Cutting X10's

[Jason Hanson]

Just a quick question about cutting X10's. I am thinking of purchasing a set of 550 X10 arrows. I will need to cut them down to 26 inches, but the easton guide states that the maximum trim amount for a 550 is 3.5 inches.

I was thinking about trimming a couple of inches from the back end of the arrow to get arround this problem, but was a little unsure how this would affect the spine of the arrow, and the fit of the pin. As these arrows are too damm expensive to get it wrong, I just wanted to get the views of a few of you that have shot X10's before.

Regards,
Jason.

[James Park]

I have never trimmed them off the back, however there should be no problem with pin fit since the aluminium tube is of constant size.
I know that clint used to trim the back because of the amount he had to cut off to get his arrow length.

[Marcus]

I cut Erika's down to 26" without removing any off the back and they are working very well. She shot a 590 indoor with them a couple of weeks ago and also has been shooting 57+ at 70m with them.
If I was doing again I would've taken maybe half an inch of the back, but that's all.

[Eberbachl]

:oops: rule number one, only hit submit once :oops: :D

[Eberbachl]

I've never shot X10's, but I have shot ACE's and used a similar principle. I've cut over an inch from the back of them for the same reasons....not as expensive if you screw it up, but they are still an A/C barelled shaft...so I guess the same rules should apply? Also never any problems with G-nock fit after cutting the back, as James said, the aluminium is a consistent size.

[marty]

Of course Easton doesn't recommend trimming from the back. They say that this compromises the design of the arrow. Cutting from the back tends to stiffen the arrow more than cutting from the front. Some folks go one size down and cut off the back to get an effective spine as one spine above. The arrow is lighter that way. I've heard of cutting two inches or more from the rear from the X10 and ACEs.

Any time now GT will chime in here I'm sure.

[Glenn Bourne]

Jason......just watch out for that tree on taget 6 I hear x10's don't like em!!

[Jason Hanson]

I swear that tree jumped out in front of me. :oops: :oops:


I don't think I will be playing with the speed of my release while setting up these arrows.

Thanks for you input guys. I think I will cut a small amount from the back and the rest from the front. I will leave them a bit long to start with, and work from there.

[2Dogs]

I do remember some info from Don Rabska saying that ACE's and X10's were really designed for recurves. nothing new

Don apparently said that a compounder should take 1/2 to 1" off the back of the shaft because the arrow did something better........can't remember WHAT was supposed to be better. Nodes or parradox....to do with the flexing

GT on other posts says don't touch the back end.

From experience I don't think it is very important. Cut them from where ever you like.

of all the people I know who have shot ACE's X10's only 2 of them ever cut anything from the back of their arrow...........and I was one of those IDIOTS :lol: :lol: ......it achieved nothing :o

[Marcus]

Well here is another story.

Back in the day when ACE's were the hot thing, before X10's, and when we thought that $36 an arrow for ACE's was outragous, Easton had pooured millions into the development of these shafts. They were engineered and built in a way that they were perfect. The fronts had a webbing on them for strength and they were barreled at the time (now not as much).

Anyway, barry McArdle was going around Sherbrooke's field during the Silver cup and was on fire. He was drilling everything with these ACE's he had just made up. The other GMB's on that target (I believe my Dad and Alan Weston ) were pulling his arrows from the centre and realised they looked odd. On closerinspection they found Barry had half of his set flected backwards! So some were correct, and others had the flecthings on the webbing side. Barry shruged it off and went on to win.

So after millions of $$ and years of development Barry comes along and proves it all pointless. :) :D

[2Dogs]

Yep :D :D we Archers seem to over analize everything. Modern Archery maybe very scientific.........but it's still an ART.

I think we just love playing with gadgets :o