Our Products

Go to any competition, Field or Target, and not only will you see pretty well every combination of rods, ‘V’ bars, Doinkers and weights possible, but you will see very few exact duplicates. So why is it that, in an increasingly standardized sport, stabilizers remain a hotbed of individuality? Apart from the real differences between people - not to mention the natural cussedness of all true archers - I think that the main reason is that very few archers understand exactly what they are trying to do with their stabilizers and all-too often get locked into a mindset of 'the more the merrier and the more fashionable the better'.

Incidentally, to give some idea of how important I think stabilizers are, when advising newcomers with a limited budget, I always suggest that they invest in a simple long rod even before they think about sights. Sights can be improvised, especially for indoor shooting - which is how most beginners start in the UK - but a stabiliser can’t, and it will produce a bigger improvement in score than any other ‘optional extra’. In fact, stabilizers aren't ‘optional’ at all, for any modern bow.

What do Stabilizers do?

In order to make rational decisions about our stabilizer systems we must understand that all stabilizer systems have to perform three main tasks:

Their first, most obvious and easiest function is to control the shot by reducing pitch and torque (ie up-and-down and sideways movement). The best way to do this effectively is by the use of comparatively heavy weight's), preferably on the end of a comparatively long rod's). So one of the features to look for in any stabilizer system is that somewhere, whether on the long rod, the back rods of a 'V' bar system or counterweights elsewhere on the bow, there should be some sort of weight, preferably adjustable.
Their second function is to allow a steady, comfortable aim, by a) counterbalancing the natural tendency of the bow to come back towards the archer at full draw and b) generally damping tremors and shakes. To be effective in this function, a stabilizer system should allow you to move the balance point backwards and forwards easily. This may be done by adding and removing weights but increasingly it is achieved by sliding weights backwards and forwards, especially on multi-rod stabilizers.
Once you are past the stage of just putting a very basic long rod on the bow, this is the most important feature you should look for when setting up your stabilizer system. Almost any sensible stabilizer or combination of stabilizers will control pitch and torque adequately, steady aiming is the key to the success of more advanced set-ups.
Finally, stabilizers absorb vibration, making the bow quieter and more pleasant to shoot. This task is important, but less so than the first two. Vibration does not directly affect accuracy: by the time the vibrations start, the arrow is long gone. Ironically, this is the main, even sole criterion by which many archers judge their stabilizers. Vibration is not the same as large-scale movement, and it is quite easy to devise a setup that is almost vibration-free on the shot, but shakes like a leaf in the wind at full draw, and kicks like a mule on release. So, if you can get a quiet, vibration-free shot as well as the best possible groups, great, but always let the groups decide.

Incidentally, if the vibration in your system is severe, especially if bits are forever unscrewing themselves, or even breaking, the answer may not be more or better stabilization. It may be better tuning. The chances are that your cam timing or your tiller are out of true or that you are trying to shoot arrows that are too light or too weak.

Single rods

These are still the commonest type of stabilizer for Recurve and for any basic set-up. They are very good at controlling pitch and torque, but not so good at the other two tasks, although they are, a lot better than nothing. They have become distinctly unfashionable in compound circles recently, but if you are having grouping problems, especially torque (ie left-right) problems, they are well worth revisiting.

Multi rods

These days, multi-rod stabilizers are probably the commonest type of stabilizer for compounds, and are increasingly being used for Recurve. They are excellent for giving a steady aim, as they have a sliding weight system that allows the balance point to be adjusted without changing the overall mass. Used without an end weight, they are also very good on strongly deflexed risers, which tend to be front-heavy even without a stabilizer. Compared to single rods they are also very good at absorbing shock and vibration. The best overall multi-rods I have come across are the Kudlacek 'Genesis' series and the Beiter Centralizes. Of the two, I currently prefer the Beiter version, which is considerably lighter than the Kudlacek equivalents. The ability of any rod system to control pitch and torque depend mainly on how far forward it is balanced. The free-end rods may not control pitch and torque sufficiently for some archers, especially if the weights are placed far back, but they are excellent for steadying the aim and as shock absorbers. Fixed-end rods usually have additional end weights, but the light weight of the Beiter system means that the same effect can be obtained, with improved shock absorption, by using very long rods (up to 41").

Incidentally, several people claim to have invented multi-rod stabilizers, and I suppose someone must have been the first. But, with all due respect to the various claimants, including the gentleman who I am told has some sort of a patent dating from 1992, my experience is that the design evolved at several different times and places in the late-80's as a lot of archers thought of using carbon arrow shafts as a cheap way of getting themselves a carbon stabilizer. One shaft wasn't strong enough, so what did they do? Obvious - use several - and the multi-rod was born. I tried a home-made multi-rod in 1988 at the IFAA European Championships in Sweden, and I think I saw examples even earlier, but can't be sure.

'V' Bars

'V' bars are almost universal on Recurves and quite a few compounders use them also. The idea is to get more weight out around the bow, to control the pitch and torque better, but in a way that does not make the bow too front-heavy. They are well worth trying, whatever setup you shot, but in the end you are going to have to make up your mind whether the extra weight earns its keep.

Doinkers and TFC's

TFC's (Torque/Flight Converters) have been around for many years. Back in the Jurassic past - about 10 years ago - there were all sorts of 'rules' about when to use a TFC and when not to. There were also a number of high-flown claims for what they could do. In fact, TFC's, 'Doinkers', and the numerous other gizmos of their type are simply flexible couplings to go either between the bow and the stabilizer (TFC's) or between the rod and the weight (doinkers) to absorb shock and vibration. They can be extremely useful and can be used on any length of rod and in any place you like. Like so many things in archery, only shooting will tell whether they are worth having, especially as they tend to be comparatively heavy. The main advantage of doinkers over TFC's is that they can give good shock absorption without making the system too flexible (see below).

Mercury, Powders, Springs and Hydraulics

All sorts of other things have been used to improve shock absorption. Several stabilizers incorporate hydraulic or spring-loaded plungers while the idea of part-filling the tube with powder or foam comes up regularly. All these system work, to a point, and I have tried most at some time or another. But I have found none to be significantly more effective than standard systems and, in the end, you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Mercury stabilizers are worth a separate mention. They do work extremely well in the sense that they kill shock stone-dead in even the liveliest compound. However, not only are they very heavy (that is how they work!), they are inconsistent from distance to distance, and extremely so up and down hills. This is because they mercury is distributed differently, depending on the elevation at which the bow is held. On the whole, not to be recommended.

Limb Savers and other Sims products

Sims Limb Savers must be one of the most unlikely successes in the history of archery equipment. Just about everyone now has these funny little rubber mushrooms sprouting somewhere on their bow limbs. I was deeply sceptical when I first saw them, but the simple fact is that they work! They are the most effective shock absorbers yet devised and, contrary to expectation, they do not reduced speed or introduce any other problems into the system. Similarly the Sims Vibration Trap is an effective substitute for a TFC, although, in my experience, it is no better, or lighter, than the conventional item. As for string dampers, sight savers and all the other Sims bits-and-pieces, I can't help thinking that it is possible to have too much of good thing, but try them for yourself if you are interested.

Materials

The choice of materials for stabilizers is exactly the same as for arrows: alloy, carbon and composite aluminum/carbon in ascending order of cost. The claimed advantage of carbon and composites is that they are better at shock absorption. This is true, by-and-large, but it is worth repeating that shock absorption is only one of the three tasks a stabilizer system has to perform, and it is the one that has nothing to do with accuracy. The material, as such, has no direct effect on steadying the aim or controlling the shot. In the end, the choice of material is largely a matter of cost. I would rather have a carbon or composite rod, but alloys are not to be dismissed out of hand, especially if the budget is limited.

Parallel Rods vs. Tapered Rods - a question of flexibility

When I started shooting nearly all rods, long or short, were tapered. The reason for this was that - all other things being equal - tapered rods are more flexible, and absorb shock better than parallel ones. However, their very flexibility can become a problem. Short rods can have any profile you like, but tapered long rods do not steady the aim as well as stiffer, parallel rods, so the current tendency is to use parallel rods for stability, and then fit doinkers for shock absorption if necessary. However, my experience is that quality dictates how effective a stabilizer is far more than its shape. I would far rather have a top-quality AGF tapered long rod than some of the cheapo parallel rods I have come across but, ultimately, I would choose a good quality parallel rod.

In Summary...

I firmly believe that, at the moment, choosing and using stabilizers is an art, not a science, and I am deeply sceptical about the few 'scientific' and engineering explanations I have seen, except where they deal with really basic stuff like balance points and moments of inertia. The best advice I can give is: first remember that every stabilizer system has its three separate functions; second, disbelieve any claims for wonder materials or shapes (which, strangely enough, are always incredibly expensive and usually made or sold by the person making the claim) and finally, try to borrow before you buy. This is usually easy enough, as most long-term archers have a heap of discarded stabilizers in their equipment drawer at home!

In the end, there are no rules. Use what gives you, personally, the best, most consistent groups and don't worry about fashion. Here are a few guidelines to get you started:

Fit Sims Limb Savers. I know I said that vibration reduction is the least important of the three functions, but these little gizmos really do work and make most bows distinctly quieter and more pleasant to shoot.
If you are shooting a compound with a release aid, I suggest that you start with a single stabilizer, about 30" long. Get a multi-rod if you can afford it, if not, a comparatively stiff, parallel alloy rod. Personally, I wouldn't buy a carbon, or composite single rod, because they are not as effective as a multi-rod, but cost about the same. Slide the weights, or add/remove end weights until you get the most stable aim. This can only be done by feel, but is easy enough. I have found that, on a multi-rod, I usually get the best shock-absorption if the weights are equally spaced. Other than that, despite enthusiastic claims for the 'tunability' of some multi-rods, I still believe that it is their ease of adjustment for a stable aim that is most important.
A note of caution. Some people will advise you to add weight until the end of the stabilizer stays steady, or falls away slightly on executing the shot, ie never jumps upwards. Better advice would be to check your cam timing and tiller if your rod jumps excessively. Even when these are sorted, if you have a low hand position it is almost impossible, and quite unnecessary, to stop the rod lifting. the best advice is probably to ignore the end of the stabilizer, or you may find yourself tying a brick to it in the effort to stop a harmless, and inevitable action. Start with a light weight and add weights systematically, letting your groups (not the 'feel' or sound of your bow) be the final deciders.
After you have got used to the basic set up it is worth trying accessories. A TFC will make a difference, but weighs a lot, and that goes even more for a 'V' bar. A single back weight is worth trying, as is a single back rod on a 'V'-bar on the opposite side to your sight, to act as a counter balance. Remember that, although they do contribute to the other functions, 'V'-bars and counter weights are mainly concerned with getting a steady aim.
Always do the mental arithmetic: all additional stabilizers add weight; do they improve your score consistently and in the long term? If not, then they are just fashion accessories.