Question on what would you pay for vanes

[galamb]

I pay 20 bucks for 18 Trueflight (feathers) for my traditional bows, and they chew them up quite regularly.

Even the "expensive" Blazer X2's are only a couple more bucks for 100. Even if I go "all patriotic", that will only set me back 30 bucks for 100 vanes.



I guess price is all "perspective" and replacing vanes or feathers is just part of the "regular maintenance" - I wish I could get as many shots out my rifles for the same cost as a dozen bolts plus the on-going fletching costs.

[j.krug]

I pay 20 bucks for 18 Trueflight (feathers) for my traditional bows, and they chew them up quite regularly.

Even the "expensive" Blazer X2's are only a couple more bucks for 100. Even if I go "all patriotic", that will only set me back 30 bucks for 100 vanes.



I guess price is all "perspective" and replacing vanes or feathers is just part of the "regular maintenance" - I wish I could get as many shots out my rifles for the same cost as a dozen bolts plus the on-going fletching costs.

Sweet Blazers galamb!

I don't shoot much and don't often take long shots while hunting but would not have a problem paying a few more bucks for my vanes. They are not that expensive to begin with and I don't usually wreck them shooting.

[Boo]

FYI.
Blazers are 2" and weigh 6.3 gr
SK 200s are 2" and weigh 4.8 gr
SK 300s are 3" and weigh 7.1 gr

Which of the SK are you trying?
I have some of the SK 200s, but have not fletched any yet, as have been using the 2" Blazers, & 2" Feathers by Trueflight. The Bolt fletcher will do the 2", but would have to get different fletcher, or arms to try the 3".

What I am considering, if there is enough interest, is testing Blazers vs SK 200s vs SK 300. Feathers are not in question because of the low frequency of use.
What kind of test? Again, if I feel there is enough interest, I will send out some Blazers plus SK 200s and or SK 300s. The point being to see if the SK 200s or the SK 300s exhibit better flight than Blazers. Blazers would be fletched in the same too as the SK 200s and the SK 300s. The tester would not have to test all 3. I think the serious long range shooter would be interested in the SK 300s.
SK 200s and SK 300s are an underutilized fletching and I suspect an unrealized treasure for some.

[Carnivorous]

Count me in for testing. I have a dozen zombie shafts not doing anything....

[Boo]

Could I get a "show of hands" of people that are interested? I think it's best that the 100 yards is used to see a greater difference. Photos and note keeping would be important.

[racking up points]

I could do a fair test for the SK300, SK200, and Blazers using spine sorted and indexed, weight-matched Spynal Tapps from my Matrix 410. I am currently testing 18.5" Tapps at 416gn with Blazers versus the SK200s. Everything about the arrows are identical, except for the fletchings, (so weight is only marginally affected). I have not gone past 50y yet, and haven't tried fixed blades so I don't see any big difference. My hunch is that the SK200s will shine past 50y and with broadheads. My other hunch is that the SK300s will be even better at extended range, but I think more affected by crosswinds with the greater surface area, which is a good trade off for the target archer.

[Boo]

I could do a fair test for the SK300, SK200, and Blazers using spine sorted and indexed, weight-matched Spynal Tapps from my Matrix 410. I am currently testing 18.5" Tapps at 416gn with Blazers versus the SK200s. Everything about the arrows are identical, except for the fletchings, (so weight is only marginally affected). I have not gone past 50y yet, and haven't tried fixed blades so I don't see any big difference. My hunch is that the SK200s will shine past 50y and with broadheads. My other hunch is that the SK300s will be even better at extended range, but I think more affected by crosswinds with the greater surface area, which is a good trade off for the target archer.

I forgot, the test would be done with broadheads.

[robertyb]

I have been shooting 2" Blazers on my 18" BEEs and 3" SK300s on my 18" spynal Tapps for a couple of years now. They pretty much fly the same out to 50 yards. Really can't tell the difference.

[Boo]

I have been shooting 2" Blazers on my 18" BEEs and 3" SK300s on my 18" spynal Tapps for a couple of years now. They pretty much fly the same out to 50 yards. Really can't tell the difference.

With or without broadheads Robert?

[tremps01]

Don. I'm in for testing sk300s up to 100 yards with broadhead. I have some sk that you gave to me last Boofest. Test could be done with FMJ or BEZ
When snow will melt

[Gamikatsu]

i would. Vanes are NOT that expensive all things consdiered. lets try em!

[Quintehunter]

I just got some SK300's to try out. They really aren't that much more expensive in the grand scheme of things. Besides, if it's made by Flex Fletch it has to be good! I've used ffp187's for target bows for years!

[nchunterkw]

Don, IMO this is a pretty tough one to test properly. You have a myriad of variables (wind, arrow spine, spine index, shooter ability, type of rest, BH type, blade alignment, trueness of BH to arrow, etc., etc.,) that I think could be large enough to swamp out any differences seen between the vanes. It would be best if you could convince a gun range (with an indoor 100yd facility) to let you shoot there. That would at least give you a solid environment to shoot in. And maybe standardize on a BH - maybe a Montec? since they are solid, one piece construction. And I think you would need to standardize on a shaft, and arrow builder too. Without controls like this, I think this one would be tough to get meaningful data from that would be clean enough for you to draw conclusions from.


Can't help it.....it's in my genes to think this way.

[strum]

Don your so vain

[galamb]

I agree that trying to get everyone to use a given head might be of value to establish a baseline, but I actually think better "real world" data could be gathered by individuals shooting outdoors under a number of varying conditions.

You might find that shooting in a "windless" controlled environment of an indoor range that Vane B produces consistently tighter groups. However, once wind gets involved Vane A or C might provide drastically better stabilization and are more resistant to wind plane giving considerable tighter groups "under the conditions they will be used in real life".

Also, Vane A might provide better results with an expandable, while B does best with a 4 blade fixed etc.

The more data from various sources the less likely that you can use the information to support a "pre-determined" conclusion.

I worked as a statistician (actually a statistical analyst) for a number of years. My first question always was "what do you want the results to say" (before I even looked at the data) - because you can support a conclusion with data by selectively applying the results.

And for the guy who is shooting a mechanical head, outdoors, in 20F windy weather, the results of shooting indoors with no wind @ 72F with a fixed 3 blade may not be of any use OR give him false confidence in possibly the most "inferior" vane for his actual purpose.

Sorry, you got me thinking out loud here