why carbonfiber?

[settingsteel]

you dont get ANY advantage from super strong properties of this material, so you bought it for looks,(or thats the only advantage you RECIEVED, any way,(and looks are opinion) how much band power will it take for an open trac, teak gun to flex enough to matter...

thats the answer, man

...he who dies with the most toys wins

their of course is the "hey my Mr Carbon is a tack driver out to ---feet, and so fourth...I don't for a minute doubt that...but my reply is the user not the gun...and another which has an incredible influence is the confidence you place on your weapon (which IMPO one should never do, but rather place that confidence on yourself- this can be a thread on and of itself)if you think its awesome it'll "shoot awesome"

[jtkwest]

Originally Posted by chrismar

You've misunderstood the strength debate with relation to euro guns. If you reread my posts and what Pastor said, it's all about bouyancy. The point is that a euro gun made strong enough from carbon fibre can be neutrally bouyant with a spear in it, whereas an aluminium gun just can't. A woodie requires more mass and a wider cross section to be neutral. That's fine when you need seven rubbers, but most of us don't. Besides, a 140 euro with 2 x 18 has some serious grunt, equal to maybe a four or five 14mm band 55-60" midhandle.

ok i definately do not understand this stuff.:you are telling me the air pocket inside the carbon barrell provides enough bouyancy to neutrally bouy the gun, but the air pockets in an aluminum gun do not? ,seems that it would be comparable, no? so you guys are choosing cf in your long euro guns, because it is less bulky but just as strong and still remains neutrally bouyant. is that correct as you see it? ok i see your point. i didnt realize neutral bouyancy was even in the cards with a spear in it. how much teak does it take to float the weight of a spear, and why are none of the store brand wood spearguns i have ever seen neutrally bouyant? is that necessary? that it should be neutral? my 110 euro riffe isnt neutral, but isnt heavy and works good. is this an advantage, really?it definately sounds cool thats for sure.

[jtkwest]

[quote=chrismar;707444]I'm not going to debate the other relative merits of wood guns, but if you take Teak or Iroko as an example, you're looking at a specific gravity of 0.65 kg/dm3. That means it floats, which carbon fibre of course does not.

However, the carbon fibre barrel is hollow, whereas the woodie is not. When you calculate the relative bouyancy of a barrel with the same outer diameter using the different materials discussed, wood loses by a small margin to aluminium, but both lose badly to carbon fibre. The CF barrel also has a lower swing weight by a large margin and with short guns, you don't need mass to absorb recoil.

so with long guns you DO need mass to absord recoil? right ? then why go with a smaller diameter carbon barrell when you dont need extra strength OR desire less mass. that is my point. and in small guns you dont need much strength. plus what about silent release? dont wood guns make less clicking sounds on release. that can cause fish to react. as riffe claims?

[chrismar]

Download the file I attached and use it for ten minutes. It'll answer the questions. And no, the gun doesn't have to be neutrally bouyant, but a specific gravity of 1.005 is better than 1.241. That is to say, the closer, the better. You need a bigger chunk of teak, but like I said, you can fiddle with the spreadsheet to work it out.

It's not longer guns you need more mass for, its more powerful guns. They're generally the same thing, but not always. And yes, more mass absorbs more recoil, but the more mass, the harder it is to swing. More importantly, the bigger the cross section of the gun, the harder it is to swing. You can harp on about how a mid handle makes a gun easier to manouver, but there are two problems. First, the cross section of those tree trunks negates that advantage and second, having the handle so far from the point of force (vertically I'm talking about here. Mid handles have their handles underneath a tall barrel, euros have the handle halfway up a thin barrel), recoil is more of a problem. A euro kicks pretty much straight back into the palm and up the arm, a woodie is kicking from a point several inches higher, giving a greater rotational moment and causing vertical inaccuracy. That's why you have to hold the back of the gun to fire it.

[foxfish]

Carbon looks cool.

[jtkwest]

Originally Posted by foxfish

Carbon looks cool.

i think this sums it up.

[alexrom1207]

Originally Posted by jtkwest

you are telling me the air pocket inside the carbon barrell provides enough bouyancy to neutrally bouy the gun, but the air pockets in an aluminum gun do not? ,seems that it would be comparable, no?

Think of the buoyancy from the airpocket as being equivalent whether aluminum or carbon is used. Just to use arbitrary numbers say it has a positive buoyancy of 4lbs. The aluminum barrel may weigh 3.5lbs and the spear weighs 2lbs so you have a gun that will sink when loaded with a spear but float when not. If you use carbon, again the airpocket has a positive buoyancy of 4lbs, but now the carbon barrel only weighs 1.5lbs and the spear weighs 2lbs....so you have a gun that will float even while loaded with a spear. Again arbitrary numbers so no need to tell me how wrong I am. It's like every time I make a Star Trek reference and someone has to chime in, "But Dr. Spok never fires the photon torpedoes," At which time I stop talking to that person because 1. they're not really listening to what I'm saying to begin with and 2. everyone knows talking about Star Trek in public is really embarrassing and a great way to remain a virgin into your later years.

[foxfish]

I think Spock did fire the torpedoes you know? In fact didn't the photons have a carbon casing?
On a serious note! Carbon most definitely has its uses, very stiff in certain configurations & very flexible in others. Fishing rods & compound bows bend & recover very well, you would think there would be scope for for more radical speargun design utilising the amazing properties of carbon?
In the extreme end uses of carbon you could have an ultra stiff motorbike chassis or a 18mtr fishing rod that weights less than 2lb!
Speargun design has changed very little but maybe some more unusual designs could come falward using modern composites.
(roach poles are very long telescopic fishing rods, a few years ago 18mtr models were in use but many competitions now restrict the length to 12.5 mtr. A carbon 18mtr pole could cost £5000. +)

[jtkwest]

i was checking out my friends carbon guns today,and they ARE very light and seem pretty cool. RA and a Rabitec 140 and 150 respectivly. i seem to stand corrected on weight anyway. i still say my wood guns look cooler, and when i am finished with final mods. it will even be more "techy"

[Mr. X]

Like Pastor, I did not intend to get a carbon gun. Any weight difference is negligible in the water. Also, I quite a fan of aluminium - cheap, light, doesn't rust & modern alloys are quite strong. The one big advantage of carbon, for me, is the ability to mould it into optimum shapes - typified by the C4 designs. Although Omer have starting doing some innovative work with hydro-forming aluminium, which I am following with interest.

However, I recently bought an Omer XXV (hasn't everybody!), which has a simple carbon fibre tube barrel. So why did I buy it? Well, I had trouble sourcing the aluminum gun I was after (my first choice) and the clincher was the 25mm diameter barrel (most barrels are 28mm+) - that seemed like a difference which would improve performance. I was looking for a faster tracking, more agile, shorter gun. There are a some aluminium guns with 25mm aluminium barrels - Beuchat make one which is also quite cheap.

So why did I get the carbon one? Well I didn't know about the Beuchat until after I made the purchase. Anyway the Omer also had a slim new T10 handle & an innovative, versatile muzzle design that looked pretty interesting & a shorter than normal spear (which would again help tracking). Although not cheap, it was reasonably priced for current circumstances (more so a few months earlier when the exchange rate was better) - you tend to pay a premium for new models with new innovations. I was pleasantly surprised when it arrived (a common experience) -- it is so light. This is due to a combination of factors and the carbon barrel is probably a significant one (+ short, slim 6.3mm spear, no rail on mine, slim handle, no muzzle bungee/handle hardware/clips, slim barrel). I've yet to find out what difference this makes in the water but inertia & turning moment will be reduced. As a shore-based diver, I'll certainly appreciate the reduced weight & slimness/compactness on the longer walk-ins.

Actually it does look kind of cool -- but I wouldn't pay extra for that. They could use paint/transfers to make aluminium barrels look like that, or even cooler. Happily, carbon is pretty cheap these days and getting cheaper all the time.