# 1745 Vs 1842 Vs Tex Tubes Vs Tex Flatbands



## Northerner (Nov 9, 2010)

Earlier this week I received some tubing and have been anxious to complete all this testing. My tests are based on a 32" draw length with a short pause at full draw, rather than a 36"-40" draw and a "speed shot". A "speed shot" is when the ball is released without a pause in your draw. A speed draw gives higher velocity but I was more interested in seeing the velocities with the method that I shoot for accuracy.

All posted velocities were determined with multiple shots for each number. The same frame and pouch size was used for all the testing.

The 1745s and 1842s were ordered from TrulyTexas and the Tex tubes and Tex flats were obviously ordered from Tex (Bill).

*1745 - Singles *
_7" _from fork to pouch
.44 lead - 147
.3/8" lead - 176
3/8" steel - 191

_6__ 1/2" _from fork to pouch
.44 lead - 151
.3/8" lead - 181
3/8" steel - 195

_6" _from fork to pouch
.44 lead - 155
3/8" lead - 185
3/8" steel - 199

*1745 - Doubles*
7" from fork to pouch
.44 lead - 170
3/8" lead - 190
3/8" steel - 196

_6 1/2" _from fork to pouch
.44 lead - 177
3/8" lead - 197
3/8" steel - 207

*1842 - Singles *
7" from fork to pouch
.44 lead - 142
3/8" lead - 167
3/8" steel - 182

_6 1/2" _from fork to pouch
.44 lead - 143
3/8" lead - 169
3/8" steel - 184

_6" _from fork to pouch
.44 lead - 145
3/8" lead - 170
3/8" steel - 186

*1842 - Doubles *
7" from fork to pouch
.44 lead - 170
3/8" lead - 190
3/8" steel - 196

_6 1/2" _from fork to pouch
.44 lead - 174
3/8" lead - 194
3/8" steel - 202

*Tex Light Tubes - Singles *
_7" _from fork to pouch
.3/8" lead - 143
3/8" steel - 156

_6__ 1/2" _from fork to pouch
.3/8" lead - 143
3/8" steel - 157

_6" _from fork to pouch
3/8" lead - 147
3/8" steel - 158

_5 1/2" _from fork to pouch
3/8" lead - 149
3/8" steel - 161

_5" _from fork to pouch
3/8" lead - 150
3/8" steel - 163

*Tex Light Tubes - Doubles *
_7" _from fork to pouch
_.3/8" lead - 172_
_3/8" steel - 183_

_6 1/2" _from fork to pouch
_.3/8" lead - 173_
_3/8" steel - 183_

_6" _from fork to pouch
_3/8" lead - 180_
_3/8" steel - 192_

I'll post the flatbands in the next window.


----------



## Northerner (Nov 9, 2010)

Flatbands with the same 32" draw length and pause at full draw.

*Tex Flat bands .030"*
7/8" x 7 1/2" length - fork to pouch
.44 lead - 166
3/8" lead - 193
3/8" steel - 206

*Tex Flat bands .030"*
3/4" x 7 1/2" length - fork to pouch
.44 lead - 155
3/8" lead - 183
3/8" steel - 194

Cheers,
Northerner


----------



## Hrawk (Oct 25, 2010)

Thanks very much for taking the time to do this testing and post your results!

Can you please tell me what the approximate temperature was during testing?


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Good show! Your results with 1842 are very similar to what I got. I haven't tested any of the others. Thanks for the information.


----------



## Northerner (Nov 9, 2010)

Hrawk said:


> Thanks very much for taking the time to do this testing and post your results!
> 
> Can you please tell me what the approximate temperature was during testing?


All shooting was indoors. The thermometer in the room says 20C.


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

Northerner said:


> Thanks very much for taking the time to do this testing and post your results!
> 
> Can you please tell me what the approximate temperature was during testing?


All shooting was indoors. The thermometer in the room says 20C.
[/quote]

I have the advantage on you, there. It's about 30C outside here.

_Living in the Tropics. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it! _


----------



## wombat (Jun 10, 2011)

nice bit of info, and it looks like the hole worked!!


----------



## Tex-Shooter (Dec 17, 2009)

That don't seem to match speeds that I and a couple of others using the light got using the light tubing. I was actually using a 35 inch draw in this test, but a couple of others used a 30 in draw. I did not shoot any 3/8 lead as I think that it is a little heavy for the light tubing. here is link to my test post for comparison. I wonder if the tubing that you got was degraded some how (like maybe froze in air shipment. I do know that very low freezing can degrade latex somewhat. -- Tex
A Test Of My Very Light Tubing (single Band Per Side) - Slingshot Bands and Tubes - Slingshot Forum


----------



## Northerner (Nov 9, 2010)

Hi wombat... The 5mm (3/16) holes size is perfect! Many thanks for the info.

Hi Bill... My results for the Tex tubing doubles at 32" lines up with the numbers that you posted for singles with a 35" draw length. The tubing came from Roger and arrived in Minnesota this week. The draw weight with singles is very light. The numbers that you posted for singles are pretty much what I got with the single 1842s. I'll have to try 35" and see what happens. A pause in the draw slows things down so that might be a factor. I dunno.

Cheers,
Northerner


----------



## Danny0663 (Mar 15, 2011)

I really appreciate this Northerner!

Thanks,


----------



## Northerner (Nov 9, 2010)

I just tested a *35"* draw length with the *single Light Tex Tubes *and a measurement of 6 1/4" from fork-to-pouch (20C temperature). The string method was used to ensure a somewhat accurate draw length. The 35" string was fastened to the fork and the pouch hole. With 3/8" steel, the shots were very consistent at *166 fps*. Then I removed the string and pulled back as far as seemed comfortable and got *184 fps*. Draw length was likely around *38". *These tubes are very easy draw.

Cheers,
Northerner


----------



## Charles (Aug 26, 2010)

Thanks for posting these results!

Cheers ...... Charles


----------



## DaveSteve (May 16, 2012)

Thanks for posting.
The double 1842 perform the same as the double 1745 with the ammo you used.
I think my next order will be 1842 instead of 1745.
Less draw - same speed.
GREAT!


----------



## ultravisitor (Oct 21, 2012)

Is there data on the forums that compare 1745s and/or 1842s to 2040s.

Im just wondering because 2040s quite a bit cheaper compared to the 1745/1842s.


----------



## Henry the Hermit (Jun 2, 2010)

ultravisitor said:


> Is there data on the forums that compare 1745s and/or 1842s to 2040s.
> 
> Im just wondering because 2040s quite a bit cheaper compared to the 1745/1842s.


Yes there is. I compare 1842 to 2040 in various configurations and ammo weights in "Testing Chinese Tubes". It's pinned near the top of this forum. I have also recently compared 1745 to 1842/2040 in looped configuration and will post those results in the next few days. Basically there is very little difference, aside from pull weight between the three sizes.

http://slingshotforum.com/topic/13242-testing-chinese-tubes/


----------



## DaveSteve (May 16, 2012)

Henry in Panama said:


> Is there data on the forums that compare 1745s and/or 1842s to 2040s.
> 
> Im just wondering because 2040s quite a bit cheaper compared to the 1745/1842s.


Yes there is. I compare 1842 to 2040 in various configurations and ammo weights in "Testing Chinese Tubes". It's pinned near the top of this forum. I have also recently compared 1745 to 1842/2040 in looped configuration and will post those results in the next few days. Basically there is very little difference, aside from pull weight between the three sizes.

http://slingshotforu...-chinese-tubes/
[/quote]
I'm looking forward to your comparison.
As you know I'm trying Thera Tubing red and yellow but you're absolutely right about the performance of Chinese Tubes.
They are hard to beat.
Thanks for your testing and sharing. 
This is a great contribution to the comunity.


----------



## SlingDaddy (Sep 24, 2012)

Glad this old post got resurrected - I'm a convert to Chinese tubes, and we all know you can never have too much data about bands!

Just yesterday I received a shipment from Dankung containing 10 meters of each 2040, 1842 and 1745. Unfortunately I don't have access to a chrony, otherwise I'd perform a few comparative tests of my own


----------

