Easton X10 Parallel Pro 3.2mm: Unboxing, Build Notes, and Why This Arrow Matters

Easton has a new arrow in the X10 family, the X10 Parallel Pro 3.2mm, and this video is the first look at what it is, what is different about it, and why it is likely going to become a very popular choice across multiple disciplines. The goal here was simple: unbox them, look closely at the details that matter, and build a dozen the same way most archers will actually build them, so we can set up the next step, tuning and shooting.

Jake also makes an important point up front: this set was purchased with his own money, and the review is not sponsored. The channel is supported by views and affiliate links, which allows the testing to stay focused on what the equipment actually does, not what a brand wants it to say.

What the Parallel Pro Is, and What It Is Not

At a glance, the Parallel Pro looks like an X10 because it is. It is still an aluminum-carbon arrow, meaning an aluminum core wrapped in carbon. That core is surprisingly soft by itself, but the way the carbon bonds to it is what produces the high consistency that X10s are known for.

The real change is the geometry.

Unlike the standard barreled X10, the Parallel Pro is a true parallel shaft. No barreling, no taper, no changing OD along the length. That one design decision is the entire story, because it affects component choices, building options, and how easily the arrow can be tuned.

Labeling, Spine Marking, and Traceability

The labels are similar to standard X10s, but a bit bolder. One small detail many archers never notice: the three white boxes on the label are there so you can add initials easily with a marker.

A bigger detail is how the spine is identified. Instead of a large printed spine marking on the label, the spine appears to be laser-etched on the shaft near the label area (the example shown is 500 spine) along with a serial number. That serial number is more meaningful than it seems because it allows batch traceability if a manufacturing issue ever shows up.

Weight Codes Matter, and Easton Still Does Them

One of the most important technical points in the video is the confirmation that the Parallel Pro continues Easton’s C-code weight sorting system (C0 through C6, with C3 being most common).

Why this matters is practical.

If you shoot a dozen for a season, break a few, and buy replacements later, matching the spine and C-code helps you keep:

• consistent vertical impacts at longer distances

• consistent dynamic behavior (weight changes can also change how stiff or weak the arrow acts)

Mixing weight codes can create vertical separation at 50m and 70m, and the heavier shafts can also behave dynamically weaker than lighter ones. The point is not that you cannot make mixed arrows work, it is that Easton makes it far easier to keep a set uniform without buying and sorting dozens yourself.

This is also where Jake draws a clear contrast with many all-carbon arrows. In his experience, it is hard to consistently get all three at once in carbon-only production:

• straightness tolerance

• spine tolerance

• weight tolerance

Often you get two of the three unless you personally buy large quantities and sort.

The Main Advantage of a Parallel Shaft: Build Flexibility

A parallel shaft gives you options you simply do not have with barreled or tapered arrows.

With a barreled arrow like a standard X10, you are effectively locked into cutting from the front if you want to preserve what the design is doing. With a parallel shaft, you can cut from the front or the back, or even flip an arrow if you find the straightest section favors one end.

Jake explains the logic behind why some archers end up with labels sitting at different heights in the quiver. It can be the result of selecting the best 29 inches from different sections of different shafts, especially if someone is being extremely picky about straightness.

There is also a performance reason behind that pickiness: the nock end is controlled for the entire power stroke, while the front end has minimal contact time with the bow system. So if you are chasing maximum consistency, the straightness near the nock end matters a lot.

Most archers will not build at that extreme level because it looks messy and takes time. But having the option is a real advantage of the parallel design.

Component Notes: Stainless vs Tungsten Points

Jake shows both stainless and tungsten points, and the details here are worth paying attention to.

Sizing matters

With tungsten points especially, you need to match the point model to your spine so the point OD matches the shaft OD. That helps avoid fit issues in the target and reduces the chance of stripping carbon at the front of the shaft.

Stainless points

• cheaper

• longer shank

• can bend

• the longer shank effectively stiffens the shaft dynamically compared to a tungsten point of the same nominal grains

That last point is useful. A 100 grain stainless point and a 100 grain tungsten point do not always behave the same because the shank length changes how much of the shaft is able to flex.

Tungsten points

• shorter, stubby shank on the 100 grain version

• grooves for hot melt grip

• excellent fit and finish

There is a funny but honest packaging comment too. The tungsten points come in a premium case, and Jake’s take is basically: it is overkill. Most people would gladly trade fancy packaging for a lower price because the case will not be used once the points are glued in.

Early Spine Guidance: Expect a Weaker Spine Than Standard X10

A key takeaway is the expectation that a parallel shaft version will generally require a weaker arrow compared to a standard X10 to achieve a similar tune.

Jake mentions the general idea that if you are coming from standard X10s, you may need to go about one to two spines weaker, and he also notes he does not love vague language like that. He prefers clear, measurable guidance. This video is primarily the build and first impression phase, with the tuning and shooting data coming later.

Assembly Process Highlights

This portion is very practical and honestly useful if you are building these yourself.

• Pins were installed first using hot melt

• Hot melt removal tip: cool components, then push excess hot melt away from the shaft

  • never push toward the shaft because you can catch and strip carbon

• Carbon dust caution: wear a dust mask when cutting shafts

• Deburr the front of shafts before point install to avoid pushing shavings inside the shaft and to improve point seating

Jake also explains a smart practice when cooling hot melt-installed points: set the shafts so the weight pushes the shaft onto the point while cooling. That helps avoid tiny gaps created by internal air pressure as the arrow warms up.

Dimension and Weight Comparison vs Standard X10

A quick caliper check confirms the obvious design change.

• the Parallel Pro is parallel in OD along the length

• standard X10s are smaller at the ends but fatter in the middle

Then a weight comparison shows something interesting: built to the same length, the 500 spine Parallel Pro came out roughly the same total weight as a 450 standard X10 in this configuration. That suggests that in real setups, the “number on the spine” does not translate cleanly across models, which supports the earlier expectation that spine selection will shift when switching between these two designs.

Fletching Choice: Wave Pro

For this build, nine arrows were fletched and three were left as bare shafts for later tuning. The fletching used was Wave Pro with a strong left helical.

Jake describes Wave Pro as a hybrid feel between spin wings and standard glue-on vanes: very light, thin, and designed for single-string setups. The larger profile compared to some lower-profile options can increase drift slightly, but the intent here is forgiveness off the fingers and stable flight at typical recurve and barebow conditions. Collars were skipped to avoid unnecessary rear weight.

Final First Impressions

Jake’s early impression is that Easton essentially took proven X10 technology and placed it into a parallel format, and that combination is likely to be very successful. It is not flashy, it is not “new physics,” it is a practical design choice that can make setup easier across compound, barebow string walking, and recurve tuning.

He also frames it as an ultra-premium version of what an ACC conceptually used to be, but in a modern, skinny, high-performance package suitable for outdoor distances.

There were basically no complaints other than one small thing: it would be nice if a premium arrow still came with a sticker 😄

The next step will be shooting and tuning once his finger injury heals, plus more detailed measurements on straightness, weight, and tolerances in a future build, especially for a compound set.