![]() To have clearance for the quiver sitting that tight you have to lower the profile of the rest and sight in some cases. ![]() I think its well said above, if you're going to run a bow quiver and shoot with it on, it can make a substantial difference as the Mathews and Hoyt low profile quivers from what I know cannot be matched in how close they ride to the bow. They say "perception is reality." Well, we (the consumer) need to temper our expectations and that will get our perception more inline with the reality of the situation. What that leads to are posts on places like AT from people saying things like, "it's a gimmick" or "the changes weren't changes at all" or "the changes aren't worth the money" or event things like "no changes were made at all by Insert bow manufacturer name here, is just trying to sell you on their bow." Obviously, all of the manufacturers have and use this type of equipment in their design and testing processes so to them, every change is very noticeable and night and day but the average archery shop and consumer doesn't have access to and/or use this testing equipment so the changes aren't as noticeable. At first, newer technology was providing very noticeable night and day differences but now the differences are so finite and subtle and incremental that you need micrometers and scientific testing equipment to truly notice a lot of the benefits/improvements from the changes being made. Bows and their technologies have come so far that big wholesale changes to their platforms are a thing of the past. Don't get me wrong, sometimes those changes are exactly that but for the most part, those changes are going to result in incremental changes. The consumer immediately thinks it's going to be some earth shattering game changer. What I mean by that is the consumers hear there are changes and the manufacturers' words on the reasoning and added benefits behind the changes fuel the expectations of the consumer. When it comes to how changes by bow manufacturers are perceived by the consumer, I believe the consumer is a victim of their own expectations. Now, how that change is perceived will vary from shooter to shooter. Yes, it absolutely make a difference in how the weight is distributed on the bow and I believe it's for the better. I still would use a sidebar as it has more benefits than just countering the sight, quiver, and rest weight on the bow. But I will say the full setup was balanced very nicely when all the components where used and there was a noticeable difference in feel. Now is it worth all the extra money for all the components? Depends on the person. The tightspot does fit just as close, but it puts the weight further back on the bow than the mathews quiver does. hanging off the back making the bow more back heavy. The biggest difference it the quiver weight was pretty centered in the riser vs. But once I mounted the mathews quiver full of 470 grain arrows, it was drastically noticeable how better balanced it was than with a tightspot, and I am a HUGE fan of the tightspots. I noticed very little difference when I had the sight mounted to the side vs in the bridge lock. For example I played with a v3x with a 5 pin hogg father with the integrate qad. Yes it does help but it really isn't drastically noticeable until you get the quiver full of arrows loaded up in a quiver system that sits at the riser close enough that a traditional sight or rest would not clear.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |