.204 Stainless Outsert Options

[Planopurist]

isn't every insert that's put in an arrow smaller than the ID of the shaft? So wouldn't that be a problem for all inserts if that really was a problem?

True. Firenock solves the problem by using a reverse chamfer that centers the insert.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mighty Mouse]

But gee, isn't every insert that's put in an arrow smaller than the ID of the shaft? So wouldn't that be a problem for all inserts if that really was a problem?

Dorge would say yes, it is a problem for all inserts. His solution is to chamfer the shaft and mate it to a tapered lip cut into the rear face of the insert/half-out. The mating surfaces ensure concentricity, and the lip helps contain the shaft and prevent mushrooming.


The chamfer/taper feature isn't a bad idea, but it's still a half-out and leaves a long portion of head/point cantilevered out in front of the shaft, which will amplify the bending force applied to the end of the shaft when the arrow hits something at an angle. IMO a HIT is likely to be structually superior to a Firenock .204 half-out.

 

[Zac]

Dorge would say yes, it is a problem for all inserts. His solution is to chamfer the shaft and mate it to a tapered lip cut into the rear face of the insert/half-out. The mating surfaces ensure concentricity, and the lip helps contain the shaft and prevent mushrooming.
View attachment 385379

The chamfer/taper feature isn't a bad idea, but it's still a half-out and leaves a long portion of head/point cantilevered out in front of the shaft, which will amplify the bending force applied to the end of the shaft when the arrow hits something at an angle. IMO a HIT is likely to be structually superior to a Firenock .204 half-out.

That's a great picture I had no idea what the reverse taper was. The more I listen to Dorge the more I think I should just shoot a standard diameter shaft. The recovery factor of the micros is really fascinating.

 

[Planopurist]

Non-Concentricity would be problem every shot. Structural integrity would mostly be an issue on bad, angled hits on hard surfaces. I guess you have to pick your poison.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Non-Concentricity would be problem every shot. Structural integrity would mostly be an issue on bad, angled hits on hard surfaces. I guess you have to pick your poison.

Valid point, but if concentricity with the allegedly sloppy-fitting inserts that we've all been shooting for years is already good enough (i.e., broadheads hit with field points out to max effective range), what do we gain by switching to a Firenock insert specifically designed to improve concentricity? Said another way, if a Firenock insert reduces runout from .002" to .001" (making up numbers to illustrate the point) but you shoot just as well before and after, the 50% improvement in concentricity yielded no practical benefit. And if you have to sacrifice any structural integrity to achieve that meaningless concentricity improvement, the insert change results in a net loss in overall arrow performance.

As I alluded to in a previous post, Dorge sometimes overstates minuscule problems to make a case for his novel solutions. The concentricity improvement claims about Firenock inserts seem to me to fit this description. Kind of like the Firenock titanium fastener kits marketed as a weight reduction measure ("half as heavy as steel!") that shave a whopping 2 ounces off a 4+ pound bow.

 

[Planopurist]

Valid point, but if concentricity with the allegedly sloppy-fitting inserts that we've all been shooting for years is already good enough (i.e., broadheads hit with field points out to max effective range), what do we gain by switching to a Firenock insert specifically designed to improve concentricity? Said another way, if a Firenock insert reduces runout from .002" to .001" (making up numbers to illustrate the point) but you shoot just as well before and after, the 50% improvement in concentricity yielded no practical benefit. And if you have to sacrifice any structural integrity to achieve that meaningless concentricity improvement, the insert change results in a net loss in overall arrow performance.

As I alluded to in a previous post, Dorge sometimes overstates minuscule problems to make a case for his novel solutions. The concentricity improvement claims about Firenock inserts seem to me to fit this description. Kind of like the Firenock titanium fastener kits marketed as a weight reduction measure ("half as heavy as steel!") that shave a whopping 2 ounces off a 4+ pound bow.

I don’t really disagree, I don’t think the differences in the results are as far apart as the distinctions. In both cases, it’s sort of like “a solution looking for a problem” to me. I haven’t broken any arrows at the insert, nor do I shoot well enough to see the difference in a couple .001 runout.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[5MilesBack]

I put both issues in the camp of "until I start to experience those problems.....they aren't a problem". So ya, a solution for a problem that may not even exist. And after 15 years of use, I don't see these issues as a problem.

 

[Zac]

I think the concentricity topic comes from people inserting their inserts into a horizontal shaft. I don't think Dorge says his tolerances are any better, your just supposed to spin the shaft after the epoxy to ensure equal distribution. Then either put the shaft up or down to cure, I can't remember.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

I think the concentricity topic comes from people inserting their inserts into a horizontal shaft. I don't think Dorge says his tolerances are any better, your just supposed to spin the shaft after the epoxy to ensure equal distribution. Then either put the shaft up or down to cure, I can't remember.

I'm not sure if you're referring to the installation procedure for HIT's or Firenock inserts, but for HIT's Easton says to leave the shaft horizontal while the adhesive cures (presumably to prevent the HIT from possibly sliding up/down if the shaft were vertical).

 

[Planopurist]

I think the concentricity topic comes from people inserting their inserts into a horizontal shaft. I don't think Dorge says his tolerances are any better, your just supposed to spin the shaft after the epoxy to ensure equal distribution. Then either put the shaft up or down to cure, I can't remember.

His tolerances aren’t better, but he centers the insert with his chamfering tool. You’re correct about his recommendation to spin the epoxy for equal coverage and positioning them point up to cure. His premise is that the HIT method doesn’t lend itself to centered installation when lying flat or the proper depth if lying vertically.


@StraightWayOutdoors
Straight Way Outdoors, Fulcrum Archery, Elite Archery, Upwind Odor Elimination, Wicked Twisted Bowstrings, Pine Ridge Archery, Sevr Broadheads, Bloodline Fibers, Element Arrows

 

[5MilesBack]

His premise is that the HIT method doesn’t lend itself to centered installation when lying flat or the proper depth if lying vertically.

I have never installed a HIT that felt like it had room to move horizontally inside a shaft. If there was room, then ya.......I could see this being an issue. I just wonder how many arrows he's installed HIT's in that have shown this to be a problem. If it really was a problem, then I'd expect to see it show up on the arrow spinner........and especially down range with a BH attached. Until it's an "actual" issue.......it's only a "potential" issue.

Now, standing the shafts vertically right after putting the HIT's in.......absolutely, I would expect the HIT's to move.

 

[doc holiday13]

Lack of concentricity with the shaft and tendency of the front end of the shaft to splinter/mushroom. Skip to 8:47 if you want to hear a brief summary of his criticisms.

He claims that since the HIT is (necessarily) smaller than the shaft ID, adhesive can pool on one side and cause misalignment between the shaft and insert. In my (somewhat limited) experience with HIT's, I haven't had trouble with concentricity.

The front end splintering/mushrooming issue (if it exists) seems easily solvable with a collar.

I appreciate Dorge's ingenuity and relentless quest for improvement, but some of his products seem like expensive solutions to perceived problems that for all practical purposes have no discernable consequence.

I would agree with most of what you're saying..

I listened to these podcast over the weekend.. Dorge stated that there would be a slop of .001-.002" on the inside of the shaft.. I don't think people here can truly comprehend what that slop looks like. If you only had .001" slop, you won't pick that up with a spin test with the naked eye. That is basically what's called an interference/slip fit.. Think of it this way, if you drill a hole at exactly .500" and you try to put a .500" pin in that hole, it wouldn't go in unless you got the pin to shrink in size very temporarily so you could insert it.

Even if you had a pin that was .498.. it would barely fit unless it was a precision ground pin and the hole in was going into was properly reamed. Generally speaking you won't start noticing a variance in "straightness" of a part or a system(with your naked eye) until you get to be around .0035" runout when you are looking at ultimate straightness. but even then it depends on where that runout is on the part. if the beginning and the end of the part are concentric with each other; you could have a balanced s-curve in the middle of your part and never know it

the front end splintering/mushrooming is an issue that can be solved with a collar. However, i've had more arrows break in the middle while going through an animal than I've had mushroom/break at the end. BUT when target shooting I do see a lot of mushrooming from hard impacts(always from target over-penetration or missing and hitting a rock, tree, etc) and collars would have prevented it.

However, I am not denying that Dorge is very smart and knows how materials interact in different environments. He did make some very very good points in the Podcast and it did change a bit how I look at things

 

[Warmsy]

Another vote for hit and impact collars from iron wool. Hit melt the inserters, epoxy the collar. I shoot at rocks all the time. These arrows are bulletproof. Using axis of that matters

 

[doc holiday13]

Another vote for hit and impact collars from iron wool. Hit melt the inserters, epoxy the collar. I shoot at rocks all the time. These arrows are bulletproof. Using axis of that matters

Have you actually done hot melt glue for HITs ?? I've been hesitant to do it because of the residual glue preventing the field point or broadhead being put in?

 

[Zac]

Have you actually done hot melt glue for HITs ?? I've been hesitant to do it because of the residual glue preventing the field point or broadhead being put in?

I do it all the time. I screw a point in the end and shove the entire unit in.

 

[nphunter]

Another vote for hit and impact collars from iron wool. Hit melt the inserters, epoxy the collar. I shoot at rocks all the time. These arrows are bulletproof. Using axis of that matters

I hot melt the collars and epoxy the inserts, even when epoxied they will come out with a drill bit and some effort. I've pulled a dozen, soaked in acetone, and reused them. I've never used hot melt on anything that didn't eventually end up pulling out either in a bag, 3D target, or a tree.

 

[VLDAVE]

Concentric of the shaft / parts can lead to stability issues in loss of energy pending how bad the issues are.

!. If you have all your arrows with just inserts slightly off well then me may not notice anything becasue all the arrows will be subject to the same issue and produce the same result, however is that what an archer strives more.. For me no as a shooter and an arrow builder definitively no. Given the choice I would do the reverse taper insert all day long..

Aside from being concentric the reverse taper adds strength because now there is a locking joint between carbon and insert / half out. When Aero concept inner tube is introduced then you have serveal inches of the shaft having a double wall also afixed to the insert / half out that have dampening characteristics. In the case of the heavy wall inner tuber for small diameter shafts the inner tube will come in at a thick 8gpi + Half out weight.

In regards to .166 shaft,, which was an idea i had intoruced Dorge to at the Harrisburg show a couple years ago. The aero concept design was quickly implemented for micro shafts. In picture here is what Aero concept looks like in a micro. The Broad head is the female end ,, this was to allow wall thickness in a micro., Maybe I'll run this application by Dorge for .204,, thoughts?

 

[Zac]

Concentric of the shaft / parts can lead to stability issues in loss of energy pending how bad the issues are.

!. If you have all your arrows with just inserts slightly off well then me may not notice anything becasue all the arrows will be subject to the same issue and produce the same result, however is that what an archer strives more.. For me no as a shooter and an arrow builder definitively no. Given the choice I would do the reverse taper insert all day long..

Aside from being concentric the reverse taper adds strength because now there is a locking joint between carbon and insert / half out. When Aero concept inner tube is introduced then you have serveal inches of the shaft having a double wall also afixed to the insert / half out that have dampening characteristics. In the case of the heavy wall inner tuber for small diameter shafts the inner tube will come in at a thick 8gpi + Half out weight.

In regards to .166 shaft,, which was an idea i had intoruced Dorge to at the Harrisburg show a couple years ago. The aero concept design was quickly implemented for micro shafts. In picture here is what Aero concept looks like in a micro. The Broad head is the female end ,, this was to allow wall thickness in a micro., Maybe I'll run this application by Dorge for .204,, thoughts? View attachment 391841

So does the broadhead also work as an outsert?

 

[VLDAVE]

So does the broadhead also work as an outsert?

That particular swing blade broad head shown in the picture was specially designed for Aero Concept system in .166 application. However the Swing Blade was originally designed based on conventional insert / outserts with male end threads so Yes.. Here is the swing Blade with Falcon blade and larger Talon Blades

 

[sneaky]

Dorge would say yes, it is a problem for all inserts. His solution is to chamfer the shaft and mate it to a tapered lip cut into the rear face of the insert/half-out. The mating surfaces ensure concentricity, and the lip helps contain the shaft and prevent mushrooming.
View attachment 385379

The chamfer/taper feature isn't a bad idea, but it's still a half-out and leaves a long portion of head/point cantilevered out in front of the shaft, which will amplify the bending force applied to the end of the shaft when the arrow hits something at an angle. IMO a HIT is likely to be structually superior to a Firenock .204 half-out.

If you're worried about leveraging the half out in that system, you can use the half out that Dorge makes with the carbon tube that fits over half of the insert and extends 6in inside the shaft past that. Basically supporting the inside of the shaft for 6+ inches. If you lever that much from an impact, there really isn't a system on the market that's going to help in that case. Of course, you can trim that insert tube to whatever length or final weight you desire. It also helps with the tuning node of the shaft. I sold a lot of Firenock stuff when I had my shop, this was before the aeroinsert system and with the original half outs. I still prefer HITs to regular half outs, but with the half out system with the tube it makes it a better alternative.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk