Matteo Campagna
ITEN
Menu
Menu

For tuning a recurve arrow, the weight at the tail matters more than the point weight

3 studies

ForContextAgainst199019952000200520102015202020252012, for2012, context1990, context
Each circle is a study: its position gives the year, its row whether it is for, against or context, its size how many participants it measured. Light circles are studies on other populations or without archers.

The claim comes from a single mathematical model, and it has never been tested with a real bow and arrows. In the model of a competition recurve with X10 arrows, compared with flash photographs of arrows shot from a machine, going from a 120 to a 100 grain point shifts the draw weight needed for a launch without rotation from 164.5 to 165 newtons, half a newton; going from 11 to 3 grain vanes shifts it to 161.5, three newtons, six times as much for less than half the mass removed. For scale, in the same model one spine size is worth about eleven newtons. The paper does not explain where the difference comes from, and the masses alone would not suggest it: measured on a competition arrow, the point weighs about five times as much as nock and vanes together. The author concludes that the point is not a useful tuning parameter and should be chosen for other reasons, such as wind or speed. Whether the model is right on this has not been checked by anyone on the bench or on the target.

Also phrased as: "changing point weight to tune"; "point weight and dynamic spine"; "vane weight and tuning"; "a heavier point weakens the arrow"; "tuning with tail weight"

In practice

When tuning, archers often change the point weight, as if it were the main lever for softening or stiffening the dynamic spine.

Evidence

  • 1990
    Context Equipment tests Published later

    In the work that models the arrow during the power stroke, with footage at 1,000 to 2,500 frames per second and a machine releasing in place of the archer, the point accounts for about 20 per cent of the arrow's mass and decides the position of the centre of mass; according to the manufacturer's data, for aluminium competition arrows, the centre of mass lies 7 to 9 per cent of the length ahead of the midpoint. The effect of point and tail weight on tuning is not studied.

    Experimental and theoretical research in archery · Roman Pekalski

  • 2012
    For Model Published later

    A finite-difference model of a Hoyt Nexus recurve with a 25 inch riser and Easton X10 600 arrows with a steel point, compared with flash photographs of arrows shot from a machine. For zero arrow rotation at launch, going from a 7.78 to a 6.48 g point (120 to 100 grains) shifts the required draw weight from 164.5 to 165 N; going from 0.71 to 0.19 g vanes (11 to 3 grains) shifts it from 164.5 to 161.5 N. In the same model one spine size is worth about 11 N. The author concludes that point weight is not a useful tuning parameter.

    Arrow behaviour in the lateral plane during and immediately following the power stroke of a recurve archery bow · James L Park

  • 2012
    Context Equipment tests Published later

    Masses measured on a complete Easton ProTour competition arrow: nock and vanes together 1.580 g, applied 15 mm from the nock; stainless steel point 7.776 g, applied 703 mm from the nock. The point weighs about five times as much as nock and vanes, but sits at the other end from them: this gives the scale of the masses the model compares, not a test of the effect on tuning.

    Modelling the three-dimensional vibration of composite archery arrows under free–free boundary conditions · Marianne Rieckmann, James L Park, John Codrington, Ben Cazzolato

Status history

  1. 1990 Not studied What the point weighs is known, not what it changes in tuning. In a study that models the arrow while it is still on the bow, with high-speed footage and a machine releasing the string, the point accounts for about a fifth of the arrow's mass and decides where the centre of mass falls, which for the manufacturer's arrows lies 7 to 9 per cent of the length ahead of the midpoint. Nobody compares weight at the point with weight at the tail: on the question there is nothing.
  2. 2012 Transferred A recurve model sets the two weights side by side. With a Hoyt Nexus and X10 600 arrows, removing twenty grains of point, from 7.78 to 6.48 grams, changes the draw weight needed for a launch without rotation by half a newton, from 164.5 to 165; removing half a gram of vanes, from 0.71 to 0.19, changes it by three, to 161.5. From the same year comes the weight of the parts, measured on a competition arrow: nock and vanes 1.58 grams at 15 millimetres from the nock, point 7.78 grams at 703, five times as much, at the opposite end. The comparison lives entirely inside the model, checked against photographs only for the overall behaviour: the claim rests on a calculation.

Related

Related articles

Research lines

Where there are no studies on archers, every decision starts from a written hypothesis and is checked against the data over time.

See the full assessment
Cite
APA

Campagna, M. (2026). For tuning a recurve arrow, the weight at the tail matters more than the point weight (Version 1). In Evidence Registry. Retrieved 16 October 2026, from https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/tail-weight-arrow-tuning

BibTeX
@misc{campagna2026_pesocodaaccordatura,
  author = {Campagna, Matteo},
  title = {For tuning a recurve arrow, the weight at the tail matters more than the point weight},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {Evidence Registry, matteocampagna.com},
  url = {https://matteocampagna.com/en/registry/equipment/tail-weight-arrow-tuning},
  note = {Version 1; accessed 2026-10-16}
}

Other claims in this domain

See all claims on equipment and tuning