In my initial, unconventional review of the SAS Ranger, I approached it with what has now been confirmed as forbidden methodology. It all seemed innocent enough, and for me, it turned a boring bow into something fun, something that suited my style of archery — no shelf, thumb-release and freedom; the latter becoming less and less popular in these times. But apparently it’s for the children, or at least the safety and salubrity of responsible archers who have respect for jagged arrow shelves, that this was a very, very bad idea.
I can understand why most folks would have contempt for such modifications, but what I cannot comprehend — and hereby request intelligible feedback from readers — is why or how these mods would compromise the integrity of the bow in the manner suggested by Mr Shadwell of Survival Archery Systems.
For the conventional archers who may be reading this, let me clarify in advance a few details helpful for understanding my delinquencies. I shoot thumb or Slavic release exclusively. I hold the bow with my left hand and nock the arrow on the right (wrong) side of the bow. With perhaps a slight exaggeration of the term “modification”, I did so with the Ranger as detailed below.
The image immediately below shows the orientation of the bow as intended by design, although I did not remove my leather modification to show the virgin riser, or window space, which should have no effect beyond pushing the arrow laterally rightward by a small margin.
The next image, immediately below, is my chosen orientation, or modified usage. Note that the arrow still nocks near the vertical center of the riser, though the tiller (if that’s the appropriate term) would have the arrow a few millimeters farther to the right; or citing the intended design and orientation, a few millimeters farther to the left of the riser because of my 180 inversion.
Now that readers have an understanding of the situation, some additional context follows.
The Ranger had been sitting unused for a couple months while I practiced primarily with the Daylite Monarq. I dusted it off and brought it to the range for a few hours. While examining the limbs, I noticed slight grooves forming at the area where they sit flush with the riser.
While one would expect some form of wear at a 90 degree transition of 55lbs of force, I thought it wise and simple enough to inquire with Mr Shadwell, the principal of SAS. My query was as follows:
Doug,
Can you tell me if the grooves forming on the limbs are normal? Will they deepen?
In the attached image, you will see that they are forming at the mounting point, approximately where they are flush with the riser, or at the demarcation where they stop bending.
The reply arrived within an hour. It read as follows:
Hi
Totally normal. Those are the parts of the limb that bend over the 5mm radius of the riser and experience some pressure which is totally normal. The composite used can handle this no problem. We have had the same design since 2014 and have never heard of a broken limb or received a warranty claim on a bow. So there is no need to be concerned. Totally normal.
What bow is that from? Scout, Atmos or Ranger?
Absent minded, I had forgotten to specify the model, though the Ranger and Scout only differ in the hollowed portion of the riser near the shelves, where the Ranger is designed to hold takedown arrows and the Scout is not, having a closed shelf compared to the jagged, open shelves of the Ranger. The Atmos, while using the same limbs, is an entirely different riser. But I do not think this is significant. What I find significant is the response I received after my second reply, where I inadvertently reminded him of who I was; Defiler of Bows, a rebel with an ignoble cause. However, let me preface this by expressing my sympathy. Bows are dangerous. Business owners must cover their asses and protect themselves from reckless consumers, or worse; litigious vermin. There is also benevolent desire to avoid injuries and keep customers alive, if for nothing else, the preservation of archery. With all of this in mind, I still struggled to fully accept the response.
Hi Theo
Now I recall. So bear in mind that the way you are using the bow is not how the bow was designed to be used. It is not safe to use the bow that way as we have never tested the bow for that setup.
For this reason I update my response to say that any grooves that are forming may not be normal and therefore I cannot deem them safe to use like that moving forward. The bow was not designed to be used like that and is void of all warranties and guarantees as used like that. I cannot advise on the safety of the bow and limbs as it is not being used correctly. I highly recommend you to stop using the bow in its current form as I cannot suggest it is safe for you to shoot as is and any further use is fully your responsibility. Shooting it further could cause the limbs to snap and cause serious injury to you and those around you.
I also advise that if you want to continue using the bow that you replace the limbs and shoot it correctly as designed.
Best regards,
Coming from the guy who designed the bow, and a pretty good bow too, I’d be arrogant to dismiss these warnings. He’s an engineer. I am not an engineer. Perhaps not being an engineer makes it difficult to understand how my usage of the bow, however derelict, would affect the limbs in a way that was previously diagnosed as of no concern. The riser is a static rectangle of aluminum. If anything, I can vaguely imagine a possible effect of shifting the grip from the intended area to the window, but intuitively, I fail to envision a drastic structural difference, and if any at all, within the riser as opposed to the limbs is where I’d expect the only difference.
I fully accept voiding of the warranty. I fully accept the conservative rejection of untested modifications as being safe. I don’t even directly dispute any of the warnings, but I do question them. For purposes of honor, I will no longer use the bow in the company of others. If it explodes, I will be the sole casualty. While I’m still alive, I’ll be welcoming reader feedback.