A/C/C Or A/C Super Slim?

Home Forums General Archery Discussion A/C/C Or A/C Super Slim?

This topic contains 21 replies, has 12 contributors, and was last updated by a7 A7 7 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • April 23, 2007 at 10:14 pm #495490 Back to Top REPORT
    mathews33
    Mathews33

    Joined: 12/11/2006
    Well thanks to TXarcher he has me checking out some new arrows. Which do you perfer the A/C/C’s Or th A/C Super Slims. I have never really shot easton arrows but always heard good things about them. Any info on these two arrows would be well welcomed. Thanks
    April 23, 2007 at 10:29 pm #511362 Back to Top REPORT



    Joined: 5/24/2004
    The only reason i would choose super slims over ACC’s is if i want to use Lumenoks. they dont fit ACC’s but do fit the super slims. The second reason is they are heavier and would slow the bow down. But the kinetic energy my be about the same if you pick up weight and lose speed. I have always shot acc’s and why fix it if it aint broke
    April 24, 2007 at 1:03 am #511363 Back to Top REPORT
    andy7yo
    andy7yo

    Joined: 2/18/2005
    I had a dozen AC Super Slims last year, they shot really good and looked killer with a green/white faded wrap and matching blazers.

    Been seriously thinking about getting some more just for hunting. The only problem I had is I bent one pulling it from a BH target, but only because I shot it with a field tip and it welded to the foam. #-o

    The plus to the ACC’s is you can get a uni-bushing and g-nock for them, where you can’t get one that fits right for the AC SS.

    Oh and Earl Pitts, kinetic energy always goes up with a heavier arrow, regardless ot speed loss.

    April 24, 2007 at 2:34 am #511364 Back to Top REPORT
    lane
    Lane

    Joined: 7/9/2005
    A/C Super Slim would be my choice but aren’t both of these made by Easton?
    April 24, 2007 at 2:37 am #511365 Back to Top REPORT
    danf
    DanF

    Age: 45
    Joined: 1/23/2007
    Location: PA
    View My Bows
    Super slim IMO :thumbup
    April 24, 2007 at 2:48 am #511366 Back to Top REPORT
    merve_01
    merve_01

    Age: 31
    Joined: 1/13/2007
    Location: Indiana
    Regular Accs are what I use and will never use anything different unless something radical comes along. The regular accs are plenty small and provide plenty of kenetic energy. I can’t shoot at 3d targets very long before I blow completely through and that includes rhinehearts and mckenzies. I also have blown through top quality bag targets such as morrel in less than 50 shots. I have also blown completely through more than 25 deer with my accs in the past 8 years with mechanical broadheads out past 40 yards.
    April 24, 2007 at 3:10 am #511367 Back to Top REPORT
    machinegun74
    machinegun74

    Joined: 7/26/2005

    Oh and Earl Pitts, kinetic energy always goes up with a heavier arrow, regardless ot speed loss.[/quote:3nxcvm6j]

    Sorry, your incorrect. You can get too heavy and lose to much speed which kills KE. There is a point both ways which you get the proverbial “diminishing return”.

    Oh and I dont use them but of those two Id go with ACC’s. [=}=]

    April 24, 2007 at 3:40 am #511368 Back to Top REPORT
    nippers
    Nippers

    Joined: 1/10/2006
    I’ve been toying with the A/C Super Slims…………..thinking I really “need” them…….but I’m likeing my FMJ’s too much………..I shot some with the wac’em heads and it went over half way through my broadhead target which was totally impressive since my Axis ST didn’t do that. I just wanna see what the “slickery” blood will do to make the shafts go even further through a moose ;) :D
    April 24, 2007 at 3:47 am #511369 Back to Top REPORT
    buckfever
    Buckfever

    Joined: 7/12/2004
    I’ve shot both and prefer the ACCs.
    April 24, 2007 at 12:38 pm #511370 Back to Top REPORT
    merve_01
    merve_01

    Age: 31
    Joined: 1/13/2007
    Location: Indiana

    Oh and Earl Pitts, kinetic energy always goes up with a heavier arrow, regardless ot speed loss.[/quote:1v1isy0q]

    Sorry, your incorrect. You can get too heavy and lose to much speed which kills KE. There is a point both ways which you get the proverbial “diminishing return”.

    Oh and I dont use them but of those two Id go with ACC’s. [=}=][/quote:1v1isy0q]

    I thought we just had an article putting this myth away last month by symo. The heavier an object the more kenetic energy always. Someone used an example of a cruiseship weighing 190000 tons going even 1fps will shred a peer. I think Symo used a 3000 grain arrow traveling around 165 fps produced more kenetic energy than a lighter arrow traveling MUCH faster… I think he was right…

    April 24, 2007 at 2:35 pm #511371 Back to Top REPORT
    machinegun74
    machinegun74

    Joined: 7/26/2005

    Oh and Earl Pitts, kinetic energy always goes up with a heavier arrow, regardless ot speed loss.[/quote:37a5sfke]

    Sorry, your incorrect. You can get too heavy and lose to much speed which kills KE. There is a point both ways which you get the proverbial “diminishing return”.

    Oh and I dont use them but of those two Id go with ACC’s. [=}=][/quote:37a5sfke]

    I thought we just had an article putting this myth away last month by symo. The heavier an object the more kenetic energy always. Someone used an example of a cruiseship weighing 190000 tons going even 1fps will shred a peer. I think Symo used a 3000 grain arrow traveling around 165 fps produced more kenetic energy than a lighter arrow traveling MUCH faster… I think he was right…[/quote:37a5sfke]

    All I know is being a gun junkie that for an example and this isnt taking into account coefficients etc. that a 50 grain bullet traveling 3000fps puts out roughly 1000 ft-lbs of energy while a 100 grain bullet traveling 1500 fps puts out about 500 ft-lbs from just about all the firearms KE calculators.

    Heres the formula used by the firearms industry. Id imagine the same can be said for bows and arrows.

    Energy = .5 * weight * velocity^2 / 7000 / 32.175

    And WTH kinda bow did he get a 3000grain arrow to do 165fps? :shock: I want one.

    April 24, 2007 at 2:53 pm #511372 Back to Top REPORT



    Joined: 5/24/2004
    ((All I know is being a gun junkie that for an example and this isn’t taking into account coefficients etc. that a 50 grain bullet traveling 3000fps puts out roughly 1000 ft-lbs of energy while a 100 grain bullet traveling 1500 fps puts out about 500 ft-lbs from just about all the firearms KE calculators.))

    Heres the formula used by the firearms industry. Id imagine the same can be said for bows and arrows.

    Energy = .5 * weight * velocity^2 / 7000 / 32.175

    And WTH kinda bow did he get a 3000grain arrow to do 165fps? :shock: I want one.[/quote]

    I agree with what you are saying . I shoot allot of guns . But what happens to those same bullets out at 100 yards , then 200 yards and so
    on . I think you reach a point where the 100grn is carrying more energy.
    Thats why i shoot 180grn instead of 150grn bullets in my 300 WSM .

    April 24, 2007 at 4:26 pm #511373 Back to Top REPORT
    merve_01
    merve_01

    Age: 31
    Joined: 1/13/2007
    Location: Indiana

    Oh and Earl Pitts, kinetic energy always goes up with a heavier arrow, regardless ot speed loss.[/quote:jefocrvo]

    Sorry, your incorrect. You can get too heavy and lose to much speed which kills KE. There is a point both ways which you get the proverbial “diminishing return”.

    Oh and I dont use them but of those two Id go with ACC’s. [=}=][/quote:jefocrvo]

    I thought we just had an article putting this myth away last month by symo. The heavier an object the more kenetic energy always. Someone used an example of a cruiseship weighing 190000 tons going even 1fps will shred a peer. I think Symo used a 3000 grain arrow traveling around 165 fps produced more kenetic energy than a lighter arrow traveling MUCH faster… I think he was right…[/quote:jefocrvo]

    All I know is being a gun junkie that for an example and this isnt taking into account coefficients etc. that a 50 grain bullet traveling 3000fps puts out roughly 1000 ft-lbs of energy while a 100 grain bullet traveling 1500 fps puts out about 500 ft-lbs from just about all the firearms KE calculators.

    Heres the formula used by the firearms industry. Id imagine the same can be said for bows and arrows.

    Energy = .5 * weight * velocity^2 / 7000 / 32.175

    And WTH kinda bow did he get a 3000grain arrow to do 165fps? :shock: I want one.[/quote:jefocrvo]

    I am not sure as I stated the exact fps. I just remember the arguement as I stated that I too thought there was a diminishing return on ke as weight goes up speed deteriates so far that there is a loss in ke. He did testing and through the argument “proved” that the heavier arrow will ALWAYS have more kenetic energy with everything else staying the same…

    April 24, 2007 at 5:02 pm #511374 Back to Top REPORT
    machinegun74
    machinegun74

    Joined: 7/26/2005
    merve, everything else doesnt stay the same. If the velocity drops to a level where you start to lose KE. To say the heavier projectile will always have more energy goes against 75 years of ballistic research. Sierra Bullets, Oehler Research, Walt Berger on and on. Plugging in the numbers from the years I was a longrange shooting nut, the VLD bullets would put out less muzzle energy but more than made up for it downrange due to design, ballistic coefficents, section density etc. Which leads to Brettov, in most cases yes the 180 grain will hold better numbers downrange, but you still have to take into consideration the ballistic coeffecient of the two bullets, a long ogive on the 150 with a boattail will hold up better downrange that a stubby fat ogived 180. [=}=]
    April 24, 2007 at 5:51 pm #511375 Back to Top REPORT
    nippers
    Nippers

    Joined: 1/10/2006
    merve, everything else doesnt stay the same. If the velocity drops to a level where you start to lose KE. To say the heavier projectile will always have more energy goes against 75 years of ballistic research. Sierra Bullets, Oehler Research, Walt Berger on and on. Plugging in the numbers from the years I was a longrange shooting nut, the VLD bullets would put out less muzzle energy but more than made up for it downrange due to design, ballistic coefficents, section density etc. Which leads to Brettov, in most cases yes the 180 grain will hold better numbers downrange, but you still have to take into consideration the ballistic coeffecient of the two bullets, a long ogive on the 150 with a boattail will hold up better downrange that a stubby fat ogived 180. [=}=]

    Unless you’re shooting one meant to keep the energy down range……..or one made of pure copper like the barnes TSX where they have to make the bullet itself longer than your normal lead core bullets to make up the weight………but you will lose case capacity with these because being longer, they have to be seated deeper into the case…….

    Anycase, I Believe that what you’re saying is correct Jason, especially at longer distances, but when you take into consideration the “short” distances of bow hunting, and all the actual shafts available out there, I don’t think you can realistically reach this point without making some drastic changes to your shafts by “nipper-riggin” them. ;) which I definately wouldn’t do.

    ;) :thumbup

    Basically I’ve seen that my ST shafts which weigh about 35gr less than my FMJ shafts won’t penetrate nearly as much……shooting out of the same bow, fletched the exact same, and using the same points. They are also shooting only about 8fps faster than the FMJ shafts and they’ve now been relegated to my “group” shooting shafts, trying for that elusive ST RH ;) :D

    :-B

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)