Back when I switched to carbons for my trad bows, I got all kinds of grief from some of the jerks on the Leatherwall. "Might as well just shoot a compound", said one mushbrain. Then after George D. Stout declared carbons were acceptable in the religious dogma of the time, tons of trad shooters discovered the advantages, and carbon became grudgingly accepted by all but the checked flannel shirt/fedora crowd.
Easier to hit weight if you're looking for 'heavy' without front-loading/high foc.
All of those things aren't necessarily of paramount importance when shooting a compound due to the tuneability factor, but those are all attributes that they have.
OP… you say you’re going to experiment, can you expound on your reasoning?
Ftp, yes, aluminum arrows come in a wide variety of spine choices because aluminum is not nearly as forgiving as carbons. They flex way more coming off the string, so precise spine matching is critical.
Or lost :-)
Not sure where you get the idea that weight tubes or weedeater string moves inside the shaft, but they don't. And paper tuning with and without string or tubes proves that adding weight the full length of the arrow does nothing to affect the dynamic spine. Adding weight on the tip, OTOH, definitely affects the dynamic spine.
My question to you is, have you ever shot carbons weighted with string or tubes?
But the bigger question is, why mess around figuring out the exact aluminum shaft when tuning is undeniably simpler with carbon shafts, penetration is demonstrably better, and they are more durable?
I shot aluminum for decades. Then a better solution came along.
All of that resonating vibration in an aluminum shaft is robbing energy from that arrow that is not lost from a carbon arrow, all else equal. Ninth grade physical science education should be plenty to figure that out. ;)
The amount of centershot that exists in a modern compound, and to a lesser degree in a modern Olympic ILF riser creates a degree of forgiveness in arrow spine that is unprecedented.
I've never seen a carbon tuning fork either. But by the same token I've never seen a wooden one either.
Have you ever seen a carbon arrow straightener?
I still wouldn't think it be an issue. If you want to try them then it would be worth the effort. Nothing is better than personal experience in situations like this.
They are tough. Real tough. Direct hits might break a Nock. But, you are t going to bend them. Or mushroom them like a carbon.
Anyone who has some xx78 in 2413, I’ll happily buy them from you if they are 27” long or longer.
I like the weight. I like the quieter bow. I like the pass through at any angle. I didn’t worry about it. I’ve shot deer in every angle you could imagine. From right up the butt hole to between the eyes with them. They just keep driving. I love ‘em. I just can’t find them anymore.
I shoot carbon mostly because of speed and penetration has been great. I got pass throughs with aluminum too but shot much heavier arrows (2219) out of heavier bows than I shoot now. And killed 7 deer with the same 2219.
I have way too much fun out on the 3D course to shoot an at arrow that I can’t afford to lose or damage.
For the ultimate in precision, aluminum (JMO) has the edge, but you might have to use a shooting machine to prove it. With a Human involved, that forgiveness that Jaq mentioned appears to trump Exactitude.
And the argument that an aluminum arrow somehow “robs” energy through oscillation may be technically correct, strictly speaking, but it’s just ridiculous, as a practical matter. Just contemplate for a moment the difference in the KE figures for a 40 pound longbow and a 60 pound compound. The longbow will throw one of those “horribly inefficient” wooden arrows, clean through a deer, if the set up is tuned right, and a lot of compound shooters can’t get a pass-through for Love nor Money…. so I would put broadhead design about a mile ahead of arrow composition on my list of things to worry about.
It does it because the weight increase causes the bow limbs to slow a bit, which in turn makes the arrow act stiffer.
The difference is that carbon has a wider range of tolerance no matter what the weight - within reason. I shoot the exact same arrows with my compounds, longbows, and recurves, with or without added weight. If I was still shooting aluminum, and I shot a LOT of aluminum over the years, both hunting and competition, I would probably need 4-5 different shafts.
Shoot whatever you like, that works for you for the type of shooting you do.
If there was an accuracy advantage aluminums would be winning Vegas every year.
with stickbows, i have always been able to tune aluminum much easier than carbon. at my draw length and draw weights, a 1916 or 2016 plus or minus 1/4-1/2" in length or 25-50 grains in point weight and they shoot like darts and are more forgiving of a bad release.
it's rare but i had bows that just wouldn't tune to my liking with a carbon arrow.
i like carbon for their toughness and quietness but if i had to choose just one, i'd choose aluminum.
If you have a bow riser cut this way, it’s been my experience that carbon is much easier to tune. It’s so accepting of length and tip weight versus a bow that’s cut to or short of center. Aluminum is too but, not nearly as broad a range of acceptance.
I’d be interested in your specs, there, Lou. Pretty sure I recall you shooting lower #50s but longer DL than I’ve got to work with. Fletched, I can shoot 600s +175 and 500s +200 pretty much interchangeably from my go-to #55 LB (it will sort the bare shafts about a foot apart at 40 yards) but the #50 LB only likes the former and the #55 recurves like the latter and the 400s I’ve got from my dalliance with the (#50) compound… I need about #60 to tune with that, but that’s why I have that bow ;)
So I’m finding that I need 3 shafts to cover (net) high #40s to low #60s… If I get nitpicky with aluminum I go 1816, 1916, 2016 and 2117 for the same range….