Arrow Ballistics Study | 2026
Why FoC Is Hard To Test
The Core Problem
The intuitive way to test FoC would be to change FoC and hold everything else constant. That is not physically possible. FoC is the position of the balance point relative to the arrow’s length, so the only way to move it is to change where mass sits in the arrow, which by definition changes other things at the same time.
In this study, raising FoC almost always changes:
- Total arrow weight. More mass at the front means a heavier arrow overall.
- Launch velocity. A heavier arrow leaves the bow slower at the same draw weight.
- Front and insert mass. In this matrix, FoC was raised by adding internal FACT weights.
- Dynamic spine reaction. A heavier point changes how the shaft bends and recovers during launch, even if the static spine label is unchanged.
- Measured static spine. Across shaft families, manufacturer spine labels do not always map identically to deflection.
A single “FoC vs result” chart sweeps all of these at once. That is the trap this study is built to avoid.
Why Simple Scatter Plots Are Not Enough
A scatter plot of FoC against broadhead group size answers one question: across these specific builds, do tighter groups tend to come from higher-FoC builds?
It does not answer:
- Was it the FoC, or the higher arrow weight?
- Was it the FoC, or the slower launch velocity?
- Was it the FoC, or the change in dynamic spine reaction?
- Was it the FoC, or that the high-FoC builds happened to use a stiffer shaft family in this dataset?
These are real ambiguities. The data does not contain enough independent variation to answer them with one chart, no matter how it is colored or faceted.
Why The Matrix Design
Two paths are open when a variable cannot be isolated:
- Hold every other variable constant while moving FoC. Not possible, because FoC is a function of mass distribution.
- Span the joint space of spine, shaft, and up-front mass, then use post-test analysis to look at trends across the matrix while accounting for the variables that moved together.
The 2026 design takes path 2. The full matrix lives on the Front-of-Center Testing Overview; the post-test analysis lives on the FoC Analysis Overview.
Why The Same Broadhead Across The Matrix
Every analyzed build flies the same 100-grain QAD Exodus fixed-blade broadhead and the same 100-grain field point. This is the one variable the design holds constant on purpose.
A broadhead group’s aerodynamic and impact behavior depends heavily on the broadhead model and weight. If one build flew a 100-grain broadhead and another a 200-grain broadhead, the group-size difference would mix the effect of FoC with the effect of switching broadheads. That confound would be unrecoverable in post-processing.
Why FoC Was Raised With Internal Mass, Not Heavier Points
FoC was raised by stacking Gold Tip FACT weights inside the shaft, behind the same 100-grain insert and point. With the external point held constant, internal mass is the only way to push more weight forward.
That choice has a real consequence for how to read the results: the same total front mass placed outside the shaft as a heavier point sits farther forward of the center of mass and farther forward of the nock. It changes the front-end geometry, the leverage on the shaft during launch, and potentially the way the shaft bends and recovers.
The matrix can answer how this internal-FACT-weight version of FoC affects broadhead grouping. It cannot answer whether a heavier external point would behave the same way.
What This Matrix Can And Cannot Answer
Well-suited to ask:
- Does higher FoC predict smaller fixed-blade broadhead groups, after accounting for total weight, spine, and shaft family?
- After FoC is accounted for, do measured static spine and front mass still explain broadhead group quality?
- Do high-FoC packages look better or worse than low-FoC packages if total weight and launch velocity are treated as part of the package rather than separately controlled?
- Is there a sweet spot or reversal in FoC inside the tested range?
Not well-suited to ask:
- Whether a heavier external point behaves the same as internal FACT weight at the same total mass.
- Whether insert length independently stiffens or damps the shaft. Insert length, insert weight, and insert balance point are tightly correlated across the inserts available, so this matrix cannot separate them.
- Exactly how the shaft bends and recovers during launch. The study did not directly measure shaft oscillation, recovery rate, or paper tear during launch.
- Whether a different bow class, draw length, arrow length, or broadhead design would produce the same coefficients.
These limits are the honest scope of one matrix.