The RCC General is a prime example of a slingshot with a narrow fork width (90 mm). It has a 50 mm fork gap with 30 mm depth.
I've been obsessing about fork width. Obviously, that's a huge issue with TTF slingshots. The narrower the fork width, the less you have to hold over and obscure your target. 85 mm fork width seems about as small as you can comfortably go with a full-sized slingshot. That forces a small fork gap, usually around 50 mm.
It seems a 95 mm fork width is super standard on a lot of TTF slingshots. Very many of mine are. It's probably a good compromise.
Out I come with the ruler. I don't have all that many slingshots, 16 I think, maybe more. My smallest fork width for a TTF is 85 mm and my largest is 125 mm. When it comes to fork with, 10 mm makes a huge difference. Even 5 mm makes a huge difference. It's hard to believe I never gave it much thought.
I've been concentrating on smaller fork widths lately and it's led to a break-through. In a previous post, experienced members of the forum pointed out that fork gap wasn't important, fork width was. That stuck with me.
A consistent anchor-point is hard to give up. It's easier to just give it some Kentucky windage than change anchor point. Many of us suffer from having to hold over our target, obscuring it. The result is, you have to guess a little. A narrow fork width changes that.
If some of you out there have reached a plateau in your TTF shooting. Try a slingshot with a 90 mm fork width or smaller. A little thing makes a huge difference.
44.1 KB Views: 5