Any cons to a 6 strand FF string over 10-12

[LBR]

I reckon there are still string makers that only offer one size of center serving?  That's all I can come up with.

[Friend]

My limited understanding is that six strand strings are typically only recommended for lower draw weights.

Break one strand in the field and your hunt is likely finished.

[Prairie Drifter]

I use 6 & 8 strand strings on all my bows. 6 for 50lbs and under, 8 for over. Been doing it this way for about 7 years.

[SteveB]

People should give the actual measurements of the non served string - NOT the strand count as 1 material may be less than 1/2 the diameter of another. Nobody would call a 14 strand B55 string skinny - 14 strands of mercury or even 8190F would be.

[LBR]

People should give the actual measurements of the non served string - NOT the strand count as 1 material may be less than 1/2 the diameter of another. Nobody would call a 14 strand B55 string skinny - 14 strands of mercury or eve 8190F would be.

Yep.  The diameter of the finished string could vary a LOT depending on what material is used.  

That said, I don't know of a material I'd be comfortable using 6 strands of other than 450+ and on a very light draw weight.

[Prairie Drifter]

Originally posted by LBR:
 

People should give the actual measurements of the non served string - NOT the strand count as 1 material may be less than 1/2 the diameter of another. Nobody would call a 14 strand B55 string skinny - 14 strands of mercury or eve 8190F would be.

Yep.  The diameter of the finished string could vary a LOT depending on what material is used.  

That said, I don't know of a material I'd be comfortable using 6 strands of other than 450+ and on a very light draw weight. [/b]

What do you consider " very light draw weight" ?

[LBR]

No more than 35# and a short draw length.  Basically a kid's bow, and only then if they are using small nocks so I couldn't get a decent fit with more strands.

[Prairie Drifter]

Originally posted by LBR:
No more than 35# and a short draw length.  Basically a kid's bow, and only then if they are using small nocks so I couldn't get a decent fit with more strands.

Well, Like I said , I've been using 6 strand on all my 50# and under bows. They are D-10. Several have been in use for over 5 years. I got several from SBD and some from Mike at Maddog. No problem w/ nock fit. I haven't had any issues or problems w/ skinny strings. I've found an uptick in performance and quietness.

[LBR]

That's your call.  I won't do it.  Any performance gain is minimal, and I've had lots of comments about how quiet my bows were with 12-14 strands of Dynaflight.  I've tinkered with them off an on for the last 20+ years in different materials, can't make them do anything I can't make a more moderate strand count do...except stretch/creep more and be less durable.  YMMV.  I have no reason whatsoever to give anything other than my honest opinion and experience.

[Prairie Drifter]

Originally posted by LBR:
 YMMV.  I have no reason whatsoever to give anything other than my honest opinion and experience.

Oh I agree w/ that. YMMV   :D

[oldbohntr]

Well, I've  pushed it to the limit for years-on my own bows.  I don't agree that 6 or 8 strands of Ultra Cam  or 450+ are weak, nor that they stretch/creep to any noticeable degree. I'm talking 10s of thousands of arrows. And, for what it's worth, I always have an extra string for any bow I hunt or 3-d shoot with....because all strings do fray. So I'm always ready to change strings at the slightest notice.  And, the more mediocre your bow's performance is, the more a skinny string will help it. I've never broken one. And, I don't consider the performance gain minimal, when considering all the factors. My ultra cam strings will weigh less than half of the mass of a "typical" 16 strand B50 string, including silencing, built up loops and double or thick single serving.

All that said, when someone wants me to build them a low-stretch string, I use 10-14 strands, simply so their know-it-all friends won't comment and instill doubt.  Most gains are still there...and it's that conclusion that is leading me to add a few more strands to my own strings as well. 8-10 strands of the best material, built and padded correctly, is still a vast improvement from most bowstrings in use today. I'm getting older and certainly will NEVER hunt w/o a spare string in my pack, but I don't enjoy making them as much as I used to.

FWIW, my go-to bows these days are mostly Border CHs, and I am following the recommendations of Border and using 10 strands of 8190 on those. Actually seems like a very good material, but I have little comparison regarding stretch at this point.

[forestdweller]

Originally posted by DanielB89:
     

Originally posted by forestdweller:
More stretch. I personally like a thick string since it's easier to get a clean release with (does not dig in nearly as much as a skinny string)
 

Okay,
I've heard this several times and I don't understand this logic. How would it matter when the serving is served to
The same size on both?  (Not intended in the least bit rude, geniunely wondering)

A GT nock served string is a GT served string no matter how many strands it's made of. [/b]

In my experience the serving does not pad the fingers as well as using more strands in the string itself does. It also does not perform nor sound the same. The skinny strings seem to be louder. The only reason I can think of for this is that with more string strands the vibrations (which translate to sound) can spread out more evenly among the string strands resulting in a quieter string.

Since I shoot my bows naked (no silencers) I prefer a thick Dacron string since in my experience it is much quieter than the fast flight materials when used on a longbow.

On recurves the difference is very hard to tell because both tend to be very loud until you add string silencers and limb dampeners along with a high brace height (again, my experience).  

I like a nice thick string. It's easier on the fingers, quieter, and gives a better release in my experience.

I mean I'm sure we can double serve a thin fast flight string and it will feel easier on the fingers but it will not feel quite as good as making the string itself thicker and it will still be louder than a thicker string and stretch more.

Why not just make the string thicker and drop arrow weight slightly? A thin string gains around 5+- fps or so over a standard string which really is insignificant in my opinion.

That's like dropping 25 grains in arrow weight.

I use 14 strands of B55 Dacron and with a selfbow that has a little string follow it's literally dead quiet regardless of arrow weight.

[LBR]

450+ isn't weak.  It's approximately 155# test per strand (static load).  The fraying is the tiny strands that compose the string breaking down, which will happen much faster with a low strand count (reduced durability).

Performance gains are usually 2-3 fps at best.  To me, that's minimal.  Almost anyone shooting can gain a lot more than that simply by working on their release.   http://www.safarituff.com/trophies.html  (bottom of the page)

Never broken a string myself, but I have talked to a few that have.  Never fallen from a tree stand, but I still won't get in a stand without a safety harness.

Strings don't weigh a lot to begin with.  16 strands isn't typical for dacron--I rarely build one with more than 12 -14 strands.  Even with a string that weighs half, buiding up the serving/double serving/etc. is done to the most crucial point on the string.

"when someone wants me to build them a low-stretch string, I use 10-14 strands, simply so their know-it-all friends won't comment and instill doubt."

I sure don't claim to know it all, but I have been studying strings and string materials for over 20 years.  I've been very fortunate to have access to BCY's vast resources, along with some of the best shooters and coaches alive.  Of course I have my opinions as well, but I try to make a point to keep those seperate from fact.

If 8-10 strands of a material was a big improvement, seems to me that there would be archers who shoot accurately for a living using them.  I've never met one that does in 20+ years of 3D or the last 5 years attending big tournaments like Vegas.  Not arguing what a person's personal preferance is, just making a point.

I've made lots of strings for Border bows.  It's only been recently he's started recommending 100% Dyneema materials like 8190 (Dyanflight '97, Mercury, etc.).  I'll just say they are the exception, and in dicussions with him about string materials, he has a bit to learn yet.  8190 is a very good material, but I like 18-20 strands myself.

Sid is going to have to figure out something else, because 8190 isn't going to be produced anymore once supplies of SK90 Dyneema run out, probably around the end of the year.

[oldbohntr]

Well, I do it mostly for me....I'm not a dealer or in the business.  But, other than maybe one tradganger, very very few have had the number of bows I have since 1973.  Virtually every of them got a new string as soon as I got them home.  I  did make strings to sell, but most of that was back in the B50-only days. When I make a dacron string now I do make it 10-12 strands to get what I can from it.  Could be true, a well made 12 strand B50 might approach the performance of a low stretch skinny string(2-3 fps?, assuming you are correct.)  But, that's a far cry from the "ropes" so many bow hunters are using.  The difference is significantly more than that, when you are talking about over-twisted, 16 or more strand strings with too much silencer and too much  serving.

Terry says his requirements amount to a "bomb-proof" string because of where and what he hunts.  So, for him, he chose the right criteria.  I seldom have any need for that.

I began by saying that I have not had the same impression of skinny strings as some others, and I find them acceptable for my criteria.  To conclude that this is not valid, based on what target archers use, just seems beside the point, and not fact-based(not my words). We're all talking opinions based on different experience, and we're entitled to those.    

There's no need taking this particular discussion any further.

[LBR]

"To conclude that this is not valid, based on what target archers use,..."

That's not what I said or meant.  My apologies for not being more concise.

My point with that example was, if low strand counts were better (at least from an accuracy standpoint) the best in the field would be using them.  I'll also note that a great many of these "target archers" are also accomplished bow hunters.    

You said "8-10 strands of the best material, built and padded correctly, is still a vast improvement from most bowstrings in use today."

That was a very broad statement.  The same could be said about any well made string with a moderate strand count.

I say this because I make it a point to check out strings at events, and the big majority of "stock" strings are very lacking.  Doesn't take much to be a vast improvement over a lot of them.

For me, I think anyone that is serious about archery (target, hunting, or otherwise) that accuracy is the #1 goal.  The most accurate in the sport, who spend the most time testing and studying every aspect of their equipment to work out the most accurate and stable set-up, don't use skinny strings.  That certainly is a fact.  

I won't attempt to argue opinions--those belong to the individual.  If someone likes skinny strings, nothing wrong with that--it's their choice. I'm just stating the facts as to why I don't use or recommend them.

If there are any questions pertaining to anything I've said, I'm more than happy to carry it further.  I love talking about strings.

[frank bullitt]

It's nice to live in an age, time, where we have so many choices!