Spot Hogg

·         New Archery Products QuikTune 3000 Arrow Rests

·         BCY #24 D loop rope

·         Mitituyo Calipers

·         Starrett Precision Rule

Force / Weight Measurements:

·         Revere Load-Cell / TotalComp Indicator

·         Easton Hand-Held Digital Scale

·         Easton Advanced Grain Scale

·         Coffey Marketing US Reloader Digital Pocket Scale.

Speed Measurements

·         Easton Bow Force Mapper Professional Chronograph

·         Competition Electronics Pro-Chrono Digital Chronograph

Noise Output Measurements:

·         National Instruments USB Data Acquisition unit

·         PCB piezo-electric microphone

Instruments used for Vibration Test:

·         National Instruments USB Data Acquisition unit

·         PCB piezo-electric Tri-Axial Accelerometer

 

Special Thanks: 

We would like to thank all of the manufacturers and sponsors who provided bows and test equipment for this evaluation; without them and their support, this evaluation never would have been possible.

 

Special thanks to Jeff Cole, who was kind enough to take hundreds of pictures throughout this effort.

 

image055

image053Anthony Barnumimage051Jonathan Teater  

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...

Published by admin on 04 Aug 2009

Hoyt AlphaMax 32 Test Results By Anthony Barnum

Untitled-1

Hoyt AlphaMax 32 Test Results

image026

By Anthony Barnum 

 

www.ArcheryEvolution.com

image005

image007

image009image011

Introduction:

For Hoyt’s 2009 flagship offering, the AlphaMax 32, some significant changes have been made.  These changes come in the form of the new ZT Lock limb pocket system, XTS parallel split limbs, and the XTR Cam & ½ system.  The ZT Lock system offers a forked limp pocket, which extends the limb to riser connection point, helping to provide tighter tolerances for attachment of the 5/8” XTS split limbs.  The XTR Cam & ½ system provides the ability to make modular adjustments to draw length without the use of a bow press or sacrificing performance; in years past, a complete swap of the cam system was required as draw length specific cams were employed.  These updates not only make the AlphaMax 32 more user friendly for both the consumer and the shop owner, but also help to provide a lower overall mass weigh which advertised at 3.9 pounds.  Even with these changes, the AlphaMax 32 is immediately recognizable as a Hoyt because the Total Engineering Concept® (aka TEC) riser, StealthShot® string suppressor, Shox damping accessories and Pro-Fit custom grip have been maintained from previous model years.

 image012

 The AlphaMax 32 sample that was provided to Archery Evolution was measured to have a brace-height of 6.938 inches, while the axle-to-axle length was measured to be 32 7/16 inches.  The requested 29 inch, 60 pound model was measured straight out of the box to have a 29 3/16 inch draw length and peak draw-weight of 62.9 pounds.  At these settings, The AlphaMax 32 achieved an average speed of 317.6 fps when shot by hand in the out of box configuration with a 300 grain arrow.  When shot from the shooting machine with the addition of a string loop, the AlphaMax 32 achieved and average speed of 315.1 fps at these settings.    Per Hoyt’s request, the AlphaMax 32 was set to exactly 60 pounds peak draw weight through a slight adjustment to the limb bolts.

 A thorough examination of the finish quality showed only minor imperfections, most notably on the riser.  Specifically, there was a small scrape in the riser near the back fork of the top limb pocket where bear aluminum was noticeable.  Also, some very small areas void of camo finish were noticed on the front of the riser near the grip area as well as in the recessed areas near the limb pockets.  Finally, some machining marks were noticed on the interior portions of the lower eccentric.  Other than these small items, the finish on the AlphaMax 32 was quite nice with great coverage on the interior portions of the riser cutouts.  The grainy texture of the finish conveys an additional element of durability and is quite appealing to the touch.

Detailed Test Results:

image014

 Speed / Performance Measurements:

Speed measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average speed of the bow per inch of Power Stroke.  Utilizing the stored energy obtained from the Force-Draw curve, average dynamic efficiency was calculated.

 Speed per inch of

Power Stroke:     13.2

Dynamic Efficiency:            84.4%

Vibration Measurements:

image016

Vibration measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average vibration in 3 dimensions as well as the total average vibration.

Positive X-Vibration:               50.0 g

Negative X-Vibration:             -51.1 g

Positive Y-Vibration:                103.8 g

Negative Y-Vibration:             -108.8 g

Positive Z-Vibration:                104.7 g

Negative Z-Vibration:             -120.1 g

Total Vibration:  134.1 ga 

 The addition of a 12 inch B-Stinger Pro Stabilizer with a 14 ounce weight yielded a significant reduction of peak total vibration when measured with a 360 grain arrow.

 B-Stinger Reduction:   11.0%a

Sound Measurements:

image018

Sound measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average sound output, the average A-Weighted sound output (mimicking the human ear) and the average C-Weighted sound output.

 Unweighted Sound Output:             105.0 dB

A-Weighted Sound Output:              87.5 dBA 

C-Weighted Sound Output:              96.5 dBC 

 The addition of the 12 inch B-Stinger Pro Stabilizer with a 14 ounce weight yielded a reduction of peak A-weighted sound Output when measured with a 360 grain arrow.

 B-Stinger Reduction:   2.1% a

image020

     image024Anthony Barnumimage027image023Jonathan Teater

 

 

 

Disclaimer of Warranties, Limitation of Liability: The authors have made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy and validity of their testing.  However, the authors specifically disclaim any warranty, expressed or implied, relating to the test results and analysis, their accuracy, completeness or quality, including any implied warranty of fitness for any particular purpose.  All persons or entities relying on the results of any testing do so at their own risk, and agree that the authors shall have no liability whatsoever from any claim of loss or damage on account of any alleged error or defect in any testing procedure or result.  In no event shall the authors be liable for indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages in connection with its testing.

 

 

 

1 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 51 vote, average: 5.00 out of 5 (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...

Published by admin on 04 Aug 2009

Diamond IceMan Test Results By Anthony Barnum

Untitled-1

Diamond IceMan Test Results

image026By Anthony Barnum 

 

www.ArcheryEvolution.com

image005

image007

image009image011

 

Introduction:

For the first time ever, Center Pivot riser technology is paired up with a single cam power plant in Diamond Archery’s flagship offering for 2009, the IceMan.  Utilizing this configuration, which has been used in the BowTech lineup for the past 3 years, provides many benefits to the IceMan, not the least of which is in the vibration / noise category.  Like its Bowtech brethren, the IceMan minimizes the use of e-clips for securing limb assembly components in place which is a benefit to the shop-owner and consumer alike.  Aside from this riser and limb configuration, the Iceman features a new single cam system that offers great adjustability.  Like its cousin, the BowTech Admiral, a rotating module is incorporated to cover the full spectrum of available draw-lengths, 24-30”, without the need for replacement modules.  This cam system also integrates an adjustable draw-stop, which helps to provide a hard back wall, while also providing timing marks to aid in the tuning process.  The streamlined roller-guard assembly and the more conventionally located string suppressor (now attached below the grip) round out the updates to the IceMan.

 image012

The IceMan sample that was provided to Archery Evolution was measured to have a brace-height of 7.438 inches, while the axle-to-axle length was measured to be 31 ¼ inches.  The requested 29 inch, 60 pound model was measured straight out of the box to have a 29 7/32 inch draw length and peak draw-weight of 63.8 pounds.  At these settings, The IceMan achieved an average speed of 304.2 fps when shot by hand in the out of box configuration (brass nock installed) with a 300 grain arrow.  When shot from the shooting machine with the addition of a string loop, the IceMan achieved and average speed of 302.5 fps at these settings.    Even though the draw-length was within the test specifications, Diamond requested that the IceMan be set to exactly 60 pounds, 29 inches.  A slight adjustment to the integrated draw stop and limb bolts brought the bow into exact specifications in short order.

 A thorough examination of the finish quality showed only minor imperfections.  Minor fraying in the serving around the loop end of the string was noticed and some excess grease on the Center Pivot structures was evident.  Some bubbling in the finish on the limbs was felt, as well, and there were minor “pin-point” areas void of film dip finish on the bottom limbs.  Other than these items, the finish on the IceMan was quite good and coverage of the interior portion of the riser cut-outs with film-dip finish was excellent.

Detailed Test Results:

image014

 Speed / Performance Measurements:

Speed measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average speed of the bow per inch of Power Stroke.  Utilizing the stored energy obtained from the Force-Draw curve, average dynamic efficiency was calculated.

 Speed per inch of

Power Stroke:     12.8

Dynamic Efficiency:        78.6% 


 Vibration Measurements:

image016

Vibration measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average vibration in 3 dimensions as well as the total average vibration.

 Positive X-Vibration:               34.7 g

Negative X-Vibration:             -35.3 g 

 Positive Y-Vibration:                82.5 g

Negative Y-Vibration:             -89.0 g

 Positive Z-Vibration:                53.7 g

Negative Z-Vibration:             -47.0 g 

Total Vibration:  101.3 ga 

 The addition of a 12 inch B-Stinger Pro Stabilizer with a 14 ounce weight yielded a significant reduction of peak total vibration when measured with a 360 grain arrow.

 B-Stinger Reduction:   10.4%a


 Sound Measurements:

image018

Sound measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average sound output, the average A-Weighted sound output (mimicking the human ear) and the average C-Weighted sound output.

 Unweighted Sound Output:             101.9 dB

A-Weighted Sound Output:              84.5 dBA

C-Weighted Sound Output:              93.7 dBC

 The addition of the 12 inch B-Stinger Pro Stabilizer with a 14 ounce weight yielded a reduction of peak A-weighted sound Output when measured with a 360 grain arrow.

 B-Stinger Reduction:   1.6% a

image020

image024Anthony Barnum                 image026                                     image023Jonathan Teater

Disclaimer of Warranties, Limitation of Liability:

The authors have made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy and validity of their testing.  However, the authors specifically disclaim any warranty, expressed or implied, relating to the test results and analysis, their accuracy, completeness or quality, including any implied warranty of fitness for any particular purpose.  All persons or entities relying on the results of any testing do so at their own risk, and agree that the authors shall have no liability whatsoever from any claim of loss or damage on account of any alleged error or defect in any testing procedure or result.  In no event shall the authors be liable for indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages in connection with its testing.

2 votes, average: 3.50 out of 52 votes, average: 3.50 out of 52 votes, average: 3.50 out of 52 votes, average: 3.50 out of 52 votes, average: 3.50 out of 5 (2 votes, average: 3.50 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...

Published by admin on 30 Jul 2009

Bear The Truth 2 Test Results By Anthony Barnum

 

Untitled-1 

 

Bear The Truth 2 Test Results

 

 image026By Anthony Barnum 

 

www.ArcheryEvolution.com

image005

image007

 

 

 

Bear The Truth                    

image009image011                       

  

 

Introduction:image012

The Truth 2 is Bear’s flagship offering for 2009.  Named after the popular hunting shows by Primos, The Truth 2 is the second generation of “The Truth” bow that debuted as a 2007 model.  The limbs on this bow are flared toward the axle end, which aids in evenly distributing the stress associated with the bow’s draw cycle.  The Dual Arc string suppressors are incorporated into the minimally reflexed riser and are included on both the top and bottom portions of the riser to combat excess string vibration.

 The Truth 2 sample that was provided to Archery Evolution was measured to have a brace-height of 6 13/16 inches, while the axle-to-axle length was measured to be 33 inches.  The requested 29 inch, 60 pound model was measured straight out of the box to have a 29 3/8 inch draw length and peak draw-weight of 60.9 pounds.  At these settings, The Truth 2 achieved an average speed of 299.5 fps with a 300 grain arrow.  A slight adjustment to the limb bolts and adjustment of the string post brought the bow into exact specifications in short order.

 A thorough examination of the finish quality showed some imperfections in the finish.  Some excess film-dip was noticed in the cutout area where the suppressors attach to the riser.  Also, a small area void of film dip finish was noted below the grip as well as multiple “pin-point” areas where film-dip didn’t adhere properly.  Finally, some minor machining marks were evident on the idler wheel.  Note that none of these imperfections seem to have an impact on performance and are noted solely from a quality perspective.

 The Truth 2 is outfitted with a synthetic grip, Winner’s Choice string and cable, and pivoting limb pockets.  The synthetic grip fits well in the hand and the strings / cables were visually appealing in that the fluorescent green serving material is translucent, allowing the consumer to view the separate colors of the green and orange string.  The cam system offers a string post which allows the user to make minor adjustments to draw length without the need to change out the module.  This feature was leveraged in our test model to bring the bow into spec.  There is no mistaking what this bow is or who it is made by as the “Bear” and “The Truth 2” logos can be found in many different places on the bow, including the grip, limbs, and limb pockets.  All in all, The Truth 2 offers a unique visual appeal in a nice shooting platform.

 

 

Detailed Test Results:

 image014

Speed / Performance Measurements:

Speed measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average speed of the bow per inch of Power Stroke.  Utilizing the stored energy obtained from the Force-Draw curve, average dynamic efficiency was calculated.

Speed per inch of

Power Stroke:     12.9

Dynamic Efficiency:        83.8% 


Vibration Measurements:

image016

Vibration measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average vibration in 3 dimensions as well as the total average vibration.

Positive X-Vibration:               84.4 g

Negative X-Vibration:             -93.8 g 

Positive Y-Vibration:                216.2 g

Negative Y-Vibration:             -219.5 g

Positive Z-Vibration:                170.5 g

Negative Z-Vibration:             -140.5 g

Total Vibration:  238.0 ga 

 Sound Measurements:

image018

Sound measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average sound output, the average A-Weighted sound output (mimicking the human ear) and the average C-Weighted sound output.

 Unweighted Sound Output:             102.4 dB

A-Weighted Sound Output:              83.4 dBA 

C-Weighted Sound Output:              93.8  dBC 

 

image020

image024Anthony Barnum           image023Jonathan Teater

 Disclaimer of Warranties, Limitation of Liability:

The authors have made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy and validity of their testing.  However, the authors specifically disclaim any warranty, expressed or implied, relating to the test results and analysis, their accuracy, completeness or quality, including any implied warranty of fitness for any particular purpose.  All persons or entities relying on the results of any testing do so at their own risk, and agree that the authors shall have no liability whatsoever from any claim of loss or damage on account of any alleged error or defect in any testing procedure or result.  In no event shall the authors be liable for indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages in connection with its testing.

0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 50 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5 (0 votes, average: 0.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...

Published by admin on 30 Jul 2009

Anderson Bow Company Crow XL Test Results By Anthony Barnum

 

 

 

Untitled-1 

Anderson Bow Company Crow XL Test Results

 

image026 By Anthony Barnum 

 

www.ArcheryEvolution.com

 

                                                                            image005

 

image007 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

Teaming up with Ed McPherson, who is a veteran in the archery industry, Anderson Bow Company offers three different compound bow models including the Crow, the Crow Ltd., and the Crow XL.  The Crow XL is Anderson’s flagship offering for the 2009 model year. Modifying the time-tested hybrid cam system design into its own unique cam system called SBDT™ (Statically Balanced, Dynamically Tuned), the Crow XL provides modularly adjustable draw length through the use of an integrated rotating module.  Timing marks are also provided on both the top and bottom eccentrics to aid in the tuning process.  The back-weighted riser is designed to be in perfect balance at full-draw and prevent the tendency to drop forward.  This provides a unique feel both during and after the shot and helps to keep the bow on target.  The two piece Cocobolo Wood side plate grip works in conjunction with a leather palm insert to provide a consistent contact point to the bow.  Through the combination of proven technology with unique balance concepts, the Crow XL is a solid shooting platform.

 image012    

 The Crow XL sample that was provided to Archery Evolution was measured to have a brace-height of 6.395 inches, while the axle-to-axle length was measured to be 36 9/16 inches.  The requested 29 inch, 60 pound model was measured straight out of the box to have a 28 15/16 inch draw length and peak draw-weight of 60.9 pounds.  At these settings, The Crow XL achieved an average speed of 298.7 fps when shot by hand in the out of box configuration with a 300 grain arrow.  When shot from the shooting machine with the addition of a string loop, the Crow XL achieved and average speed of 296.7 fps at these settings.  Note that at the time this report was written, the Crow XL was the only bow that was within tolerance of the test specifications.  As such, no adjustments were made to the Crow XL and testing commenced without any modifications necessary.

 A thorough examination of the finish quality showed a number of imperfections, although none of them would be considered major.  Specifically, the riser had many small “pin-prick” areas void of film-dip finish, especially in the recessed areas of the riser near the sight window.  These same voids in the camo finish were also found on both the limbs and limb pockets, where sizeable areas were noticed.  Other than that, the grip, cable guard, and eccentrics look good and no noticeable machining marks were found.  Aesthetically, the Crow XL could be more refined through the use of cut-outs on both the riser and the cams and the use chamfered, filleted or rounded edges.  That having been said, the bow balances well in the hand and is quite steady throughout the shot sequence.

 

Detailed Test Results:

 image014

Speed / Performance Measurements:

Speed measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average speed of the bow per inch of Power Stroke.  Utilizing the stored energy obtained from the Force-Draw curve, average dynamic efficiency was calculated.

 Speed per inch of

Power Stroke:     12.7

Dynamic Efficiency:        80.8% 

image016

 

 

Vibration Measurements:

Vibration measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average vibration in 3 dimensions as well as the total average vibration.

Positive X-Vibration:               103.6 g

Negative X-Vibration:             -102.7 g 

 Positive Y-Vibration:                215.5 g

Negative Y-Vibration:             -217.8 g

 Positive Z-Vibration:                244.5 g

Negative Z-Vibration:             -237.6 g 

Total Vibration:  276.8 ga 

 image018


 Sound Measurements:

Sound measurements were made with 4 different arrow weights to determine the average sound output, the average A-Weighted sound output (mimicking the human ear) and the average C-Weighted sound output.

 Unweighted Sound Output:             106.8 dB

A-Weighted Sound Output:              86.8 dBA

C-Weighted Sound Output:              97.1 dBC

 The addition of the 12 inch B-Stinger Pro Stabilizer with a 14 ounce weight yielded a reduction of peak A-weighted sound Output when measured with a 360 grain arrow.


image020

 

 image024Anthony Barnum           image023Jonathan Teater

 

 Disclaimer of Warranties, Limitation of Liability:

The authors have made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy and validity of their testing.  However, the authors specifically disclaim any warranty, expressed or implied, relating to the test results and analysis, their accuracy, completeness or quality, including any implied warranty of fitness for any particular purpose.  All persons or entities relying on the results of any testing do so at their own risk, and agree that the authors shall have no liability whatsoever from any claim of loss or damage on account of any alleged error or defect in any testing procedure or result.  In no event shall the authors be liable for indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages in connection with its testing.

3 votes, average: 4.00 out of 53 votes, average: 4.00 out of 53 votes, average: 4.00 out of 53 votes, average: 4.00 out of 53 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5 (3 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading...

Published by airborne49719 on 08 Jul 2009

The Journey from Right hand shooting to Left hand!

 

    I was introduced to archery at a very young age. This was kind of expected of the boys from our family that grew up in the back woods of the eastern end of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. My first bow was a 30 to 50 LB Darton compound bow. My dad bought it for my 11Th Birthday. It had no sights and when I asked my dad why the bow didn’t have sights he replied with “you have to earn them” so I asked being young and naive “how do I earn them then” and that is when he told me. When you can put six arrows in a pie plat at 15 yards I will get you sights for your bow. I spent all summer shooting that year trying to put six arrows in a pie plate. This was a hard task to accomplish at my age and at times I got so discouraged I just wanted to quite but my passion for hunting at this age had only begun. As the summer went by I tried my best but could never really get the hang of it completely.  My dad would watch and coach me telling me that I was dropping my arm or I wasn’t keeping my anchor points the same it was ruff. Plus my fingers would hurt from shooting for hours.   

  

    Then one day my dad while he was watching and coaching me I got really frustrated I was at 15 yards and still could not get my group to get any smaller than the size of a plate. He started to talk to me about  when I was even younger and how he would take me with him some times to meet a group of guys that always came to the Upper Peninsula from Ohio to bow hunt. These guys were quite the group they loved to party and tell stories about when they were younger and all the trouble they got into as they grew up.  For a kid it made going to deer camp so much fun. But it was there at deer camp around all those guys and my dad that I had learned about instinctive shooting. All the guys would get ready for opening day by pulling out a hundred dollar bill and put them on the bail of hay. The first one to put the arrow in the center of the bill at 20 yards won that round then they would back up to 30 yards and do it all over again sometimes they would even go as far as trying to do trick shots. It was this day that I remembered all the guys out shooting at those bills. How could they do it, what were they doing that I wasn’t. Then I realized they were just honing there skills to make them selves better and having fun while doing it.

 

    My dad asked me why don’t you go back to 5 yards and shoot. I looked at him and said but dad I have already mastered the pie plate at those ranges. That is when he reminded me about those guys and him shooting at the hundred dollar bills at 20 yards.  He then told me that if I move back up to 5 yards.  I would need to start working at grouping my arrows tighter in the target and picking different points on the target to aim at and you will improve. I took his advice and moved back up to the 5 yard mark and shot at the target like he told me. I felt like I had started all over again. But to my surprise I learned pretty quick that my grouping was not all that great and when I picked different points on the target I would be a half inch to a inch off.   I finally got the hang of it after I went back to the 5 yard mark and started over.  It was the summer I turned 12. I finally was able to put the six arrows in the pie plate at 15 yards. I got my sights and to boot my dad got me the new ball bearing release.  

 

    I have shot my fair share of deer in the past years with my bows that I have owned. I joined the Army in August of 2001 and it wasn’t till I deployed in February 2007 for Operation Iraq Freedom that would change my life. While I was deployed in Iraq we lost our first Soldier in March 2007 to a vehicle born improvised device. It was a dump truck loaded with 16,000 lbs of explosives that put a thirty foot crater in the ground. Since that day we had minor casualties up until August 2007.  When a Black Hawk crashed and Fourteen Soldiers perished in the wreck from the 25thInfantry Division. It was the day of the memorial service for the fourteen. My whole Company went to the memorial service paying there respect to the fallen Soldiers. I am not sure to this day why I left early to go back to my office but I did. It was there at my office where I meet SGT Collins, CPL Cornell, and PFC Axtell. I let every one in the office mind you that our office was your basic tin garage package minus the garage doors.  I was sitting at my desk and just finished talking to SGT Collins and CPL Cornell as they turned to leave and PFC Axtell was just entering the building from smoking a cigarette.  When a 127mm Brazilian rocket land five meters from the building. SGT Collins was KIA instantly he also took the brunt of everything that would have hit me. CPL Cornell was seriously wounded he received multiple wounds to his legs and upper body. PFC Axtell was also seriously wounded both of his legs were severed off at the waste. I was not wounded as bad as everyone else due to SGT Collins being only a foot and half away from me and taking the brunt of the shrapnel that would have hit me. I was the only one to walk out of that building on my own two feet that day. CPL Cornell and PFC Axtell are both doing really good and are a big inspiration to me on how i live my life now. PFC Axtell now SPC is out of the Army and has competed in two triathlon’s since he was wounded.

  

  I was very lucky that day for I must of had someone watching over me. I received shrapnel wounds to my right eye, top of the head and down the left side of my body. I was medivac to ballad, Iraq were they did my first surgery on my right eye to remove a large junk of shrapnel from my cornea that was allowing the fluid to leak out from my eye. I was then medivac back to Brook Army Medical Center in Texas. It was at Wilford Hall in Texas that I meet a Air force Doctor (Dr. Lane). He conducted my second Surgery which consisted of removing the rest of the shrapnel that was in my right eye and draining all the bad fluid and blood, he also did a lens transplant and sewed my Iris shut this surgery took around three hours. Since then I had a detached retina surgery in June 2009 to boot.  The seriousness of the eye injury is why I am here writing today it has been almost two years since that day in Iraq and my shooting style had to change.

 

    I just recently purchased my first left handed Compound Bow a Mathews Hyperlite.  But it took me a long time to finally switch to a left hand bow but I am glad that I did.  When I first got back from the hospital in September 2007 I was stationed at Fort Riley, KS the home of Monster Whitetail. I went straight into trying to make pins for my hoyt bow that would allow me to shot my right handed bow. I went to home depot and purchased some threaded rod 1/8 inch and took the dermal and started to make the pins I then found a old cobra sight bracket it all fit together perfectly but the bow look hideous. I didn’t care as long as it worked. The second time out in the woods I forgot my glasses and I took a stick to the right eye walking out in the dark so that ended archery season that year for me. I was then sent to Fort Carson, Co in June 2008 I love it here. I got so excited when I got out here “Elk” was the only thing I could think of and archery season was coming. I got my hoyt out and started to practice but after shooting right handed with my left eye it started to feel uncomfortable and I wasn’t sure why. I passed up a spike elk that season at 36 yards because I started to doubt myself and the ability to shoot right handed with being left eye dominate now.

 

    So in February of 2009 I bought a Mathews Hyperlite. This bow is awesome and Bill set me up right in every way. I went in to the Archery hut here in Colorado Springs and talked to the owner Bill about my situation and explained what I was looking for in a bow. He pulled his bow out from the office and said this is my hunting bow a Mathews right handed Hyperlight. He says its smooth easy to pull and light for packing around after elk. He let me shoot his hyperlite and I fell in love with that bow. After I shot it I looked at Bill and told him to order me one in left hand 55 to 65 lb pull.

 

   

I have been going to the range every chance I get to shoot it.  Took only two weeks to make the switch completely of brushing my right arm with the string and get the form of left handed shooting down. I am now once again chomping at the bit for elk archery season to begin. I will say this much from shooting right handed to switching to left handed it takes practice and it can be done. I am now shooting as good if not better left handed then I was right handed all because of the growing pains that I went through as a kid and learning how to shoot instinctive.  If you are going to learn you must be able to step back and think about everything you are doing in all situations to be able to grow in life.              

  

SGT Bennett

United States Army

 

“An army of deer led by a lion is more to be feared than an army of lions led by a deer.”

Chabrias 410–375 B.C. 

 

Bad Behavior has blocked 778 access attempts in the last 7 days.