# Heavy vs Light arrows?



## Roughrider (Oct 19, 2012)

I know this has been beat to death, but I have been playing with some spine calculators and with my 57# recurve the lightest arrow setup I can work up has more KE than the heavier arrow setup only .8-1lb difference and 20-25 fps.
My question is if you take a 400gr arrow and a 600gr arrow that generate the same KE which will penetrate better. My thoughts are the heavier one as it should not lose as much energy upon impact. By the way the bow I am speaking of calculates to arrow and speed listed below

354 gr 230 fps 41.7 KE
623 gr 171 fps 40.7 KE

They are pretty close on KE I am thinking of the light setup for the speed if they will penetrate, I see what the number say but i still feel they will lose that KE faster driving into a deer. Enlighten me.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Hang on tight Roughrider...kinetic energy vs. monemtum...:wink:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

If your hunting deer shoot the light one and don't give it another thought


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

Roughrider said:


> My question is if you take a 400gr arrow and a 600gr arrow that generate the same KE which will penetrate better.


Better or enough? Maybe that is the question. There are more factors you need to consider.

The 600gr will retain more energy so it should penetrate better BUT it will also quiet the bow more, be more stable in windy conditions, potentially more consistent and forgiving. The down side is the arc of the arrow will be greater so it might limit your range, make range estimation more difficult and even put more obstacles (like branches, etc) in the path of the arrow

The 400gr will shoot flatter which will benefit some styles of aiming, range estimation will be a little easier and you might be able to shoot further too but it will increase noise, less forgiving of mistakes (or even buck fever), be effected by weather conditions and even reduce the life of your bow. It will still have enough penetration though if you hit the spot.

I would be looking at 8gr per pound or higher. Good speed and penetration, low noise.


----------



## Roughrider (Oct 19, 2012)

I got er cinched down tight! out the gate boys!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

None of the bows in your signature are going to shoot a 400gr arrow 235fps so it's all kind of pointless wouldn't you say?

Shoot the one that you are most accurate and consistent with, which will probably be something right in the middle.

-Grant


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Happy mediums  

I like 520 ish


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Arrow penetration - part 1 of 2





Part 2 of 2 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAfK0sBsZBw


----------



## guyver (Jan 3, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Arrow penetration - part 1 of 2
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Proud of those?


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

grantmac said:


> None of the bows in your signature are going to shoot a 400gr arrow 235fps so it's all kind of pointless wouldn't you say?
> 
> Shoot the one that you are most accurate and consistent with, which will probably be something right in the middle.
> 
> -Grant


Exactly. Whatever shoots good for you and you are most accurate with. For me, I shoot heavy arrows better, they are slower but more quiet and easier to shoot my gaps.


----------



## Viper1 (Aug 21, 2003)

RR - 

Given the distances being shot and the amount of armor plating most deer carry, most these guys have the right idea. 
Also remember, that for every "light arrow" proponent out there, there is a "heavy arrow" proponent. 
Pick one you like and don't over-think it.
It's just not going to matter.

Viper1 out.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Uhhh... calculators? As in you haven't actually tested this yourself?

I'm with Grant. You're not going to get an arrow going 235 fps out of a regular recurve. Which means with a 350 gr arrow you're shoot at least 70#. You'd have to be shooting about 5-6 gpp and a really nice, high end rig too. Also, almost every bow on the entire planet LOSES KE when dropping arrow weight. Not gain it. Even compounds lose calculated KE with a lighter arrow. 

Some lose a lot less than others, to where it's a wash. A really nice set of ILF limbs like Ken's for instance, will maintain a good bit of efficiency at the lower end to where it's basically apples to apples. Most bows, however, will not. Now, hunting white tails KE means very little compared to what you're most accurate with and tune best. You could have a bull dozer arrow carrying a ton of KE that will mean squat if you miss and hit the dirt, and no arrow will penetrate a deer well if it hits going sideways. 

Test yourself, find what shoots best for you and if there is an accuracy advantage, go with that one.


----------



## Roughrider (Oct 19, 2012)

Guys I intend to shoot the arrows my rigs shoot best with, just was wondering about the physics behind the KE and weight. Also the 3 rivers spine calculator shows a 345 gr arrow from a 57# recurve at 230 fps I know thats an estimate but it works for comparison purposes. I was just using their math to save time.


----------



## Roughrider (Oct 19, 2012)

Uhhh...


> calculators? As in you haven't actually tested this yourself?


Kegan I have tuned all my arrows to the bow they go with, just looking to learn a little bit more.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

RR, I'm not trying to be rude. It just seems that a lot of folks get wrapped up in the calculator and then when they actually test them out they find out it doesn't work that way. Your rig will be at 6 gpp. That voids the warranty on most bows because they break at that point- they break because the energy doesn't go into the arrow in terms of KE, but into the bow as vibration. Like I said, many bows will simply just not get any more speed. They'll get louder and have more handshock and then the break.

Start by looking at the warranty, and then just get an arrow of each type and test them through a chrono yourself. That's the only way you'll really know whether it works or not.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I think that a 354 grain arrow out of a 57lb recurve will easily go 230 fps. I had 348 grain arrows out of a 48lb recurve going 214 fps.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I think that a 354 grain arrow out of a 57lb recurve will easily go 230 fps. I had 348 grain arrows out of a 48lb recurve going 214 fps.


Ken, you're shooting a high end ILF limb, not a fiberglass and wood recurve. Most wood and fiberglass recurve warranties limit to 8 gpp. I can't even find warranty information for the above bow.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Kegan - I was not referring to any warranty - just the fact that I don't see why a 57lb bow would not be able to shoot a super light 354 grain arrow 230 fps. My brother shot a very light weight arrow out of his 60lb bow and it went 254 fps


----------



## Roughrider (Oct 19, 2012)

Kegan, didn't think you were being rude just letting you know I have tuned. Ive read that heavier arrows were the way to go for years and now you hear lighter can generate more KE which I get, but I feel that heavier will carry their KE longer after impact. I couldn't see an advantage to gaining 1 lb of KE and a flatter trajectory to trade for a louder bow. I just wanted to see what everybody else thought. So the question is and was same bow light and heavy arrow same KE which will penetrate better?


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

kegan said:


> Now, hunting white tails KE means very little compared to what you're most accurate with and tune best. You could have a bull dozer arrow carrying a ton of KE that will mean squat if you miss and hit the dirt, and no arrow will penetrate a deer well if it hits going sideways.


Bingo - spot on and well said

RR - not to be rude but, have you shot many deer with a recurve - it really doesn't take much to punch an arrow through one - people way over think this.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

roughrider said:


> i got er cinched down tight! Out the gate boys!


lol!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Roughrider said:


> My question is if you take a 400gr arrow and a 600gr arrow that generate the same KE which will penetrate better.


The arrow smaller in diameter...or...the arrow that is better tuned...or...the arrow that has a stiffer spine.

There are plenty of factors that play into an arrow's penetrating capability other than KE or MO.

Just choose an arrow as Kegan mentioned that has enough weight not to avoid the warranty on your bow that you can shoot accurately at the distances you have chosen to shoot from.

Ray :shade:





Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## gr4vitas (May 25, 2013)

The thing most people seem to not understand about kinetic energy is that it has nothing to do with arrow weight. The draw weight of your bow is all that matters.

That being said arrow weight means nothing, though lots of people think it does. 

If most people understood basic 2 dimensional kinematics they'd know this.

Anyway long story short, the lightest arrow possible out of you're bow is best as it'll get there faster with less drop and hopefully minimize jump on big game.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

A bow that gains KE with a lighter arrow shouldn't be louder, it should be more quiet. Not all bows are created equal though. Some bows are not designed to be remain efficient at the lower end- these are the bows that instead of gaining fps with a light arrow, become loud and uncomfortable to shoot. Normally, you can see them early on by the warranty limits they carry. 

If a bow is designed well, then what you get is exactly what Ken and his brother have seen- a balanced trade off. There are few, if any, instances of gaining more KE when going to a lighter arrow with a traditional bow though. It would mean that it made the bow more efficient, which isn't really possible given the design of a recurve. Even compounds rarely show a boost in KE with a lighter arrow.

If you can get the balance, then it comes down to what you shoot most accurately. The delivered energy will be about the same at normal hunting ranges (30 yards or less). Which ever one gives you a better chance of getting the arrow in the vitals is the more lethal arrow. As I mentioned before, all the KE in the world doesn't mean a thing in the dirt.

For white tail it's not so much about power, as accuracy in this case.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

gr4vitas said:


> The thing most people seem to not understand about kinetic energy is that it has nothing to do with arrow weight. The draw weight of your bow is all that matters.
> 
> That being said arrow weight means nothing, though lots of people think it does.
> 
> ...


Draw weight means absolutely nothing in terms of KE. Bow design determines delivered energy. 

Arrow weight plays a roll in determining how well the bow delivers energy based on its design.


----------



## gr4vitas (May 25, 2013)

kegan said:


> Draw weight means absolutely nothing in terms of KE. Bow design determines delivered energy.
> 
> Arrow weight plays a roll in determining how well the bow delivers energy based on its design.


Energy is stored in the limbs of a bow, then transferred to the arrow. The arrow has nothing to do with the energy it releases on impact. 

You can prove this to your self by going to a kinetic energy calculator for bows.

It's simple kinematics. 

A lighter arrow will travel faster out of the bow, but it will be lighter thus release less energy on impact, while a heavier arrow will release more energy on impact but hit with a slower speed and thusly it will hit with the same force as a lighter arrow.

A 100 grain arrow will hit with the same kinetic energy as a 500 grain arrow out of the same bow.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

gr4vitas - you better read up on this = because what you just said is way off base


----------



## gr4vitas (May 25, 2013)

sharpbroadhead said:


> gr4vitas - you better read up on this = because what you just said is way off base


It's physics. If what I'm saying is way off base, then Sir Isaac Newton was way off.

Also the only thing that is going to affect penetration if your KE is the same is how well your broadhead cuts...


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Here is the KE of different weight arrows shot out of my bow

A 349 grain arrow out of my bow goes 214 fps and has a KE 35.5

a 539 grain arrow out of my bow goes 178 fps and has KE of 37.93

a 562 grain arrow out of my bow goes 174 fps nad has KE of 37.79

These were all shot out of the same bow and shot through a chronograph - and interestingling enough the arrow that penetrated the phonebook and the balistic gel the most was the arrow with the lowest KE - so obviously there is more to penetration than just KE

But point being - different weight arrows shot out of the same bow DO NOT necessarily have the same Kinetic Energy - in many cases a heavier arrow will have more KE than a lighter arrow shot out of the same bow.


----------



## gr4vitas (May 25, 2013)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Here is the KE of different weight arrows shot out of my bow
> 
> A 349 grain arrow out of my bow goes 214 fps and has a KE 35.5
> 
> ...


Is this a long bow / recurve bow? Also how were you measuring the draw weight? If the numbers above were produced by a traditional bow shot my a human that would be why you have a 2ft lbf variance.

Otherwise if the same force was applied to the same arrow, you would have resulted in the same ft lbf of KE.


----------



## Orion Major (Oct 20, 2006)

I'm curious how much effect all this has on tragectory and I'm sure someone on here has calculated it?

400 grain arrow vs a 550 grain arrow, 45 pound bow; 

if I hold the exact same aim, How much does my point of impact change from say 15 to 20 yards for each one??????


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Dude, this is getting off topic deal quick. Well tuned arrow+ sharp Broadhead+ well placed shot= dead deer. Doesn't matter if you shoot a 40# or an 80# bow, Light arrow or heavy arrow. Use the best tuned arrow and put it in the bread box.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW TO SEARCH???

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1969769&highlight=henro


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

This is a recurve bow - and if you watch my videos above you can see the chronograph, how the arrows are weighed - everything.

btw - the draw weight is not part of the KE formula - it is irrelevant other than its effect on speed.


----------



## gr4vitas (May 25, 2013)

sharpbroadhead said:


> This is a recurve bow - and if you watch my videos above you can see the chronograph, how the arrows are weighed - everything.
> 
> btw - the draw weight is not part of the KE formula - it is irrelevant other than its effect on speed.


The draw weight is what is applied to the arrow and is what gives it its speed, it is directly related to how fast the arrow moves thusly directly related to the KE formula.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

gr4vitas - that is obvious - but if we KNOW the velocity - the draw weight is irrelevant and has nothing to do wtih the KE formula or determination


----------



## Ghost Dancer (Sep 21, 2008)

Two bows with different draw weights can give the same velocity. Likewise, two bows with the same draw weight can give different velocities. It is a function of the respective bows and/or limbs. However, draw weight is a reasonable metric to approximate the force applied to an arrow for the variety of bows, nothing more.

However, in a KE formula, since velocity is squared it can make all the difference.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

gr4vitas said:


> The thing most people seem to not understand about kinetic energy is that it has nothing to do with arrow weight. The draw weight of your bow is all that matters.
> 
> That being said arrow weight means nothing, though lots of people think it does.
> 
> If most people understood basic 2 dimensional kinematics they'd know this.


Really? Either you know a whole lot more about physics, and the working of bows, than everybody else, or you really, really don't, or you simply aren't saying everything that you mean. Either way, some clarification would be helpful


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

gr4vitas said:


> The draw weight is what is applied to the arrow and is what gives it its speed, it is directly related to how fast the arrow moves thusly directly related to the KE formula.


The area of the draw force curve is the total energy put into the bow.

The draw force curve that is _applied_ to the arrow when released will be _highly_ dependent upon the weight of the arrow, because there is not only the moving mass of the arrow, but the moving mass of the string and limbs to contend with.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

gr4vitas said:


> The draw weight is what is applied to the arrow and is what gives it its speed, it is directly related to how fast the arrow moves thusly directly related to the KE formula.


Ok then why does a randomly made 50# selfbow shoot a 500 gr arrow at 150 fps, a good composite recurve at 50# will shoot a 500 gr arrow at 185 fps, and a 50# compound will shoot a 500 gr arrow at 230 fps or more?

They're all the same 50#. Draw weight doesn't mean anything.

Have you ever studied bow design? I remember my high school physics teacher told me that a recurve bow that stores 40 Neutons of energy would shoot an arrow with 40 Neutons of energy. I politely corrected her that it would not, that a good percentage (more so with less efficient models) would go into noise, string vibration, and bow vibration.


----------



## gr4vitas (May 25, 2013)

kegan said:


> Ok then why does a randomly made 50# selfbow shoot a 500 gr arrow at 150 fps, a good composite recurve at 50# will shoot a 500 gr arrow at 185 fps, and a 50# compound will shoot a 500 gr arrow at 230 fps or more?
> 
> They're all the same 50#. Draw weight doesn't mean anything.
> 
> Have you ever studied bow design? I remember my high school physics teacher told me that a recurve bow that stores 40 Neutons of energy would shoot an arrow with 40 Neutons of energy. I politely corrected her that it would not, that a good percentage (more so with less efficient models) would go into noise, string vibration, and bow vibration.


Because bows do not transfer energy perfectly. A traditional bow will have an efficiency rate of around 60 percent while today's compound bows are in the 90+ percent efficency range. 

Sent from my tree stand.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

wow - this is one of those bang your head against the wall threads now


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

... I'm going to let this one go. 

RR, I hope I was at least somewhat helpful?


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Orion Major said:


> I'm curious how much effect all this has on tragectory and I'm sure someone on here has calculated it?
> 
> 400 grain arrow vs a 550 grain arrow, 45 pound bow;
> 
> if I hold the exact same aim, How much does my point of impact change from say 15 to 20 yards for each one??????


Ken posted a really nice to use archery ballistics calculator that goes to about 40 yards. If he would be so kind to do it again, it would be appreciated 

Something to keep in mind, though, that the difference in drop does not equate to difference in error, because if you know the characteristics of the bow, explicitly or subconsciously, you will adjust to it. So, the difference in draw due to yardage miscalculation will be less than the difference in drop at a given distance would imply.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

gr4vitas said:


> Because bows do not transfer energy perfectly. A traditional bow will have an efficiency rate of around 60 percent while today's compound bows are in the 90+ percent efficency range.
> 
> Sent from my tree stand.


And, with a given bow, efficiency will change with arrow weight, among other things.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

So much misinformation in this thread... Mods should delete it.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

henro said:


> DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW TO SEARCH???
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1969769&highlight=henro


No. Just look at all the threads on the same topic that pop up every week...how to calculate DL, what's the correct arrow spine, momentum vs KE, thumb release for hunting and the list could go on




gr4vitas said:


> Because bows do not transfer energy perfectly. A traditional bow will have an efficiency rate of around 60 percent while today's compound bows are in the 90+ percent efficency range.
> 
> Sent from my tree stand.



90%+ effiency, only with heavy arrows (above 600grn)...


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

This is an archery ballistics calculator

http://www.outdoorsden.com/archery/archbal.asp


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Thank you ken!


----------



## Ghost Dancer (Sep 21, 2008)

Is the zero distance in the calculator the point on distance?


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> wow - this is one of those bang your head against the wall threads now


Every one you post in turns into one, especially with you posting that false hope video over and over. See the connection?


Calculators are USELESS because they do not take into account the efficiency increase as arrow weight goes up which they cannot predict. It even says that right in the link. Only way to get accurate figures is to go out and shoot.

If everyone would just search these questions wouldn't constantly keep popping up. It's not all of a sudden going to change next week/month/year/decade/lifetime!

READ PEOPLE: http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1969769&highlight=henro


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> This is an archery ballistics calculator
> 
> http://www.outdoorsden.com/archery/archbal.asp


calculator fails to have all the necessary parameters.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

Orion Major said:


> I'm curious how much effect all this has on tragectory and I'm sure someone on here has calculated it?
> 
> 400 grain arrow vs a 550 grain arrow, 45 pound bow;
> 
> if I hold the exact same aim, How much does my point of impact change from say 15 to 20 yards for each one??????


check the above link for the calculator...it will give an rough estimate of drop, you should be able to figure hold over based on that-- keep in mind that you won't be able to get exact results as that would require tuning since they're different arrows.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

gr4vitas said:


> *The draw weight is what is applied to the arrow and is what gives it its speed, it is directly related to how fast the arrow moves* thusly directly related to the KE formula.


This is not correct. To say that draw weight is directly related to the resultant arrow velocity is a _vast_ over simplification. Draw weight is not the actual force applied to the arrow, draw weight is a static measure taken at a specific displacement. I believe the actual _force_ applied to the arrow is an impulse determined by computing the integral of the force applied by the bow (dependent on many variables) over the time interval during which it is applied and is highly dependent on the type of bow involved, as Kegan pointed out in post #40.

​


Obviously momentum and kinetic energy are intertwined so KE can be computed by taking the momentum calculated above and dividing by the mass to establish the actual initial velocity and plugging into the formula for KE:

​
Which brings us back to the fact that the specified draw weight of a bow in and of itself is basically meaningless in predicting the actual velocity of the arrow it launches. This is very easy to see just by comparing the force draw curves of a typical stickbow and a typical compound, the area under the curve (applied force) is much larger for the compound and the resulting arrow velocities are correspondingly higher.





sharpbroadhead said:


> gr4vitas - that is obvious - but *if we KNOW the velocity - the draw weight is irrelevant* and has nothing to do wtih the KE formula or determination



But the point is really made here by sharp. Once the initial arrow velocity is known, the draw weight as well as the type of bow is no longer relevant, you are only dealing with a body in motion.

Now get back to what's more important, momentum or kinetic energy and which one determines the ultimate penetration of the arrow...:wink:


----------



## Roughrider (Oct 19, 2012)

Ok guys I have a basic understanding of stored energy, kinetic energy and trajectory. I wasn't very clear in the original question, what I was driving at is this, it seems to me that with all factors except weight being equal, that an arrow of heavier weight will drive deeper into a target/game animal than the lighter arrow although they both generate the same mathematical KE. This will not affect what arrows I shoot I was just wanting to try to understand the physics a little better. And I did pick up some useful info along the way thanks.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Roughrider said:


> Ok guys I have a basic understanding of stored energy, kinetic energy and trajectory. I wasn't very clear in the original question, what I was driving at is this, it seems to me that with all factors except weight being equal, that an arrow of heavier weight will drive deeper into a target/game animal than the lighter arrow although they both generate the same mathematical KE. This will not affect what arrows I shoot I was just wanting to try to understand the physics a little better. And I did pick up some useful info along the way thanks.


That's because Kinetic Energy is not a predictable penetration enhancing factor when comparing different arrows from the same bow. Read this: http://tuffhead.com/ashby_pdfs/ashby ours/PDF Momentum, Kinetic Energy and Arrow Penetration.pdf


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

The guy just wants to shoot a frigging deer - pick either arrow tune it and go kill a deer.

Matt


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Ghost Dancer said:


> Is the zero distance in the calculator the point on distance?


No.

It is the distance that you plan to be shooting, assuming a level path from your arrow to the target.

What you really want to do is compare different arrow speed with same zero distance, and see how much variation you get in height, as you move from that distance (yardage estimation error).

And, yes, it's just a calculator, and not the end all, (it does not take air resistance into account) but it will provide a rough idea of trajectories.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Matt_Potter said:


> The guy just wants to shoot a frigging deer - pick either arrow tune it and go kill a deer.
> 
> Matt


Valid, but it's so fun to go head banging!


----------



## Ghost Dancer (Sep 21, 2008)

BarneySlayer said:


> No.
> 
> It is the distance that you plan to be shooting, assuming a level path from your arrow to the target.
> 
> ...


Thank you!!!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Ghost Dancer said:


> Is the zero distance in the calculator the point on distance?


It can be used a few different ways. Personally I would put the zero at POD as that will then show where your gaps roughly are and which distances you can shoot without having to adjust your gap at all.
Interestingly enough if one were to input say a 348 grain arrow from a 48# bow going 214 fps with a POD of 40yds you would see this (odd distances removed):
Distance: Gap:
10 12.1 
12 13.5 
14 14.7 
16 15.5 
18 16.1
20 16.3 
22 16.1 
24 15.7	
26 14.9
28 13.8
30 12.3
32 10.6

Which shows that for IBO distances a person could shoot every target with the same gap (at the target) and still be inside the 8 ring, the gap only changes +-2" between 10 and 30yds which if you were 100% accurate would put you inside the 10 ring on any of the medium sized targets.
Or if you are a visual person:





I wouldn't go out and shoot based-upon the calculator, but it does make a fun decision making tool. If you know what sight picture is comfortable to you in inches at the target you can use it to find what set-up will work best for you. Some people don't mind fairly large gaps so long as they don't change much (as in the above example). Others prefer smaller gaps but understand that they are likely to change more between 10 and 30yds. Everyone would prefer a fast arrow for target work, but due to personal technique not everyone can get a useable sight picture with them. I need fairly slow and long arrows to get my max gap much under 20".

Personally I do best with a harder aiming reference so I will sacrifice a little speed if it means I can get the point fairly close to the target. But I still can shoot the vase majority of my shots with the same gap.

-Grant


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Roughrider said:


> I know this has been beat to death, but I have been playing with some spine calculators and with my 57# recurve the lightest arrow setup I can work up has more KE than the heavier arrow setup only .8-1lb difference and 20-25 fps.
> My question is if you take a 400gr arrow and a 600gr arrow that generate the same KE which will penetrate better. My thoughts are the heavier one as it should not lose as much energy upon impact. By the way the bow I am speaking of calculates to arrow and speed listed below
> 
> 354 gr 230 fps 41.7 KE
> ...


Ke is a function of an equation that squares the speed. This by necessity also loses energy as an exponential function of speed and drag. Light arrows, unless heavily weighted forward and spined to accept that excess forward weight, aren't stable.

grains	354
speed	230
KE	41.57309357
Momentum	0.361505162
momentum_1	3.615051615

grains	623
speed	171
KE	40.4420979
Momentum	0.473006993
momentum_1	4.73006993

Heavy arrows are quiet, stable, and reliable. Light arrows are fast, and errors are magnified but shooting at distance takes less "accurate judgement" and that of course makes them desirable. The foregoing is of course my opinions and mine alone... from the 3 of us... :grin: 

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

I see the opinions, I see the facts, but the fact remains what ever puts that deer on the ground the fastest always wins the case....this is the most talked about subject on this website, I believe a good shot with a semi-heavy arrow with aheavy broadhead does the trick for traditional bows, you still need a lil FPS


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> I see the opinions, I see the facts, but the fact remains what ever puts that deer on the ground the fastest always wins the case


Giant broadheads for the win!!!


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

kegan said:


> Giant broadheads for the win!!!


yessir, 140 grain with a 400 spine arrow is what the deer don't like


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> yessir, 140 grain with a 400 spine arrow is what the deer don't like


I don't think deer like any of our arrows:lol:


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> Ke is a function of an equation that squares the speed. This by necessity also loses energy as an exponential function of speed and drag. Light arrows, unless heavily weighted forward and spined to accept that excess forward weight, aren't stable.
> 
> Heavy arrows are quiet, stable, and reliable. Light arrows are fast, and errors are magnified but shooting at distance takes less "accurate judgement" and that of course makes them desirable. The foregoing is of course my opinions and mine alone... from the 3 of us...
> 
> ...


Yep. 

The KE equation uses velocity squared to increase energy but.........."To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction". So it starts out with the same energy but looses energy faster. 

But its just an equation... :wink:



kegan said:


> Giant broadheads for the win!!!


Unless they cause planing issues, or in windy conditions, then not so good.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Destroyer said:


> Unless they cause planing issues, or in windy conditions, then not so good.


That's what vents are for


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

kegan said:


> That's what vents are for


Yep vents help but don't solve the issue. Mechanical's are the solution but have issues of their own. 

Big also means a bigger cut which is a good thing, still has cons though, like everything.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

All completely true, but for close shooting where you're looking to put them down fast, bigger is actually better (if you can get it to tune and fly straight and razor sharp):lol:


----------



## gradyk (Mar 3, 2013)

I know Im a little late in this thread but- I know to figure KE from a bullet all you need is bullet weight in grains and bullet velocity. I believe an arrow would be the same.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

kegan said:


> That's what vents are for


 to a good degree.. but spinning probably even more so.... :grin:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

gradyk said:


> I know Im a little late in this thread but- I know to figure KE from a bullet all you need is bullet weight in grains and bullet velocity. I believe an arrow would be the same.


 it aint quite that easy... :grin: =(((D2/7000)*(D3^2)*(0.5))/(32.175))


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Wider cut generally means worse penetration. Mechanical advantage and tissue penetration index are figures most people don't even know exist or what they represent.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

Momentum is more accurate but KE is easier for ppl to understand, higher numbers and a bigger range. Neither matters in the end...


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

"Tissue Penetration Index" - or "TPI" - this is a concept invented by Dr. Ashby based on his theories - it is not recognized in any branch of science, it has not been peer reviewed and is really nothing.

Mechanical advantage is simply a formula to measure how much a machine increases or amplifies force - elementary school science there - remember making a lever in school and changing the pivot point?


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> "Tissue Penetration Index" - or "TPI" - this is a concept invented by Dr. Ashby based on his theories - it is not recognized in any branch of science, it has not been peer reviewed and is really nothing.
> 
> Mechanical advantage is simply a formula to measure how much a machine increases or amplifies force - elementary school science there - remember making a lever in school and changing the pivot point?


Oh I thought you had me on the ignore list???

You discredit Ashby's work yet your unscientific video you keep posting over and over and over as proof to your incorrect theory is somehow supposed to be taken as fact? Tell me how your "peer review" goes! hahahahahahahahahaha 

Isn't this stuff the same reason you were banned before???


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

yep - but unfortunately -= the ignore list is a waste of time - because you still see that the person posted and are tempted to read it.

I simply stated the facts - sorry you don't like that - but the "Tissue Penetration Index" is exactly what I said - something that Ashby made up based on his theories and it is nothing more than that. 

My videos are not proof of any theories - my penetration videos are a documentation of what I found with my bow and my set up - I never had a theory - I wanted to see what would happened and this is what happened just as seen - if you don't like it - oh well - but it is what it is and I have just as much right to share my videos as you do sharing your opinions and Ashby's opinions.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

henro said:


> Wider cut generally means worse penetration. Mechanical advantage and tissue penetration index are figures most people don't even know exist or what they represent.


It's not hard to get a pass through on most of the stuff I shoot at, even with a Tree Shark. I used STOS the year before, and the penetration was good but the blood trails left something to be desired.


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Henro, do you shoot a recurve or a longbow?


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

CAPTJJ said:


> Henro, do you shoot a recurve or a longbow?


Would an Oneida Eagle be OK?
I hear they are just a "recurve on steroids".


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> yep - but unfortunately -= the ignore list is a waste of time - because you still see that the person posted and are tempted to read it.
> 
> I simply stated the facts - sorry you don't like that - but the "Tissue Penetration Index" is exactly what I said - something that Ashby made up based on his theories and it is nothing more than that.
> 
> My videos are not proof of any theories - my penetration videos are a documentation of what I found with my bow and my set up - I never had a theory - I wanted to see what would happened and this is what happened just as seen - if you don't like it - oh well - but it is what it is and I have just as much right to share my videos as you do sharing your opinions and Ashby's opinions.


It's hilarious all the lengths you go to dispute Ashby's testing yet your own cannot have any faults no matter how many people show you that you them.



CAPTJJ said:


> Henro, do you shoot a recurve or a longbow?


Sold my Hoyt Durado a couple months ago. Just have a Mathews MR5 and Elite Judge for now.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Set a moderately heavy bow with moderately heavy arrows strap on any broad head you think looks cool and go kill some deer. 

It isn't rocket science guys were doing it long before the Internet, KE, and FOC were cool 

Matt


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

SteveB said:


> Would an Oneida Eagle be OK?
> I hear they are just a "recurve on steroids".


OK for what?

I was curious because I've heard longbows tend to favor heavier arrows.


----------



## Curve1 (Nov 25, 2009)

I've never bought into the heavy arrow thing. The videos do show plainly that you dont need an arrow weighing 12 grains per pound.
For hunting, I dont like to shoot too light of an arrow because the bow is noisier and I dont like the feel of the shot. 9-10 grains is plenty for deer..or even lighter.
There's really not that much to penetrate when shooting deer. If you get a direct hit on a bone that changes things.
Sharp broadhead, well tuned arrow, and shot placement are the key, always has been.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yep - accuracy is king - shoot whatever draw weight and arrow weight combination that allows you to be the most accurate shot you can be.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

For Bowhunters...I always recommend they shoot the heaviest draw weight they can accurately shoot under the circumstances they will be hunting in.

As far as arrows go...I would suggest close to 8g./lb. or more and just make sure they're tuned to the best of your ability.

Add a big COC 2 blade like the Centaur Big Game or one of the Simmons broadheads and your good to go.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## dougedwards (Sep 5, 2010)

Curve1 said:


> I've never bought into the heavy arrow thing. The videos do show plainly that you dont need an arrow weighing 12 grains per pound.
> For hunting, I dont like to shoot too light of an arrow because the bow is noisier and I dont like the feel of the shot. 9-10 grains is plenty for deer..or even lighter.
> There's really not that much to penetrate when shooting deer. If you get a direct hit on a bone that changes things.
> Sharp broadhead, well tuned arrow, and shot placement are the key, always has been.


It has always amazed me that we practice and practice and practice our pin point accuracy and then choose an arrow as if we are going to be slightly missing the mark. I know that whitetails move quickly as a reaction to an unusual sound but if you are aiming correctly there is a whole ribcage of vitals that really aren't all that difficult to reach if shots are kept close. I see no reason to load up on the weight of the arrow just to penetrate a thin hide and flimsy rib cage bones. A 300 gr arrow shot from a 35 lb bow can easily do it. 

On the other hand, longer shots with heavy arrows only gives the deer a longer period of time to physically react. I honestly believe that we over think this issue and don't allow the bow to select the arrow for us. Look to see which arrows are flying flatly and consistently hitting their mark. Choose those arrow regardless of weight. Exercise some patience in picking a good spot in which to aim. It seems to me that this preoccupation with kinetic energy was born out of an impatience to allow a good shot to present itself.

Doug


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> yep - but unfortunately -= the ignore list is a waste of time - because you still see that the person posted and are tempted to read it.
> 
> I simply stated the facts - sorry you don't like that - but the "Tissue Penetration Index" is exactly what I said - something that Ashby made up based on his theories and it is nothing more than that.
> 
> My videos are not proof of any theories - my penetration videos are a documentation of what I found with my bow and my set up - I never had a theory - I wanted to see what would happened and this is what happened just as seen - if you don't like it - oh well - but it is what it is and I have just as much right to share my videos as you do sharing your opinions and Ashby's opinions.


Didn't Taylor come up with the TKO index based upon his theories... made up his experiences and all..... hahahaha....


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

henro said:


> You discredit Ashby's work yet your unscientific video you keep posting over and over and over as proof to your incorrect theory is somehow supposed to be taken as fact? Tell me how your "peer review" goes! hahahahahahahahahaha
> 
> I'll be Ken's peer. I made tests just like Ken did in his video and found him to be correct. I didn't shoot ballistic gel but modeling clay, wet newspaper and plywood sheets. The lighter, faster arrow always drove in deeper. In some cases not by much, but in some cases it was very obvious.
> 
> henro, you seem to derive some kind of identity with heavy, slow arrows and Dr. Ashby. It's in your signature line. I understand it's hard to come off a point once you've very publicly defended it. But you really should do the testing Ken and I and many other curious and not brainwashed archers have done. Go out and tune 2 arrows to your chosen bow. Shoot a 550 grain arrow compared to a 400 grain arrow for example. Try different materials for penetration. You might learn something instead of constantly letting others (Ashby) do your thinking for you.


----------



## gr4vitas (May 25, 2013)

*Momentum means nothing.*



_Scalar Versus Vector:

An important difference is that momentum is a vector quantity - it has a direction in space, and momenta combine like forces do. Kinetic energy is a scalar quantity - it has no direction in space, and kinetic energies combine like "regular numbers."

Dependence on Velocity:

The momentum of an object is proportional to the object's velocity - if you double its velocity, you double its momentum. The kinetic energy of an object is proportional to the square of the object's velocity - if you double its velocity, you quadruple its kinetic energy. This has important consequences...

A Thought Experiment:

Suppose that you were captured by an evil physicist who gave you the following choice:

Truck and Meatball DiagramYou must either:

Stand in front of a 1000 kg truck moving at 1 m/s, or
Stand in front of a 1 kg meatball moving at 1000 m/s.
What's your choice?

Hopefully, you picked the truck! It's a big truck, but it is moving rather slowly (about walking speed), so assuming you don't fall down when it hits you (That would be bad...) the truck is just going to bump into you and move you out of the way.

On the other hand, you probably suspect intuitively that the meatball is a very dangerous object. It isn't that massive, but it is moving very fast (about 10 football fields per second) - and when it hits you it would do considerable damage to you, and keep going!

Consider the momentum and kinetic energy of the truck and the meatball:

Truck:

Truck's momentum = mv = (1000 kg)(1 m/s) = 1000 kg m/s
Truck's kinetic energy = 0.5 mv2 = (0.5)(1000 kg)(1 m/s)2 = 500 Joules

Meatball:

Meatball's momentum = mv = (1 kg)(1000 m/s) = 1000 kg m/s
Meatball's kinetic energy = 0.5 mv2 = (0.5)(1 kg)(1000 m/s)2 = 500 000 Joules

We know intuitively that the meatball is more dangerous than the truck, yet the momenta of the truck and the meatball are the same. On the other hand, the meatball has 1 000 times the kinetic energy of the truck! Clearly, momentum and kinetic energy tell different things about an object!_


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

gr4vitas said:


> We know intuitively that the meatball is more dangerous than the truck[/I]


Best line I've seen on this sight in a long time...:thumbs_up


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Thanks...now my head hurts.


----------



## gr4vitas (May 25, 2013)

Easykeeper said:


> Best line I've seen on this sight in a long time...:thumbs_up


For some reason it was way funnier when you pointed out just how silly that sounds lmao.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Stone Bridge said:


> You discredit Ashby's work yet your unscientific video you keep posting over and over and over as proof to your incorrect theory is somehow supposed to be taken as fact? Tell me how your "peer review" goes! hahahahahahahahahaha
> 
> I'll be Ken's peer. I made tests just like Ken did in his video and found him to be correct. I didn't shoot ballistic gel but modeling clay, wet newspaper and plywood sheets. The lighter, faster arrow always drove in deeper. In some cases not by much, but in some cases it was very obvious.
> 
> henro, you seem to derive some kind of identity with heavy, slow arrows and Dr. Ashby. It's in your signature line. I understand it's hard to come off a point once you've very publicly defended it. But you really should do the testing Ken and I and many other curious and not brainwashed archers have done. Go out and tune 2 arrows to your chosen bow. Shoot a 550 grain arrow compared to a 400 grain arrow for example. Try different materials for penetration. You might learn something instead of constantly letting others (Ashby) do your thinking for you.


Lol why don't you search. I've done my own testing. You have no clue what you're talking about if you think EVERYTHING else equal and both arrows tuned correctly that a lighter arrow will out penetrate a heavier arrow in animals, especially when bone is encountered.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

henro, all else is not equal. That's the point of using a lighter arrow. From the same bow, the lighter arrow will travel faster - again, from the same bow. The resulting penetration in every test I've done is more penetration from the faster, lighter arrow. 

It's pretty tough to test on real animals except anecdotally. But even then, the first 5 or 6 deer I killed with a bow were with arrows around 500 grains. These were shot with a 41# ILF target bow - the only bow I hunt with. Arrows shot well and in most cases poked out the other side of the deer. (I only shoot broadside animals.)

Once I switched to 325-330 grain arrows out of this same bow, and using the same kind of single-blade head, I started to get complete pass-thru shots that buried into the ground beyond. I did not go to lighter arrows for more penetration because my heavier arrows were already making 2 holes. I shot the lighter arrows to get a flatter trajectory. But to my surprise, I noticed much more exaggerated penetration as well. It was obvious on the 6 deer I've since killed with these lighter arrows.

Even well-known archer Jimmy Blackmon uses arrows under 400 grains and he reports complete pass-thru shots using a self-bow. A self-bow, believe it or not. Not a bow of great cast. Blackmon has an online video of a hunt where he kills several deer with arrows around 360 grains and a homemade self-bow.

You don't have to believe me. But how do you dismiss Blackmon and what he's done with light arrows?


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Stone Bridge said:


> henro, all else is not equal. That's the point of using a lighter arrow. From the same bow, the lighter arrow will travel faster - again, from the same bow. The resulting penetration in every test I've done is more penetration from the faster, lighter arrow.
> 
> It's pretty tough to test on real animals except anecdotally. But even then, the first 5 or 6 deer I killed with a bow were with arrows around 500 grains. These were shot with a 41# ILF target bow - the only bow I hunt with. Arrows shot well and in most cases poked out the other side of the deer. (I only shoot broadside animals.)
> 
> ...


Holy **** a lighter arrow would be faster? Lol after reading that you're not even worth responding to.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Stone Bridge said:


> henro said:
> 
> 
> > You discredit Ashby's work yet your unscientific video you keep posting over and over and over as proof to your incorrect theory is somehow supposed to be taken as fact? Tell me how your "peer review" goes! hahahahahahahahahaha
> ...


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

I have to remind myself I'm the youngest guy posting at times...


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Some times this place is like a bad tennis match somebody needs to serve an ace. Then quit hitting the ball back across the net.


I went hunting this morning didn't get a shot. KE. Didn't mean a thing to me today
Gary


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Stone Bridge said:


> henro, all else is not equal. That's the point of using a lighter arrow. From the same bow, the lighter arrow will travel faster - again, from the same bow. The resulting penetration in every test I've done is more penetration from the faster, lighter arrow.
> 
> It's pretty tough to test on real animals except anecdotally. But even then, the first 5 or 6 deer I killed with a bow were with arrows around 500 grains. These were shot with a 41# ILF target bow - the only bow I hunt with. Arrows shot well and in most cases poked out the other side of the deer. (I only shoot broadside animals.)
> 
> ...


 It is quite easy to dismiss anyone. Don't get a load of yourself like others here do. Experiences, like pain, are personal. What you experience is not what I experience.. PERIOD... with the same bows in fact. Your experiences are your own. If you decide to discredit others for their experiences based upon your own, you are behaving as others here do as well and you find that almost immediately your irrelevant. Extol the virtues of your setups for the conditions you find yourself in. Don't for a second think that it has anything to do with me or any other. All you can do is report what you find. As for lighter arrows penetrating further... that has NEVER BEEN MY EXPERIENCE.... and probably for others here as well... so if I was to say heavier is better... it is.. for me.... Keep this in mind when you enter a debate with others... some will share you experience and others, such as myself, have not... 

As for lighter arrows and penetration, forward cg makes a difference. A well spined, and usually much higher weight spine for the bow used, and well forward cg provides for increased penetration from light arrows in some cases exceeding those of heavier arrows shot from heavier bows. This too, is a fact, and for moderately big game here in America, would do well against animals like moose and elk with light tackle, but again, this takes preparation.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I have yet to see a guy shooting an arrow that weighs more than 10 grains per pound of draw score well on any course I have ever shot - and I cannot help but think that a good percentage heavy arrow guys think that a heavy arrow will make up for their poor accuracy and that it will penetrate or kill the animal no matter where their lack of skill as an archer lands that arrow on the unlucky animal that gets in front of them.

I view accuracy as king - everything else is subordinate.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I have yet to see a guy shooting an arrow that weighs more than 10 grains per pound of draw score well on any course I have ever shot - and I cannot help but think that a good percentage heavy arrow guys think that a heavy arrow will make up for their poor accuracy and that it will penetrate or kill the animal no matter where their lack of skill as an archer lands that arrow on the unlucky animal that gets in front of them.
> 
> I view accuracy as king - everything else is subordinate.


They weren't shooting Omegas:wink:

Sorry, that sounded hilarious in my head.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I have yet to see a guy shooting an arrow that weighs more than 10 grains per pound of draw score well on any course I have ever shot - and I cannot help but think that a good percentage heavy arrow guys think that a heavy arrow will make up for their poor accuracy and that it will penetrate or kill the animal no matter where their lack of skill as an archer lands that arrow on the unlucky animal that gets in front of them.
> 
> I view accuracy as king - everything else is subordinate.


Then stick to that angle of argument. You get much further than trying to tell some of us 1) lighter is better, 2) ashby is a dunce 3) and rage broadheads are an endall... :grin: I totally agree with you about accuracy. What you should be doing is promoting exactly what you do to achieve the experiences you have... like shooting ranges between hermetcially sealed send off capsules... As for heay arrows and accuracy... a heavy arrow is no less accurate than is a lighter arrow... and in fact, in some situations, might fare far better, but range estimation with higher velocity is less challenging for sure.. especially at distances beyond say 20 or 30 yards.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

gr4vitas said:


> *Momentum means nothing.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've often seen this type of analogy used in the momentum vs. kinetic energy debate as it pertains to archery. The math behind the comparison between a lighter object (in this case a dangerous meatball) and a heavier object (truck) as stated above is basically correct but I think there are a couple of assumptions being made that do not hold up in the real world as it pertains to arrow penetration.

Let me play devil's advocate and throw these thoughts out there:

When any object strikes another and meets resistance it begins to slow down until the inertia of the struck object is overcome and the two bodies are moving at the same velocity, or the struck object is destroyed offering no further resistance, or the striking object passes completely through the struck object at which point it is no longer encountering resistance and moves off at an unchanging velocity. Until they reach the same velocity energy will be transferred from the higher energy body to the lower (the moving object to the stationary). The reason the meatball is the more dangerous object in the above scenario is that the inertia of the struck body cannot be overcome quickly enough to avert the energy from the meatball being transferred to the struck object (your body). With the truck, since it's moving so much slower there _is_ enough time for the inertia of the struck body to match the speed of the truck without any damage being done, either you just get pushed out of the way (large surface area of the truck) or you jump out of the way.

Let's continue the thought experiment but make a change to the premise of the truck/meatball analogy. Let's say that you are standing up against a wall that will not allow you to move. At this point the meatball is still a fearsome object and will behave much as it did before, but I'm going to assume that you don't want to be between the truck and an immoveable wall either. Since it will be impossible for your body to overcome it's inertia (you can't move) the truck will continue to move forward until your body provides enough resistance to stop it...ouch.

Let's make another change to the original premise and carry on the thought experiment; change the surface area of the impacting surface (truck or meatball). What if the heavier slower object (truck) had a needle point on it...like an arrow sporting a COC broadhead mounted on the front of the truck? Even though the truck was moving very slowly wouldn't the sharp point penetrate the struck body since there is no appreciable surface area to work against the surface of the struck body in overcoming it's inertia? What if the meatball could be made of a hollow shell of meat and spices still weighing 1kg but with a surface area of several square meters? 

This is all fun to talk about and debate but in my opinion saying either momentum or kinetic energy is the be all, end all, determinant is impossible. I think they both express a characteristic of an arrow in flight and you can't really ignore one at the expense of the other. The statement _"momentum means nothing"_ can't possibly be correct since the terms used to determine kinetic energy and momentum are the same, mass and velocity, just expressed in different algebraic form.

I don't mean to be picking on you gr4vitas, I just find this kind of debate interesting and wanted to add another perspective. I really do appreciate the meatball humor...:thumbs_up


----------



## RightWing (Aug 22, 2004)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Arrow penetration - part 1 of 2
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Hahaha gotta love Yankees, if he talked more like Will Primos, Alan Altizer, Michal Waddell or Ben Lee I would have taken his advice more seriously. 



Just kidding!! 




No, not really.... I meant it 













.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

kegan said:


> They weren't shooting Omegas:wink:
> 
> Sorry, that sounded hilarious in my head.


Love it! :wink: :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I'd LOVE to see a video of the different arrows bareshaft tuned from anyone who has tested heavy vs light arrow penetration.

Sorry...paper tuning just don't cut it for me. A bareshaft arrow in flight will show even the slightest difference in tune...when compared to paper.

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

henro said:


> Holy **** a lighter arrow would be faster? Lol after reading that you're not even worth responding to.


Let me get this straight - you don't think a lighter arrow will shoot faster than a heavier arrow out of the same bow? If that's your stance I am indeed wasting my time.

I've never shot a lighter arrow out of any bow that did not travel faster than a heavier arrow out of that same bow.

henro, you're a trip. LOL


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

gr4vitas said:


> *Momentum means nothing.*_
> Consider the momentum and kinetic energy of the truck and the meatball:
> 
> Truck:
> ...


Looks like momentum is more accurate to me, shows KE just *artificially increases energy levels* where as momentum comes out with the same value (as it should) assuming the same amount of energy is used in both examples. You are assuming the energy needed to move each object to the nominated speeds is the same for each object, will each object will absorb the same amount of energy when shot from a bow?


----------



## itbeso (Jul 6, 2005)

Stone Bridge said:


> Let me get this straight - you don't think a lighter arrow will shoot faster than a heavier arrow out of the same bow? If that's your stance I am indeed wasting my time.
> 
> I've never shot a lighter arrow out of any bow that did not travel faster than a heavier arrow out of that same bow.
> 
> henro, you're a trip. LOL


Bridge, I do think the man was being facetious and being that you made that obvious statement, he doesn't view you as a worthy adversary, on an intellectual basis. Just my take on the post.


----------



## dougedwards (Sep 5, 2010)

kegan said:


> I have to remind myself I'm the youngest guy posting at times...


And possibly the most mature


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

dougedwards said:


> And possibly the most mature


That's terribly depressing.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Stone Bridge said:


> Let me get this straight - you don't think a lighter arrow will shoot faster than a heavier arrow out of the same bow? If that's your stance I am indeed wasting my time.
> 
> I've never shot a lighter arrow out of any bow that did not travel faster than a heavier arrow out of that same bow.
> 
> henro, you're a trip. LOL


You honestly think you had to explain that to me? Don't bother answering. You don't get it.



itbeso said:


> Bridge, I do think the man was being facetious and being that you made that obvious statement, he doesn't view you as a worthy adversary, on an intellectual basis. Just my take on the post.


100% correct.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

dougedwards said:


> And possibly the most mature


Judge not lest ye be judged...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

henro said:


> You honestly think you had to explain that to me? Don't bother answering. You don't get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 100% correct.


Funny how life can be interpreted or interpretations for that matter.... :grin:


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

Back on topic...

What ya think about my post #110 rattus?


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

kegan said:


> That's terribly depressing.


Definitely more mature than I am.:wink:


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I'd LOVE to see a video of the different arrows bareshaft tuned from anyone who has tested heavy vs light arrow penetration.
> 
> Sorry...paper tuning just don't cut it for me. A bareshaft arrow in flight will show even the slightest difference in tune...when compared to paper.
> 
> ...


I think Widgeon has some..could be mistaken though. .

What I would really like to see is some of the data Sharp and his deveoper friend came up with on those tips. .to me that would be a good read. .

Hey Ken..if you get a chance to talk with him any time soon. .ask if he's available to talk to. .I believe you said he had some family issues or something and I don't want to bother him if it's still a problem. .

All of this is really getting stupid guys..seriously. .

Agree to disagree. .and go shoot your bows..

Mac


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Destroyer said:


> Back on topic...
> 
> What ya think about my post #110 rattus?


Well for one thing I'm not the most articulate guy when it comes to understanding stuff... :grin: But here is my take on KE and Momentum.

KE has momentum buried within it. Momentum is mass times velocity. KE is Mass times Velocity Squared. So right there you have distortion, but the value is still there. A 400 grain arrow at 250 FPS has 14.29 momentum pounds of energy in pure form. Divide that by acceleration, or 32.175 then brings this 14.29 pounds to .444 and whose gonna accept that.. :grin: We multiply that by 10 so you have a positive number or 4.44 with acceleration... You add that to just bring it into conformity with KE. KE would be 55 pounds. Mass times velocity is really the tale though isn't it?

Here is a roundball shot at 1200 fps from my 58 caliber. The values are all starting from the muzzle...first velocity, then energy, then percentage of original then momentum..

Yards and Velocity

0 = 1200
20 = 1116
40 = 1051
60 = 1000
80 =	957
100 = 921

Yards and % of speed loss 
0 =	100.00%
20 =	93.00%
40 =	87.58%
60 =	83.33%
80 =	79.75%
100 =76.75%

Energy and % of loss to KE
0	=1200 =	1439 =	100.00%
20	=1116 =	1245 =	86.52%
40	=1051 =	1104 =	76.72%
60	=1000 =	999 =	69.42%
80	=957 =	916 =	63.66%
100	=921 =	847 =	58.86%

Momentum values and % of loss
0 =	23.9 = 100.00%
20 =	22.29 = 93.26%
40 =	20.99 = 87.82%
60 =	19.8 = 82.85%
80 =	19.12 = 80.00%
100 =18.23 = 76.28%

Momentum isn't sexy. KE sounds exciting and dramatic. This is for a muzzleloader, but the effects are the same for an arrow. So using KE sounds great going in, but it is momentum that carries the day from the minute the bullet or arrow leaves the string.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

rattus58 said:


> Mass times velocity is really the tale though isn't it?


YES! That is what its all about.

What gr4vitas didn't factor in to the momentum calculations was loss, the loss of energy transferred, the loss of velocity due to increased resistance for both drag and penetration so therefore the increase in velocity won't be linear like the equations are. That is why the amount for momentum was the same for both weights, its showing you that if you have no loss then momentum will be the same, naturally! KE shows you that with no loss the energy will just keep increasing but that will never happen in the real world, there is always loss.

So if you fired the meatball from a bow, the final velocity for the meatball would be lower than calculated since bows don't transfer all energy to lighter arrows (we know that because of the increase of noise, vibration and hand shock, which is all wasted energy), the loss due to resistance (drag) at a greater amount since it has less mass, and the increased loss due to the lower mass on impact.

Loss of energy transferred + increased effect of resistance = lower velocity at a given time and place and therefore...

*The heavier arrow will start out slower but more energy will be transferred to the arrow, there will be reduction of energy loss at every part of the flight due to the larger mass and when the arrow impacts, due to the larger mass, it won't loose energy at the same rate and will result in more penetration.*

With the same method of acceleration, momentum always wins in defeating resistance. That is what penetration is.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I have yet to see a guy shooting an arrow that weighs more than 10 grains per pound of draw score well on any course I have ever shot - and I cannot help but think that a good percentage heavy arrow guys think that a heavy arrow will make up for their poor accuracy and that it will penetrate or kill the animal no matter where their lack of skill as an archer lands that arrow on the unlucky animal that gets in front of them.


Actually I won a state title in NFAA 3D which is unmarked out to 44yds with a 11gpp arrow going 185fps. I believe I averaged 7.5/target with most of those 25-35yds away medium sized Reinharts.
However that was more of an experiment and in the future I'd think about shooting a faster arrow. However if I was shooting IBO or especially ASA I'd be using that set-up again with a few tweeks.

I do notice a trend here:
The guys who are getting good results are shooting modern, efficient ILF bows. The guys preferring heavier arrows are shooting less efficient equipment. Kind of makes sense in a big way.

The way I see things affective penetration is this:
tuning
head design
FOC
arrow diameter
weight

-Grant


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

kegan said:


> They weren't shooting Omegas:wink:
> 
> Sorry, that sounded hilarious in my head.


mate, I'll pay it ...

heck the way this thread is going I'd indulge a Roseanne Barr stand up routine for some giggles


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I have yet to see a guy shooting an arrow that weighs more than 10 grains per pound of draw score well on any course I have ever shot - and I cannot help but think that a good percentage heavy arrow guys think that a heavy arrow will make up for their poor accuracy and that it will penetrate or kill the animal no matter where their lack of skill as an archer lands that arrow on the unlucky animal that gets in front of them.
> 
> I view accuracy as king - everything else is subordinate.


Ken, 

With all due respect, I shot heavy wood arrows in LB shot at IBO. Depending on the set up they were all around 11 to 11.5 gpp. No, I did not win, but placed respectably. I shot along with 7 time former champ Dave Wallace and he shoots about 10.5 gpp, and he is unbelievably accurate. Most longbows shoot better with a heavier arrow that absorbs the energy of the bow. My particular style of aiming works better with a heavier arrow. 

I will agree with you accuracy is King. But to assume that a faster arrow is necessary to be accurate is false. 

Now back to the OP...... Take the best tuned arrow and go hunting!


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

UDS,

Not to get further sidetracked, but you're 100% about Wallace. He's an incredible archer, and a nice guy too. I got to pick his brain a bit since he bunked with us at the Trad World. I've never met anyone with that detailed of an aiming system. He definitely leaves nothing to chance in that department.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

grantmac said:


> Actually I won a state title in NFAA 3D which is unmarked out to 44yds with a 11gpp arrow going 185fps. I believe I averaged 7.5/target with most of those 25-35yds away medium sized Reinharts.
> However that was more of an experiment and in the future I'd think about shooting a faster arrow. However if I was shooting IBO or especially ASA I'd be using that set-up again with a few tweeks.
> 
> I do notice a trend here:
> ...


The way I see things affective penetration is this:

*tuning* Tuning is probably required for any repeatable arrow flight.

*head design* Maybe yes. We don't usually measure penetration beyond the medium penetrated and therefore head design only matters till the animal or medium is exited. That brings up drag. Momentum has to overcome drag. The bigger the animal/medium the more momentum and drag coefficient matters. For hunting, this is all that matters, we don't care what the arrow does beyond the animal except possibly the least distance it travels once the job is done the more desirable.

*FOC* I am convinced that many don't understand FOC and even more convinced that many don't know how to tune for FOC. FOC is easier to manipulate with some arrow designs as opposed to others... wood dowels for example... Stability is being able to keep the arrow righted after impact. A heavy arrow that has a CG (center of Gravity or FOC) near center will have because of momentum (weight) a certain *inherent * propensity to continue on its original path even after impact. But if the disruption is significant enough, it too can be deflected though probably will not upset as a light arrow is likely to do under the same circumstance.

A lighter arrow with a significant Forward Of Center balance point has "gravity" or force for momentum close to the point. The closer to the point that CG remains throughout the arrows flight the more stable the arrow becomes. We must remember that essentially it is the CG that is flying to the target. If you had an arrow with a cg of 6" back from the point and another 3" back from the point they both might fly nicely to the target, but the minute you deflect the arrow the CG closer to the point will right itself more positively than will a CG further from the point. Visualize a deflection of 90 degrees... arrows flying sideways for a second, the closer the CG is to the point the quicker it will recover... in this case the 3" CG. The further back CG is from the point when in maximum deflection, the larger the angle relative to the point CG is. CG wants to follow its *original* trajectory and this larger angle will cause considerably more drag on the arrow than will one with a forward cg and hence reduce penetration. A forward CG is close to the point and even with the arrow at maximum deflection, the angle is closer to the point and the trajectory is more inline with the original intended path and thus penetration is enhanced even with a lighter arrow over the heavier one. A rudimentary diagram follows.

*arrow diameter* This has significant impact on penetration as does the relationship of the ferrule to the shaft diameter. If the ferrule is larger than the shaft (assuming the case with carbon and similar) penetration is a breeze, so to speak other than the feathers/vanes there is nothing grab on to the shaft even if wound recovery was instantaneous. It's just the point and the benefit of CG working the arrow forward. A shaft such as my wood dowels have significant drag that almost no end of tapering will overcome significantly... and this is where 900 grains comes into play... :grin: Not clean but muscular.

*weight* Well we sorta just discussed this. Penetration comes from pure mass or it comes from efficiency (FOC). Efficiency will almost always be the most desirable of circumstances. Me... I love the effect of mass. Mass has all kinds of things working against it but it has two things that are working for it. One... efficiency is complex. Mass is simple. Efficiently can still be overcome by circumstances encountered, Mass just trudges along.. Mass is simple and for simple minded people such as myself, mass rules the day. Of course the days are shorter than with aerodynamically complementary efficient arrangements but then the mission is simpler too... get close... :grin:

View attachment 1747001


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

One more point ... the longer "tail" or trailing arm of a forward cg also tends to help "right" the arrow in air and in medium by pushing the nock back into alignment.

Aloha.. :beer:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

This thread is cracking me up and here's what I'm gleaning from it...

Heavy arrows are more apt to bust through bone...Lighter arrows are apt to penetrate deeper through soft tissue and offer up a faster, flatter trajectory (not that the later would mean anything to the seasoned hunter well practiced with his heavy arrows) but...since I'm not superman with X-ray vision and can't tell where the bones are or are not?...and even if I could there's no guarantee I'm either going to hit a bone or not?...I would like o give birth to what I feel is the ultimate 3rd option in this thread...

*"MEDIUM WEIGHT ARROWS"*

you know...something "Well Balanced" in the 10-12GPP range...offering up both enough speed for a very respectable trajectory at reasonable hunting distances yet still retains enough weight to keep the bow smooth and quiet yet still processes enough momentum to bust through a rib should it encounter such....offering up a nice blend somewhere in the middle of light arrows accurately punching holes in paper at 90 meters or fletched logs taking down a cape buffalo at 10yds.

I like 10-12 GPP...they seem to yield a very predictable and consistent arc with a nice carry to them at reasonable hunting/3D distances.

Just my thoughts on the topic and L8R, Bill. :cool2:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> This thread is cracking me up and here's what I'm gleaning from it...
> 
> Heavy arrows are more apt to bust through bone...Lighter arrows are apt to penetrate deeper through soft tissue and offer up a faster, flatter trajectory (not that the later would mean anything to the seasoned hunter well practiced with his heavy arrows) but...since I'm not superman with X-ray vision and can't tell where the bones are or are not?...and even if I could there's no guarantee I'm either going to hit a bone or not?...I would like o give birth to what I feel is the ultimate 3rd option in this thread...
> 
> ...


Fred Bear! :grin:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I'd LOVE to see a video of the different arrows bareshaft tuned from anyone who has tested heavy vs light arrow penetration.
> 
> Sorry...paper tuning just don't cut it for me. A bareshaft arrow in flight will show even the slightest difference in tune...when compared to paper.
> 
> ...


I do both - so you have seen it


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

MAC 11700 said:


> I think Widgeon has some..could be mistaken though. .
> 
> What I would really like to see is some of the data Sharp and his deveoper friend came up with on those tips. .to me that would be a good read. .
> 
> ...


I talked to him - give him an email anytime - he would be happy to share his findings with you or anyone


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Ken,
> 
> With all due respect, I shot heavy wood arrows in LB shot at IBO. Depending on the set up they were all around 11 to 11.5 gpp. No, I did not win, but placed respectably. I shot along with 7 time former champ Dave Wallace and he shoots about 10.5 gpp, and he is unbelievably accurate. Most longbows shoot better with a heavier arrow that absorbs the energy of the bow. My particular style of aiming works better with a heavier arrow.
> 
> ...



You men in longbow division have to shoot wooden arrows. So it follows that your arrows will run on the heavy side. Not many wooden shafts spined 50# come in at 200 grains before you add points and stuff. So you shoot what the wood allows for weight - on the heavy side.

But if the longbow guys could shoot carbon I guarantee it would not be long before all the top shooters shot light carbon. I've shot carbon arrows from my Hill bow and they are superior in every way - just like they are superior out of a recurve. 

You will notice nobody in the recurve classes (who are competitive today) shoot wood arrows or arrows of good weight. All the good shooters go light for the speed aspect.

I think Dewayne Martin has done some good work with wood in the past shooting his recurves. But that was a few years ago and he shoots carbon today because he has to, to stay competitive.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Urban - I do not know much about longbows - and I will readily admit that. I read once where Ken Beck from Black Widow bows said that his testing showed that with a longbow there as very little difference in speed between different weight arrows in comparison with recurves - if that is true - then obviously it would be better to shoot the heavier arrow.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

I think it depends on the longbow. For every bow, there is an efficiency curve, and for every bow, the efficiency will increase with arrow mass, everything else being equal, such as arrow material, tuning, etc. Different bows will have different curves, with the 'knee' in the curve at different relative arrow weights. _Typically_ speaking, long bows, particularly 'classic' long bows, have that 'knee' higher in arrow weight than recurves. In that knee area, the bow is at a happy medium, where it has similar efficiency to a significantly heavier arrow, but maintains much of the speed of a significantly lighter arrow. 

Go higher than that point, and you might increase efficiency a little, and the bow might get a little smoother on the shot, or a little quieter, but not much. Go much lower than that point, and as arrow weight decreases, the speed doesn't pick up nearly as fast as you'd expect, hand shock increases substantially, and the bow gets significantly louder.

But, this curve varies by the bow, not just between recurve and longbow, but between particular designs, and even to a degree, particular units (and the shooter, as different draw lengths will affect arrow speed, and as a result, limb speed at the 'stop', which if squared gives you the proportional energy put into the bow itself).

My own longbow will shoot a Legacy 2219 more quickly, and more efficiently, than a Douglas Fir 23/64 that weighs significantly more. However, the bow doesn't like it, and I don't like it. Significant hand shock, just don't like the feel. It shoots a weighted carbon arrow just fine, and at over 700 grains, is the most efficient with it. _for that bow_the wood shafts are a nice medium, though the real pain is getting matching shafts for a batch. Once you get them sorted, and go with shafts that actually match, they seem to shoot just fine. I have no doubt that some of the modern longbow designs, particularly with the space age materials and heavily recurvish limbs, can do quite well with carbon arrows.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Stone Bridge said:


> You men in longbow division have to shoot wooden arrows. So it follows that your arrows will run on the heavy side. Not many wooden shafts spined 50# come in at 200 grains before you add points and stuff. So you shoot what the wood allows for weight - on the heavy side.
> 
> But if the longbow guys could shoot carbon I guarantee it would not be long before all the top shooters shot light carbon. I've shot carbon arrows from my Hill bow and they are superior in every way - just like they are superior out of a recurve.
> 
> ...


Dewayne told Tony and I he prefered a slightly heavier/slower set up at 185 fps because he could control it better. He was shooting rings around me so I'll take his word he knows how to set himself up well


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Kegan - I have never been able to figure out comments like that - once the arrow is in the air - there is nothing to control - whether it is going 140 fps or 300 fps - I suspect that Dewayne - a gap shooter is used to that speed of arrow since he shot wood arrows for many years. If an arrow is tuned and flying correctly the speed it is traveling should only make a difference in distance judgments - nothing else.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

J. Wesbrock said:


> UDS,
> 
> Not to get further sidetracked, but you're 100% about Wallace. He's an incredible archer, and a nice guy too. I got to pick his brain a bit since he bunked with us at the Trad World. I've never met anyone with that detailed of an aiming system. He definitely leaves nothing to chance in that department.


Sidetracking this thread seems to be a requirement. I shot with Dave at the Worlds in Seven Springs for 3 days, and he is a fantastic shot, and does not appear to get rattled. He was also very helpful to me, a newly competitive LB shooter, talking about aiming, bows, arrows, etc.... Anything and everything archery. He puts his heavy wood arrows right on target with a D Style bow that he makes him self, and the bow is not a speed demon, but it is a very consistent performer and a work of art. 

Now back to the OP, use whatever arrow is shooting straight!


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Kegan - I have never been able to figure out comments like that - once the arrow is in the air - there is nothing to control - whether it is going 140 fps or 300 fps - I suspect that Dewayne - a gap shooter is used to that speed of arrow since he shot wood arrows for many years. If an arrow is tuned and flying correctly the speed it is traveling should only make a difference in distance judgments - nothing else.


I'm fairly certain that's what he meant. Faster arrow, larger gap, less "fine" control when using a more deliberate aiming system without going to a higher anchor. 

"If it ain't broke..."


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

why would a faster arrow create a larger gap?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> why would a faster arrow create a larger gap?


You would have to hold lower since they give you a longer range PO. The gaps are more consistent, but bigger.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

hmm - shows how much I know about gapping - I would have thought the faster the arrow is moving the smaller the gaps


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> hmm - shows how much I know about gapping - I would have thought the faster the arrow is moving the smaller the gaps


If you use a high enouch anchor, up around the cheek bone for example, that fast arrow gives a really consistent small gap at different distances, but with the same anchor the faster arrow means you don't have to hold as high, making the gaps bigger.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

kegan said:


> Dewayne told Tony and I he prefered a slightly heavier/slower set up at 185 fps because he could control it better. He was shooting rings around me so I'll take his word he knows how to set himself up well


Kegan, he does know how to set himself up. This is why he now shoots lighter carbon. 185fps is not slow. Most trad guys shooting wood or over 10 gpp are shooting well under 185 fps.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

185 fps is not fast at all by todays standards - I am shooting 209 fps. When I shot my Black Widows with around 9 grains per pound of draw I was always in the 190s. In fact if you read Blacky's reports: http://www.blackysbowreports.com/rec-select.htm - virtually every bow he tested were above 185 fps with finer release and arrows that were 9 grains per pound of draw.

Sure if you go 10 grains per pound of draw it will be slower - but the point is that 185 per second is average at best for what most people are shooting - especially in competition.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Ken, I was going by the real numbers I've seen shot by assorted archers at trad shoots when a chrono was set up for anyone to test their bows. Most of these guys shot fairly heavy arrows from the looks of it. I can't recall anyone ever shooting over 190. Most were around 155-170 fps.

I shoot 208 with my barebow and 211 with my favorite FITA rig. Like you I use light arrows. But most shooters are still in the Stone Age using too much arrow weight for some reason.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I guess the guys that I pay attention to are the good shots - and they are almost all over 190 fps (with the obvious exception of the longbow guys with wood arrows)


----------



## xCALLMETOADx (Jul 31, 2013)

I overheard the teacher one day in school that Native Americans killed deer with arrows that were carved and not weighed. Sarcasm. Just shoot what feels right for you and your bow. It aint fun if you have to calculate all this sh*t for an extra 10 fps. You'll kill a deer with a light or heavy arrow, just place the arrow in the kill zone


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Speed is a matter of perspective. I'm shooting a tad over 10 gpp and still getting 190 fps. That's still 20 fps slower than someone with a lighter arrow though. Tony is shooting heavy wooden arrows around 180 fps too. Although, I suppose we cheat with the bows we shoot:wink:

My arrows shoot straight and I like my gaps. I don't think my bows that fast though.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

I would suggest that 190 fps + is fast .


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

getting 190 fps with a finger release and 10 grains per pound of draw has got to be close to a record - you should have Blacky Review your bow you would be selling so many of them you would have to hire a staff - he has only reviewed a handful of recurves that got 190 fps or better with a finger release and that was with arrows that are 9 grains per pound of draw.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> getting 190 fps with a finger release and 10 grains per pound of draw has got to be close to a record - you should have Blacky Review your bow you would be selling so many of them you would have to hire a staff - he has only reviewed a handful of recurves that got 190 fps or better with a finger release and that was with arrows that are 9 grains per pound of draw.


Quillan has the canebrake that busts 200 fps .. I think the dynamics of the bow has a lot to do with it... fast isn't as comfortable as smooth.. :grin: Nor probably in the long run, accurate.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I do not believe that there is a recurve bow shot with fingers and 10 grain per pound of draw arrows shooting over 200fps - I would have to see that to believe it.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> getting 190 fps with a finger release and 10 grains per pound of draw has got to be close to a record - you should have Blacky Review your bow you would be selling so many of them you would have to hire a staff - he has only reviewed a handful of recurves that got 190 fps or better with a finger release and that was with arrows that are 9 grains per pound of draw.


Sorry, to clarify that's with a 30" draw and 6" brace height, so a 24" power stroke. Hard not to get good speed on a heavy arrow with that much push.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I do not believe that there is a recurve bow shot with fingers and 10 grain per pound of draw arrows shooting over 200fps - I would have to see that to believe it.


Bigfoot Bows- Kirk is designed a recurve that's shooting 200 at 10 gpp and 28" draw.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

When the longbow group came off the final 10 at this years Worlds, we stepped up to the chrono and each took a couple of shots. Mine was fastest, a 48#@29" Omega pushing a 545g arrow 179 fps. I won't mention what everybody else's speeds were, but they were all slower ,one was 30 fps slower, and everyone of those scored ahead of me. Of those 3, 2 are excellent gap shooters and the third is a very pleasant old timer who shoots instinctively. 

It ain't the arrow, it ain't the bow......its the skill of the archer.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

kegan said:


> Bigfoot Bows- Kirk is designed a recurve that's shooting 200 at 10 gpp and 28" draw.


Any independent reviews that back this up?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Any independent reviews that back this up?



Not yet that I know of, but you can follow his progress in the Bowyer's section of POA. The guys over there have been inching closer and closer to that mark for a few years.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I don't go to POA much - I don't care for all swearing - I know that is their thing - but to me it is kinda stupid. 

When Blacky reviews this bow or some other independent review is done - let me know - until then - I have a hard time believing this claim.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

The Bowyer section is a little different, and those guys, as I mentioned, really know how to tweak them for speed. He just got it up and shooting a couple months ago though, so I think it's still in the early testing phase.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

kegan said:


> N The guys over there have been inching closer and closer to that mark for a few years.


Yep ...


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> When the longbow group came off the final 10 at this years Worlds, we stepped up to the chrono and each took a couple of shots. Mine was fastest, a 48#@29" Omega pushing a 545g arrow 179 fps. I won't mention what everybody else's speeds were, but they were all slower ,one was 30 fps slower, and everyone of those scored ahead of me. Of those 3, 2 are excellent gap shooters and the third is a very pleasant old timer who shoots instinctively.
> 
> It ain't the arrow, it ain't the bow......its the skill of the archer.


Great post UDS, kind of keeps things in perspective. Congrats on making the top ten...:thumbs_up


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> hmm - shows how much I know about gapping - I would have thought the faster the arrow is moving the smaller the gaps


It's not knowledge of "gapping" that's required. It's basic physics. A projectile, though propelled forward, is falling. Acceleration of a falling object is 32 ft/second in a vacuum...air resistance changes things some. So, a slower projectile doesn't get as far from the shooter in the time it takes it to fall to the ground...all else being equal, it falls further for any distance traveled than a faster projectile. Since it falls further, you have to aim higher at any given distance.

To further illustrate the principle, two identical projectiles fired in the same direction/angle at different speeds will hit the ground at the same time. But, the faster projectile will have traveled further before crashing into the dirt.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

From what I understand (I'm no bowyer by any stretch) getting 200 fps. isn't the real challenge. Getting 200 fps in a design that anyone can shoot accurately, or would even want to shoot, is. For some reason I think that if the magic 200 fps/28"/10gpp were attainable, the r/d guys at Hoyt, Samick, Win&Win, etc. who have the money, resources, machinery, facillities, etc. would have already done it if for no other reason than bragging rights.

There was a guy claiming a couple or three years ago that this goal had been reached by his favorite bowyer. Never was verified, and the guy making the claims faded away.

In my dealings with some of these guys, the truth is an inconvenience and pretty much always takes a back seat to ego.

Like some other claims that get thrown around...if you really have a traditional bow that will break the 200 fps. benchmark, I don't think you could keep it a secret if you wanted...and with the egos some of these guys display, there's no way they would want to keep it secret. My opinion of course.

Chad


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LBR said:


> From what I understand (I'm no bowyer by any stretch) getting 200 fps. isn't the real challenge. Getting 200 fps in a design that anyone can shoot accurately, or would even want to shoot, is. For some reason I think that if the magic 200 fps/28"/10gpp were attainable, the r/d guys at Hoyt, Samick, Win&Win, etc. who have the money, resources, machinery, facillities, etc. would have already done it if for no other reason than bragging rights.
> 
> There was a guy claiming a couple or three years ago that this goal had been reached by his favorite bowyer. Never was verified, and the guy making the claims faded away.
> 
> ...


My thoughts exactly


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

MGF said:


> It's not knowledge of "gapping" that's required. It's basic physics. A projectile, though propelled forward, is falling. Acceleration of a falling object is 32 ft/second in a vacuum...air resistance changes things some. So, a slower projectile doesn't get as far from the shooter in the time it takes it to fall to the ground...all else being equal, it falls further for any distance traveled than a faster projectile. Since it falls further, you have to aim higher at any given distance.
> 
> To further illustrate the principle, two identical projectiles fired in the same direction/angle at different speeds will hit the ground at the same time. But, the faster projectile will have traveled further before crashing into the dirt.


I understand physics, but know nothing about gapping and would have thought the same thing. Kegan did a good job explaining the reason why gaps get bigger with a faster arrow.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

glad I am not a gap shooter


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

sharpbroadhead said:


> glad I am not a gap shooter


I'm glad that you're glad. Being glad is almost always more fun than being mad.


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Imshoot a new model Hoyt InoX with F7 limbs...shooting 9.5 gpp....i shoot this recipe for a reason....it's all the bow that I can handle...my arrow travels about 190fps with me drawing 30" 

I start shooting point on at 20-21 yards all the way out to 28 yards at 30 yards I have to hold 6" above my spot.

My anchor is high and the arrow is tucked right under my eye...I truly gunbarrell the shaft...

I've had friends of mine try to shoot the way I do and it doesn't work for them...it works for me and I've proven it at the top levels for the last 3 years in IBO and ASA...


Dewayne Martin


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Dewayne - what are you shooting for pounds??

Matt


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

You know what I'm really glad I'm not...I'm glad I'm not a Gap Shooter who thinks he aims Instinctively. I feel soooo much better now that I've gotten that off my chest :wink:

Does anyone else need to confess? :wink:

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I do not believe that there is a recurve bow shot with fingers and 10 grain per pound of draw arrows shooting over 200fps - I would have to see that to believe it.





kegan said:


> Bigfoot Bows- Kirk is designed a recurve that's shooting 200 at 10 gpp and 28" draw.





sharpbroadhead said:


> Any independent reviews that back this up?


Well?...here's what Mike Fedora puts out...and some of it 40+ years ago...

*"These tests were performed by Norb Mullaney, who is well known for his exemplary testing procedures, which eliminate as many vairables as possible during the testing process.

The velocities reported here were obtained without the use of bamboo, carbon or Dynema bowstrings in any of the bows, all of which will increase speed and yield higher figures.

TEST RESULTS

1. 560 Fedora Hunter 60” Recurve

60# with 540 grain arrow
211fps Endless loop dacron
*218fps Standard fast light string


2. 560 Fedora 60” Recurve-Custom built in 1960(44 years old!!!)

60# with 540 grain arrow
211fps endless loop dacron
*218fps endless loop, standard fast flight string


3. Fedora Xcellerator 60” Longbow

60# with 540 grain arrow
206fps endless loop dacron
*213fps standard fast flight string

4. Fedora Stalker Magnum 52” Recurve

55# with 540 grain arrow
186fps endless loop dacron
*193fps TradMall custom Dynaflight97 String

* adjusted to reflect calculated performance of 60# with 540 grain arrow:
204 fps with endless loop dacron and 211 ps with Dynaflight 97 custom string

*Most bowyers agree that carbon increases speed approximately 3-5fps, bamboo 2-3fps and Dynema 2-3fps. If we add the lesser amount of the 3, we get a total of 7pfs more.


Comments by Norb Mullaney:

“Thank you for the opportunity to examine and test your bows. The quality and craftsmanship exhibited is exemplary. I am particularly impressed with the shape and disposition of the grip. I found it to be one of the most comfortable I have found an especially configured to minimize bow hand torque. As a result of our discussion of the features of the different bows and your philosophy of matching the bow to the individual archer or bowhunter. I can fully subscribe to your assertion that you are a true “custom” bow builder”. Very truly yours, Norbert F. Mullaney,P.E."*

So I would think 200fps shooting 10GPP w/ fingers is very doable these days.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Jinx -

Mullaney's tests were done with a shooting machine or a release if my memory serves me correctly - and can you please site the source for this?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Pretty soon this guy will be telling us all how we aim while we "sweat to the oldies" - at least it is traditional music.


----------



## 2413gary (Apr 10, 2008)

Me to you would be harder to beat LOL


sharpbroadhead said:


> glad I am not a gap shooter


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Jinx -
> 
> Mullaney's tests were done with a shooting machine or a release if my memory serves me correctly - and can you please site the source for this?


I could....but?...why bother.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> I could....but?...why bother.


:grin: in the back issues of course.... :grin: and they are online if one cares to look for them....


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

as I suspected - claims are easy to make - backing them up where someone can verify them and be able to review them is a different story.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> :grin: in the back issues of course.... :grin: and they are online if one cares to look for them....


right?...I can't believe anyone would post pix inferring *"Norb Mullaney"* and his test results are the equivalent of taking archery advice from Mr. Simmons there...which tells me...somebodies sweating...but...it ain't to the oldies! :laugh:


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> as I suspected - claims are easy to make - backing them up where someone can verify them and be able to review them is a different story.


Oh it's not that I "Can't" Ken...I'm just not interested in playing what will become your never-ending game here so...sorry but...you'll hafta play out the back nine on your lonesome...I'm just in for a momentary break from shooting my Falco out back.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

It's pretty easy to do a quick search on the internet. The information Jinkster posted about the Fedora bows popped right up for me...in several places no less.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Easykeeper said:


> It's pretty easy to do a quick search on the internet. The information Jinkster posted about the Fedora bows popped right up for me...in several places no less.


:grin: no less.....


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

There are several "catches" that can be implimented. I don't know if they were with the Fedora tests or not, but I've never heard of any of regular customer bows getting those speeds (that are still sub 200 fps @28" w/10 gpp).

Like I noted before, the hard part seems to be making a bow that anyone can shoot, or would want to shoot, that will get those speeds. Limbs can be tweaked, brace height dropped, and a shooting machine doesn't make any form or release errors. Not a bowyer, not even close, and I know that much. Looks good in a bow report, but that doesn't tell the whole story on stability, noise, shock, etc.

It's entertaining though. Funny that chasing speed is the drive for some. Thought we didn't care about speed? There are bows that are capable of leaving trad bows in the dust, speed-wise...and if that isn't fast enough for you there's always compressed air and gunpowder...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> There are several "catches" that can be implimented. I don't know if they were with the Fedora tests or not, but I've never heard of any of regular customer bows getting those speeds (that are still sub 200 fps @28" w/10 gpp).
> 
> Like I noted before, the hard part seems to be making a bow that anyone can shoot, or would want to shoot, that will get those speeds. Limbs can be tweaked, brace height dropped, and a shooting machine doesn't make any form or release errors. Not a bowyer, not even close, and I know that much. Looks good in a bow report, but that doesn't tell the whole story on stability, noise, shock, etc.
> 
> It's entertaining though. Funny that chasing speed is the drive for some. Thought we didn't care about speed? There are bows that are capable of leaving trad bows in the dust, speed-wise...and if that isn't fast enough for you there's always compressed air and gunpowder...


I quite agree. Fast and comfortable are not necessarily compatible.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

JINKSTER said:


> *"These tests were performed by Norb Mullaney, who is well known for his exemplary testing procedures, which eliminate as many vairables as possible during the testing process.
> 
> The velocities reported here were obtained without the use of bamboo, carbon or Dynema bowstrings in any of the bows, all of which will increase speed and yield higher figures.
> 
> ...


So what *draw length* are all these test done at and what was the *bow weight*? Norb Mullaney was normally very precise with his tests so I'm wary of results like this. To get 60# exactly for each bow is VERY unlikely unless he used lighter bows and kept drawing until it hit 60# which means longer draw lengths were used. 

Smells....




LBR said:


> but I've never heard of any of regular customer bows getting those speeds (that are still sub 200 fps @28" w/10 gpp).


Never seen it myself either.



LBR said:


> Like I noted before, the hard part seems to be making a bow that anyone can shoot, *or would want to shoot*, that will get those speeds.


Exactly. :thumbs_up


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

AMO standard (now ATA) is 60# with a 540-grain arrow at a 30" draw.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

J. Wesbrock said:


> AMO standard (now ATA) is 60# with a 540-grain arrow at a 30" draw.


Point? 

In the test, what was the actual bow weight rated at 28# used and what was the final draw length that made 60#? Recurves were never rated at 30" draw and getting multiple recurves to draw 60# @ 30" is practically impossible.

When tests leave this sort of vital information out you can bet that there is something going on...


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Matt, I'm shooting about 41#....hopefully by next year I will be up to 44-45...trying to get my arrow just a touch flatter at 32...I'm think ing about trying a 100 grain head instead of a 125


Dewayne


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I figure Jason will clarify, but I think his point is Mr. Mullaney normally did his tests per AMO/ATA specs.

Also, there is no such thing as "Dynema" bowstring. There is Dyneema, which is a brand name for High Modulous Polyethelene. There are several grades of Dyneema, and lesser brands of HMPE. Types of Dyneema bowstring ranges from original Fast Flight (SK65 Dyneema) to 8190 Universal (SK90 Dyneema). There are also blends that incorporate Dyneema and usually Vectran.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

LBR said:


> I figure Jason will clarify, but I think his point is Mr. Mullaney normally did his tests per AMO/ATA specs.


Ok then. 

So the tests were conducted at 30" draw? Why not state that or did they vary due to wanting 60# for each bow at 30" draw? In all the tests I read of Mr. Mullaney, he was very specific about actual bow weights and draw lengths.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

vabowdog said:


> Matt, I'm shooting about 41#....hopefully by next year I will be up to 44-45...trying to get my arrow just a touch flatter at 32...I'm think ing about trying a 100 grain head instead of a 125
> 
> 
> Dewayne


Dewayne, do you have a photo you could post of your anchor position? I didn't realize you used an extremely high anchor like you mentioned earlier. I have tried going much higher but I can't seem to get the arrow directly under my eye that way. Middle finger to corner of mouth is the best I can do it seems. This puts my index finger just above my canine tooth. I like this hold and can repeat it. But I think my face is not shaped correctly for a really high hold. 

Would like to see a picture of your hand position. Thanks is you can provide.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

If I read the reports, it was long enough ago that I don't remember the specifics...so I can't answer. I agree that he is normally very precise and specific, and doesn't leave anything to question.

Due to the improper spelling of "Dyneema", my guess is that wasn't the un-edited version of Mr. Mullaney's report. Just a guess.


----------



## Destroyer (Sep 11, 2009)

Marketing...


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Stone Bridge said:


> Dewayne, do you have a photo you could post of your anchor position? I didn't realize you used an extremely high anchor like you mentioned earlier. I have tried going much higher but I can't seem to get the arrow directly under my eye that way. Middle finger to corner of mouth is the best I can do it seems. This puts my index finger just above my canine tooth. I like this hold and can repeat it. But I think my face is not shaped correctly for a really high hold.
> 
> Would like to see a picture of your hand position. Thanks is you can provide.


Not sure if this helps, but Tony and I have been having a lot of success anchor on the front of our cheek bones. Took some real time getting used to it for me becaues I was so used to a lower mouth-level anchor, but it pays off. My gaps are all under a foot from 15 to 30 with a 40 yard PO. Nice and easy to aim with for me. Tony gets a 20-30 yard PO using different arrow speeds.


----------



## Stone Bridge (May 20, 2013)

Thanks, Kegan. Who's Tony?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Did a quick check of the net - and the only thing I can find is two posts in two trad forums by a big fan of Fedora - and this was from back in 2005 when Fedora was on his big rant against Black Widow for using CNC machines to make their bows.

But the bottom line is this - those bows were 9 grains per pound of draw drawn to 30 inches, and I am relatively certain were not shot with fingers - so even if the report as presented is accurate - the parameters are entirely different than what we were talking about.

oh btw - the Richard Simmons pic had nothing to do with the report.


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

Stone Bridge said:


> Who's Tony?


Me.

I shoot heavy wood arrows when I compete, and generally get a point on distance around 25 yds give or take depending on the set up.
That's coupled with a high anchor on top of the cheekbone just under and in front of the eye.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Me.
> 
> I shoot heavy wood arrows when I compete, and generally get a point on distance around 25 yds give or take depending on the set up.
> That's coupled with a high anchor on top of the cheekbone just under and in front of the eye.


Tony's the guy who's going to clean house in the LB class next year in the IBO triple crown:wink:


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

kegan said:


> Tony's the guy who's going to clean house in the LB class next year in the IBO triple crown:wink:


Goooo Tony!!!! :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Tony.....that's great.....we gonna hold you to it.....


Dewayne


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

vabowdog said:


> Tony.....that's great.....we gonna hold you to it.....
> 
> 
> Dewayne


See, Tony? Now you HAVE to shoot well:wink:


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

BLACK WOLF said:


> You know what I'm really glad I'm not...I'm glad I'm not a Gap Shooter who thinks he aims Instinctively. I feel soooo much better now that I've gotten that off my chest :wink:
> 
> Does anyone else need to confess? :wink:
> 
> ...




ME!
I'm glad that I'm not a delusional shooter who desperately believes that he actually calculates a measured 'gap' and then changes his focus to the target allowing his brain time to make the last second adjustment to instinctive.

Btw,,,,NEVER SHOOT WIMPY ARROWS!


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

kegan said:


> See, Tony? Now you HAVE to shoot well:wink:



under Pressure ?


http://youtu.be/Gpn8MANhdLU


----------



## vabowdog (Dec 13, 2007)

Pressure? what's that?


Dewayne


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

vabowdog said:


> Pressure? what's that?
> 
> 
> Dewayne


Pressure is knowing you have to shoot an eleven or some string-walker is going to take your quarters. 

Matt


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> Pressure is knowing you have to shoot an eleven or some string-walker is going to take your quarters.
> 
> Matt


Don't gamble...no pressure...you win.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Pressure is shooting next to Matt - that guy is scarry - beleive me I know! -  I just got done with the high pressure of shooting against the great guy and awesome RU shot Ryan Ramsey and squeaked by him in the shoot off - but then who do I have to shoot against next - MATT - talk about pressure - he would look down at me and give me that scarry look and sort of growl - and that was it - it was all over for me!


----------



## Tajue17 (Aug 18, 2005)

its funny how people on AT like shooting light arrows and people on some other trad only forums like either 10/# or more... I didn't read all these posts so who knows but after 30yrs of shooting trad bows I keep it simple and base my arrow weights on what my bow likes.. so I know I'm shooting too light when I keep hitting high- heck with tuning just weight the arrow, theres no way I'll change my perception on picking a spot to shoot a lighter faster arrow, I'm true instinctive not a gap shooter.. also whats the sound at whatever grain weight does the bow get the quietest? how does the bow feel? some of my longbows which are [email protected] I shoot 490 to 550grain woods, my palmer 50#classic likes a 560gr arrow, my 52 preditor likes a 620gr arrow. 

as far as killing deer I'd say for any standard weight traditional bow 400grains and up,, whatever tickles the fancy.. heavy weight bows why not shoot a heavy arrow with the widest cutting broadhead you can find as long as the trajectory is in sinc with your eye balls and you can make the shot,,, why not utilize all that KE? 

so keep it simple and listen to your EYES,, the most important thing is the arrow weight works for your eyes and hopefully works with the bow almost like they where born together,, and this is for deer maybe other game you have to have a certain arrow but deer you really only have to worry about a sharp broad which results in more blood and an arrow that hits the spot.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Tajue17 said:


> its funny how people on AT like shooting light arrows and people on some other trad only forums like either 10/# or more...


I actually think its a pretty diverse crowd here. I think some of the guys who shoot lighter arrows are just a little more vocal here because heavier arrows are pushed so hard in other places.



Tajue17 said:


> and this is for deer maybe other game you have to have a certain arrow but deer you really only have to worry about a sharp broad which results in more blood and an arrow that hits the spot.


For the most part...I'd agree :thumbs_up

But...I'll add tuning to that also.

Some people may be surprised how poorly an arrow that's out of tune will penetrate when compared to the same arrow when it's tuned properly.

I sometimes think heavy arrows are recommended to compensate for archers who don't know about tuning or how important it is to penetration.

Ray :shade:



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I actually think its a pretty diverse crowd here. I think some of the guys who shoot lighter arrows are just a little more vocal here *because heavier arrows are pushed so hard* in other places.
> 
> For the most part...I'd agree :thumbs_up
> 
> ...


Point of argument and clarification... :grin:

Heavier arrows themselves push harder... :grin: Don't need no stinkin help... :grin:


----------



## Tajue17 (Aug 18, 2005)

I know I could of went into the whole bare shaft tuning thing but I agree the arrow must be tuned perfect,,, with everything I said above the following posters where correct and this is so 2nd nature to me I forgot to mention it is the arrow tuning,, my personal method is bare shaft tuning, I also will mess around and soak my feathers and practice with broad heads to double check the flight, pull one and 2 feathers off, shoot cock feather in and out,, so with me personally the arrow weight, broadhead choice, LW or RW spin, arrow material,,,, whatever who cares.. but it has to be spinning true!


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Pressure is shooting next to Matt - that guy is scarry - beleive me I know! -  I just got done with the high pressure of shooting against the great guy and awesome RU shot Ryan Ramsey and squeaked by him in the shoot off - but then who do I have to shoot against next - MATT - talk about pressure - he would look down at me and give me that scarry look and sort of growl - and that was it - it was all over for me!


Just tell him that you're flattered in the interest, but you're happily married, and intend to stay that way


----------



## UrbanDeerSlayer (Feb 10, 2012)

kegan said:


> Tony's the guy who's going to clean house in the LB class next year in the IBO triple crown:wink:


Gee, I don't check in for a couple of days and the next thing ya know I got everyone expecting me to clean up the LB division next year. :dontknow: 

Kegan, the pressure's on you buddy to make me a killer stick to shoot! :teeth:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

UrbanDeerSlayer said:


> Gee, I don't check in for a couple of days and the next thing ya know I got everyone expecting me to clean up the LB division next year. :dontknow:
> 
> Kegan, the pressure's on you buddy to make me a killer stick to shoot! :teeth:


Psh, my bows are glorified walking sticks! It's all up to you:wink:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Pressure is shooting next to Matt - that guy is scarry - beleive me I know! -  I just got done with the high pressure of shooting against the great guy and awesome RU shot Ryan Ramsey and squeaked by him in the shoot off - but then who do I have to shoot against next - MATT - talk about pressure - he would look down at me and give me that scarry look and sort of growl - and that was it - it was all over for me!


Hey I only growled at him when he tried to kiss me hello - Spanish women are one thing - cheese heads are something all together different


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Lol


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

I can tell you heavier is better.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> I can tell you heavier is better.


Don't know if anyone is interested... but yesterday I was looking at some 55 grain .224 bullets I had cast and was thinking... hmmmmmm pulled out the ratter... and took a shot at a rock with the 15 grain or so pellets... typical splash.... loaded one of these 55 grainers... surprise... they fit... and blam.... and broke a piece of rock off... now I'm willing if anyone doubts the idea that heavier penetrates better.... TO PROVE IT... or not... :grin:


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

I was talking about arrows...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> I was talking about arrows...


Oh ... I know... I could show you that too..... but wood arrows/dowels have too many variables to probably be considered 
"valid" especially with the "media" I have available today.. cuz once either of them breaks through the backstop... there is nothing there to measure properly.... :grin:... but tell me, if you would, how would the idea of a heavy slow arrow be any different than a heavy slow bullet of equal diameter?


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

rattus58 said:


> Oh ... I know... I could show you that too..... but wood arrows/dowels have too many variables to probably be considered
> "valid" especially with the "media" I have available today.. cuz once either of them breaks through the backstop... there is nothing there to measure properly.... :grin:... but tell me, if you would, how would the idea of a heavy slow arrow be any different than a heavy slow bullet of equal diameter?


It is a lot different, my dad knows everything about bullets/guns, I only know a little. Bigger is better, still. And is there any instant messaging chat rooms?


----------



## CAPTJJ (Dec 24, 2007)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> I can tell you heavier is better.


You have me convinced with that statement, who needs proof? I'm changing my setup.:wink:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> It is a lot different, my dad knows everything about bullets/guns, I only know a little. Bigger is better, still. And is there any instant messaging chat rooms?


Yahoo... MSN.... I'm sure that there are others...


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

CAPTJJ said:


> You have me convinced with that statement, who needs proof? I'm changing my setup.:wink:


Simple just got simpler. You know how those large shafts like to shove deep. :wink wink:


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

rattus58 said:


> Yahoo... MSN.... I'm sure that there are others...


Do you think you can give a URL? :wink:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> Do you think you can give a URL? :wink:


Yahoo.com 

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...+rooms&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-140


----------



## Boberau (Dec 15, 2009)

Roughrider said:


> Kegan, didn't think you were being rude just letting you know I have tuned. Ive read that heavier arrows were the way to go for years and now you hear lighter can generate more KE which I get, but I feel that heavier will carry their KE longer after impact. I couldn't see an advantage to gaining 1 lb of KE and a flatter trajectory to trade for a louder bow. I just wanted to see what everybody else thought. So the question is and was same bow light and heavy arrow same KE which will penetrate better?


This is why you should test it yourself. We are all arm-chair geniuses here on these boards. But, what you have is a bow, string, and arrows of different weight. Test them out for yourself. See the penetration. See how they shoot for you. And, for my money, all the old school talk about "heavy arrows" being good - well that doesn't mean anything against what you can put together for yourself. Your own testing is the only solution.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

rattus58 said:


> Don't know if anyone is interested... but yesterday I was looking at some 55 grain .224 bullets I had cast and was thinking... hmmmmmm pulled out the ratter... and took a shot at a rock with the 15 grain or so pellets... typical splash.... loaded one of these 55 grainers... surprise... they fit... and blam.... and broke a piece of rock off... now I'm willing if anyone doubts the idea that heavier penetrates better.... TO PROVE IT... or not... :grin:


apples to oranges - I have proven it and so did Jack Howard back in the 1960's - you just don't like the proof


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Boberau said:


> This is why you should test it yourself. We are all arm-chair geniuses here on these boards. But, what you have is a bow, string, and arrows of different weight. Test them out for yourself. See the penetration. See how they shoot for you. And, for my money, all the old school talk about "heavy arrows" being good - well that doesn't mean anything against what you can put together for yourself. Your own testing is the only solution.


Exactly - and I did just that and this is what I found:

Arrow Penetration part 1 of 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4RGcyZ_gJY

Arrow Penetration part 2 of 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAfK0sBsZBw


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

Thanks


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Not that it has anything to do with penetration, and no disrespect to Mr. Howard (he was a super nice guy the few times I spoke with him)....but he felt the best setting was a material MUCH more elastic than even Dacron. I've made a few from it by request. Its pretty awful IMO. Point being he had opinions that not everyone agreed with.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LBR, but his penetration tests had nothing to do with opinions - they were tests that anyone could duplicate and test for themselves - just like mine are.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

Jinkster provided this great video. Pay particular attention to the size of the tip, the weight of the selfbow, and shaft construction of the arrows. There are a VERY good reasons why First Nations People used this setup, which are;
They (mostly) stalked animals and only took what they needed, WHEN they could look the animal in the eye, and thank them. It wasn't a kill sport.
They didn't need anymore power than necessary.
They didn't need to lose arrows because they were time consuming to make properly and expensive (trade) to replace. Most arrows and points were custom-made for the archer. I am Iroquois more commonly know in our own language as the original flint makers. Only hunters, (as determined by the Elders by their abilities in stalking, archery expertise(gift) and prowess for a quick, humane kill) were allowed to hunt. So arrows needed to do the job time after time.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

Really bad penetration!


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> Really bad penetration!


Compared to what?


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> apples to oranges - I have proven it and so did Jack Howard back in the 1960's - you just don't like the proof


There you go again, stating your **** as fact...


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

kegan said:


> Compared to what?


Mine passes through, breaks bone.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

It is fact - it is a fact that in my test the lighter faster arrows penetrated deeper than the slower heavier arrows in both consistent mediums of a telephone book and ballistic gel - this is an undeniable fact.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

sharpbroadhead said:


> It is fact - it is a fact that in my test the lighter faster arrows penetrated deeper than the slower heavier arrows in both consistent mediums of a telephone book and ballistic gel - this is an undeniable
> fact.


Right... Have you shot a deer with that set up? What head do you use? What weight arrow?


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> Mine passes through, breaks bone.



And sooooo? Does it NEED to do that? What if you could only afford 3 arrows and you had to feed your family? How dead do you need the animal to be to satisfy ego?


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> It is fact - it is a fact that in my test the lighter faster arrows penetrated deeper than the slower heavier arrows in both consistent mediums of a telephone book and ballistic gel - this is an undeniable fact.


So your unscientific testing which many members here have even found flaws in "proves" that lighter arrows penetrate better than heavy arrows? lol here comes the bs again for the millionth time. That's a FACT.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

bradd7 said:


> And sooooo? Does it NEED to do that? What if you could only afford 3 arrows and you had to feed your family? How dead do you need the animal to be to satisfy ego?


If it hits the shoulder, and stops, arrow may fall out, deer runs and lives. Arrow sticks in dirt othe side... Sometimes. Lol


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

Tests can vary, especially when you have decided what the outcome will be before you even start. Whitetail are one thing
Large, thick skinned dangerous game is something else entirely. As has been noted, a ph won't let you hunt cape or water buffalo with a small, fast round--gun or bow. At least none of the several I spoke to would, including the late great Bill Baker. They have lives and their living at stake. Wouldn't make sense to insist on a lesser penetrating arrow. That's about as definitive as it gets.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

LBR said:


> Tests can vary, especially when you have decided what the outcome will be before you even start. Whitetail are one thing
> Large, thick skinned dangerous game is something else entirely. As has been noted, a ph won't let you hunt cape or water buffalo with a small, fast round--gun or bow. At least none of the several I spoke to would, including the late great Bill Baker. They have lives and their living at stake. Wouldn't make sense to insist on a lesser penetrating arrow. That's about as definitive as it gets.


I conclude the case. Bigger is better.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

henro said:


> So your unscientific testing which many members here have even found flaws in "proves" that lighter arrows penetrate better than heavy arrows? lol here comes the bs again for the millionth time. That's a FACT.


What's a fact, you guys talk in riddles here.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> Mine passes through, breaks bone.


As do mine but I'm using a 50# modern longbow, not a 40# selfbow and primitive arrow. Different tools, and not a fair comparison. All of those arrows would have been dead deer as well.


----------



## bradd7 (Oct 17, 2008)

kegan said:


> As do mine but I'm using a 50# modern longbow, not a 40# selfbow and primitive arrow. Different tools, and not a fair comparison. All of those arrows would have been dead deer as well.


I think one of the differences might be the thought of losing a cherished arrow and there would be no thoughts of taking a chance.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> Right... Have you shot a deer with that set up? What head do you use? What weight arrow?


Yes I have, dozens - and the last 5 were with Rage 40KE expandable broadheads - if you would like to see some photos and video of the blood trails and entrance and exit wounds I would be happy to post them. I use a Tradtech Pinnacle Riser with long Extreme BF Limbs shooting just under 48 lbs with 365 grain total weight arrows tipped with Rage 40KE Expandable Broadheads and get pass throughs almost always and have yet to lose a deer with this set up.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

kegan said:


> As do mine but I'm using a 50# modern longbow, not a 40# selfbow and primitive arrow. Different tools, and not a fair comparison. All of those arrows would have been dead deer as well.


Weight arrows?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Here is a video of the blood trail produced by my light arrows, light weight bow, and Rage 40 KE Broadheads:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Here are the results of my light arrows and Rage Broadheads:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

here are some more:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> Weight arrows?


About 530 gr using a 2" Tree Shark.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

a few more:


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

kegan said:


> About 530 gr using a 2" Tree Shark.


Really????!!!!,!! My dad just bought some tree sharks and I got that same weight arrow


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

one more - i have more pics - just can't remember where I saved them:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Yes, it's a good design. Omega bow (53# at my 29" draw) pushing the arrow 185-190 fps. Current longbow is 53# at 30" shooting a 545 gr arrow with a tree shark 189 fps.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> apples to oranges - I have proven it and so did Jack Howard back in the 1960's - you just don't like the proof


You have not proven anything sharp... so stop patting yourself on the back as the new messiah.... If I thought anyone here would accept at face value my heavy arrows against lighter arrows I'd post exactly what happens with longbows and if you trust Kegan, one of his bows... but I don't care personally.... my results are mine... just as yours are yours... AND NO ONE ELSES!


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

Mine!


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

kegan said:


> Yes, it's a good design. Omega bow (53# at my 29" draw) pushing the arrow 185-190 fps. Current longbow is 53# at 30" shooting a 545 gr arrow with a tree shark 189 fps.


189????? I'm only going 150~ with 55# Martin "hunter."


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> 189????? I'm only going 150~ with 55# Martin "hunter."


I probably have a longer draw. You're most likely not pulling it a full 55# at 28" either. Likewise, I designed my bows for high performance, though at an even draw weight and draw length I think my bows are only 5-10 fps faster than a Martin Hunter recurve.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

kegan said:


> I probably have a longer draw. You're most likely not pulling it a full 55# at 28" either. Likewise, I designed my bows for high performance, though at an even draw weight and draw length I think my bows are only 5-10 fps faster than a Martin Hunter recurve.


I use Dacron, and you had a custom bow? I have 32" full arrows


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> I use Dacron, and you had a custom bow? I have 32" full arrows


Dacron will also reduce performance. Arrow length isn't necessarily the same as draw length.

I build my own custom longbows.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

kegan said:


> Dacron will also reduce performance. Arrow length isn't necessarily the same as draw length.
> 
> I build my own custom longbows.


Ahh, tell me how you did yours, my dad made 2 in a garage, very well made too.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

kegan said:


> Dacron will also reduce performance. Arrow length isn't necessarily the same as draw length.
> 
> I build my own custom longbows.


Also Dacron will only reduce 10fps, it's better than busting a limb over that 10fps


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

10 fps is a significant difference in performance - it is like a difference of 10lbs in draw weight. If your bow is designed for ff string, it is silly not to use it in my opinion.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> 10 fps is a significant difference in performance - it is like a difference of 10lbs in draw weight. If your bow is designed for ff string, it is silly not to use it in my opinion.


That, and I've never busted a limb with FF. I hate Dacron. Doesn't save a limb unless they were never designed for it.

I'll take a lighter, faster, more accurate bow any day.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

sharpbroadhead said:


> 10 fps is a significant difference in performance - it is like a difference of 10lbs in draw weight. If your bow is designed for ff string, it is silly not to use it in my opinion.


Mine is designed for Dacron, and 10lbs my butt. You should not risk 10fps over busting a limb because my bow might break if I push the speed with a different string.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

kegan said:


> That, and I've never busted a limb with FF. I hate Dacron. Doesn't save a limb unless they were never designed for it.
> 
> I'll take a lighter, faster, more accurate bow any day.


Speed isn't everything.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Our bows are designed for high performance strings. If you're hunting, I'd take a 50# bow I can drive tacks with over a 60# bow that's no more powerful but harder to shoot accurately.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Foreverman - as I said - if your bow is not designed for FF then you should not use it - but if your bow is designed for FF than it is foolish not to. And whether your butt acknowledges it or not a 10 fps gain in speed is akin to a 10lb gain in draw weight.

And yes speed is not everything - a ff string has less hand shock, does not need constant adjusting to maintain brace, and is more forgiving in that it does not travel past brace as far as Dacron.

And yes - speed is not everything, but if you can gain speed without sacrificing anything (on a bow designed for it) then you are gaining ENERGY at no cost. Speed also translates to accuracy at unknown distances - as a faster arrow is more forgiving of errors in distance judgment, be they conscious or subconscious.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

Speed doesn't mean it gains energy, it's like throwing a crumpled up piece of paper, it slows fast without weight.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

I use #55 right now, I got a #65 hybrid and it's a little too much, my schooling keeps me way to busy.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Foreverman are you serious? If you are shooting the same weight arrow one with a Dacron String going 10 fps slower than one with a FF type string - you are gaining energy - HELLO - physics 101.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Foreverman are you serious? If you are shooting the same weight arrow one with a Dacron String going 10 fps slower than one with a FF type string - you are gaining energy - HELLO - physics 101.


When he says schooling, he means highschool. Just something to keep in mind, Ken.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

You are gaining speed, but you need thrust to back it up, along with the weight.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - ummm the thrust is what causes the gain in speed. I suggest you take a class in physics


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> I've never busted a limb with FF. Doesn't save a limb unless they were never designed for it.


Spot on. I've broken a lot of bows with dacron strings on them--only had one break with a HMPE string on it. I don't blame the string for any of the failures.

My main bow, that has been my main bow since I got it some 15+ years ago, has NEVER had a polyester string on it--ever. I'll pulling [email protected] with it, and I use it for hunting, tournaments, and play. If it "died" today, I've gotten my money's worth out of it and then some.

The reason I use HMPE strings isn't for any performance gain. If my hunting gets to the point where a few fps. is the difference in a clean kill or a wound/miss, I'll choose a different weapon.

I use "FF" strings for increased stability, increased durability, reduced shock, reduced stretch, reduced creep, and an all-around better feeling shot.

May have said this earlier in the thread--I don't rememeber. If you ever plan to hunt large, thick-skinned game like Asiatic water buffalo, cape buffalo, etc.--animals where penetration problems can be a major factor--be sure and check with your guide if you want to use light arrows. I haven't spoken to any in a few years, but when I did they wouldn't allow light arrows on thick skinned game. They could care less about message board debates--their livelihood and their client's lives depend on using what works.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

LBR said:


> May have said this earlier in the thread--I don't rememeber. If you ever plan to hunt large, thick-skinned game like Asiatic water buffalo, cape buffalo, etc.--animals where penetration problems can be a major factor--be sure and check with your guide if you want to use light arrows. I haven't spoken to any in a few years, but when I did they wouldn't allow light arrows on thick skinned game. They could care less about message board debates--their livelihood and their client's lives depend on using what works.


yep x2


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

really - and how many of those guides have ever actually used or saw someone use a lighter weight arrow? For decades the standard has been heavy arrows and it was just what everyone used and thought should be used. To my knowledge, the first actual tests done in a consistent medium were done by Jack Howard and his tests actually showed that the lighter faster arrow had more penetrating energy - as have most all tests done in CONSISTANT mediums where all else is equal besides the weight.

This stuff reminds of the story of the young woman helping her mother make dinner. Before her mom put the roast in the pan, she cut the ends off. The young girl asked her mother why she cut the ends off the roast, her mother replied that she did it because that is the way her mother always made roasts. The young woman then called her grandmother and asked her why she always cut the ends off the roast before putting it in the pan. She replied that her mother always did it and that is why she did. Now the young woman was really curious, so she drove to the nursing home and visited with her great grandmother and asked her why she always cut the ends of the roast off before putting the roast in the pan. her great grandmother replied that her pan was to small.

Just because something was always done a certain way, does not mean it is the only way or the right way.

Also regarding guides - remember that not to long ago there were many guides that would not guide traditional hunters because they did not feel that our equipment and abilities were sufficient. There are still some guides with this attitude. Just because a guide or guides say something, does not mean it is true or accurate.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> really - and how many of those guides have ever actually used or saw someone use a lighter weight arrow? For decades the standard has been heavy arrows and it was just what everyone used and thought should be used. To my knowledge, the first actual tests done in a consistent medium were done by Jack Howard and his tests actually showed that the lighter faster arrow had more penetrating energy - as have most all tests done in CONSISTANT mediums where all else is equal besides the weight.
> 
> This stuff reminds of the story of the young woman helping her mother make dinner. Before her mom put the roast in the pan, she cut the ends off. The young girl asked her mother why she cut the ends off the roast, her mother replied that she did it because that is the way her mother always made roasts. The young woman then called her grandmother and asked her why she always cut the ends off the roast before putting it in the pan. She replied that her mother always did it and that is why she did. Now the young woman was really curious, so she drove to the nursing home and visited with her great grandmother and asked her why she always cut the ends of the roast off before putting the roast in the pan. her great grandmother replied that her pan was to small.
> 
> ...


But the guides who are successful are that way because they are successful... and after all... you keep saying that lighter arrows are better than heavy... :laugh: Learn your own advise Sharp... you will gain from that.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

“I should point out that there is no way one actually can compare the penetration into compressed cardboard to the penetration he would get in game. Nor can you compare the penetration you get with a target arrow with the penetration of a broadhead.” –Jack Howard

http://tradgang.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000114;p=0


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

LOL - finish the quote - what he is saying is true - you cannot compare how much penetration one will get - but you can compare the effect that weight has on penetration if all else is equal - which is exactly what Jack Howard did and what I did with my tests.

If all else is equal and a lighter faster arrow penetrated deeper into a phonebook, compressed cardboard, and ballistic gel than a heavier slower arrow, it is logical to assume that the lighter faster arrow simply has more penetrating energy.

If one wants to see if a heavier or lighter arrow has more ability to penetrate - one must compare the two arrows shot out of the same bow into the same consistent mediums, the arrows both have to be tuned to the bow, the same diameter, the same tips, the same FOC, etc... - when that is done, you will find that there is little difference in penetration with a slight advantage going to arrows in the 7-8 grains per pound of draw range. 

Shooting into water is an exception as in water heavier will always penetrate better - that is why an arrow will out penetrate a bullet in water, but I think we all know that a bullet has more penetrating ability than an arrow in an animal.

so many tests are flawed - shooting into wood - inconsistent medium.

shooting into dead animals - again - inconsistent medium - you can shoot two arrows into the same dead animal, less than an inch apart and the arrows can each encounter vastly different amounts of resistance.

shooting into foam - again - an inconsistent medium

Compressed cardboard - very consistent - shot after shot the arrows will penetrate exactly the same depth as they did in the previous shot - same with a phonebook and ballistic gel. These mediums are consistent and are an accurate way to compare to different arrows ability to penetrate.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

sharpbroadhead said:


> really - and how many of those guides have ever actually used or saw someone use a lighter weight arrow? For decades the standard has been heavy arrows and it was just what everyone used and thought should be used. To my knowledge, the first actual tests done in a consistent medium were done by Jack Howard and his tests actually showed that the lighter faster arrow had more penetrating energy - as have most all tests done in CONSISTANT mediums where all else is equal besides the weight.


To be honest Ken , it would seem the assumptions here are yours and no one else's .

Ask any guide in Northern Australia why they dislike light arrows and they'll tell you in no uncertain yet colourful terms . Not hearsay , but firsthand experience.

And it has little , if anything to do with eye doctors .

I am no great advocate of any uber EFOC theories , nor soda straw light arrow weights.

But then I have never shot a whitetail so I dare not make any dogmatic claims about them ... 

But I have lived where most of the animals are large, thick skinned, hunted them and they can hurt you very quickly and very badly ... 

Much as I would never take advice as gospel anything from someone who has never been there or done it , I would just as foolish if I unreservedly disregarded the observations of professional who do it for a living , nor my own eyes when things have gone wrong .

You can post as many Youtube videos as you like , and for what its worth they are as valid as any others ... but to equally disregard others real world observations is not only narrow minded , but in this case dangerous .


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

sharpbroadhead said:


> - what he is saying is true -


Then we agree. Penetration into cardboard with target arrows isn't an accurate indicator of penetration into game animals with broadheads. See, that was easy.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Benofthehood - I am not advocating featherweight arrows either - 7-8 grains per pound of draw is not featherweight. Out of a 60lb bow this is between a 420 and a 480 grain arrow - hardly featherweight or as you put it a "soda straw".


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Then we agree. Penetration into cardboard with target arrows isn't an accurate indicator of penetration into game animals with broadheads. See, that was easy.


Yes it is not an indicator of how much that particular arrow will penetrate in an animal - but it is an accurate indicator of which arrow has more ability to penetrate - the lighter or the heavier.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> really - and how many of those guides have ever actually used or saw someone use a lighter weight arrow?


They had several horror stories about guys with compounds that insisted on "light and fast". Like I said, it's not a message board debate for them--it's literally life and death. It would be plain stupid to insist on using an inferior set-up. They also had minimum draw weight requirements. Don't recall ever hearing about an arrow speed requirement.



> ...as have most all tests done in CONSISTANT mediums...


Animals aren't consistent mediums.



> This stuff reminds of the story of the young woman helping her mother make dinner.


Because you make assumptions/jump to conclusions. Don't take my word for it. Contact some guides in Oz about Asiatic water buffalo, or in Africa about Cape buffalo--that's what I did. They don't hunt them with light, fast rifle rounds either. 



> Just because a guide or guides say something, does not mean it is true or accurate.


If you are going to hunt one of these critters, you have to do it with a guide. The reason being so you don't get killed due to your ignorance about the critter. The guide's job, besides helping you kill the animal, it to keep you alive and unharmed. Therefore, they have weapon requirements. I think in most cases if a client is killed or seriously injured, they loose their license. 

One of the guides I spoke with was the legendary Billy Baker. Questioning his expertise about water buffalo would be considered plain silly. His son may be guiding now--maybe Ben knows how to contact him. I also spoke with an African guide...can't remember his name, he went by "Kruger". Also spoke with an American that guided like 6 months a year in Australia...Cory Mattson I think? 

You can speak with guys who have actually killed them, like Denny Sturgis Jr., Don Thomas, Dale Karch, etc., or strike out and kill one yourself. Again though, I suggest getting the equipment requirements from your guide before you go--it would stink to get there and not be allowed to hunt because you had the wrong gear.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

sharpbroadhead said:


> - but it is an accurate indicator of which [target] arrow has more ability to penetrate [into cardboard] - the lighter or the heavier.


You're welcome.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> Shooting into water is an exception as in water heavier will always penetrate better...


Think that is also the result you'll get when shooting into sand. Water and sand are pretty consistent.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> Think that is also the result you'll get when shooting into sand. Water and sand are pretty consistent.


And if one arrow goes further in sand or water, which one has the most penetration... :grin:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

once again - an arrow will out penetrate a 7mm mag in water - does that mean that the arrow will out penetrate a 7mm mag in flesh and bone? So much for this silliness.


----------



## JDBrown (Jul 18, 2013)

I read through this whole thread today, and it's cracking me up. And it warms my Engineer heart to see so many discussions and explanations about physics (especially Easykeeper's post #54 -- summation notation and a definite integral in the same post!). There have been explanations about integrating draw force curves, and ... *sigh* 

Actually, for such a long thread on such a contentious topic, I think it's stayed remarkably civil. Thanks for that.

So, even though I'm a somewhat naive n00b who's never been hunting (yet), my analytical brain has been looking at a lot of the claims that have been made and the data that has been posted, and I have to ask:

*If two arrows, one light and one heavy, both equipped with broadheads of the same cutting radius, will both produce a complete pass-through, then what does it matter which one has more "penetrating power"?*

If you're getting the same size cut and a complete pass-through either way, doesn't it come down to personal preference? One guy likes the more level flight he gets with light arrows, another guy likes the smoother feel he gets with heavy arrows... or am I missing something here?

I guess you could throw in the possibility of hitting bone as a factor, which would seem to give the edge to a heavier arrow. On the other hand, I've heard guys say, "If I hit the deer in the shoulder, I'd rather have my arrow bounce off and leave a scratch that will heal, than have it break the shoulder and leave the deer alive but crippled." Now, I don't know how likely either of those scenarios is, as I have no personal experience to go on. But it seems to come back to what each individual hunter's outlook happens to be -- does he believe that breaking bone is important? And if it's important, is it something he wants his arrow to be capable of or not?

Funnily enough, after all these pages of posts, I find myself agreeing more and more with some of the early responses:

Just pick an arrow you're comfortable with, that shoots well out of your bow, and make sure it hits where you're aiming it.

Thanks for giving me the chance to geek out on AT, everybody.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

So LBR - what are the arrow weight guidelines of the guides you contacted - 10 grains per pound - 11 grains per pound - 20 grains? what is the guideline


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

JDBrown - the only difference is that a lighter faster arrow has a flatter trajectory and is therefore more forgiving of errors in distance judgment at unknown distances - hence you will shoot them more accurately.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

JD

What matters is when those 2 arrows of differing weight encounter something like heavy bone, mud/rock encrusted hide&hair or if the animal is large size like a elk moose bear hog..and just as important at more than close range as what most testing has been done at

All of these "test" videos speculations trying to determine how the arrow will act on all of the various animals to determine which will do better is funny. 

While from a purely scientific veiw point knowing full well that testing in the lab under ideal conditions rarely happens the same when out in the field. and knowing that the same variables which have been removed so thst thd testing could be controlled ....seeing this continue is amusing. 

Mac


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

rattus58 said:


> But the guides who are successful are that way because they are successful... and after all... you keep saying that lighter arrows are better than heavy... :laugh: Learn your own advise Sharp... you will gain from that.



Say what??? You lost me there.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> JDBrown - the only difference is that a lighter faster arrow has a flatter trajectory and is therefore more forgiving of errors in distance judgment at unknown distances - hence you will shoot them more accurately.


I shoot a smid weight arrow best because fast arrows give me too big a sight picture. 

Shoot what you shoot best, and tune it as well as you can


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

kegan said:


> I shoot a smid weight arrow best because fast arrows give me too big a sight picture.
> 
> Shoot what you shoot best, and tune it as well as you can


Is that lighter or heavier than a shmedium weight arrow?


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

...I never said I could type:lol:

I meant just mid. It's about 9-11, depending on my bow/limbs at the time. I've been building like crazy lately, my arrows stay the same but the bow doesn't!


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

kegan said:


> ...I never said I could type:lol:
> 
> I meant just mid. It's about 9-11, depending on my bow/limbs at the time. I've been building like crazy lately, my arrows stay the same but the bow doesn't!


Same for me. My brain just processes the gap for a 180-190fps arrow much better. Of course if I could get a 30yd POD with arrows going +200fps I would be thrilled.

-Grant


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Shooting into just about any medium will have inconsistencies.

The key in over coming that is to shoot 100's of arrows to accumulate data rather than just a few shots here and there.

A pattern will begin to develop and shed light on the subject.

Keep that in mind when comparing tests.

Ray :shade:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

grantmac said:


> Same for me. My brain just processes the gap for a 180-190fps arrow much better. Of course if I could get a 30yd POD with arrows going +200fps I would be thrilled.
> 
> -Grant


Best I can do is "one" 7" gap from 15-30 yards with a 35 yard PO. I wish my glasses didn't get in the way so much!


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

I personally would like to see sharp perform that same test but instead of paper tuning...show bareshaft flight, more consistently shaped field points and compare shaft diameter if possible.

Ray :shade:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> I personally would like to see sharp perform that same test but instead of paper tuning...show bareshaft flight, more consistently shaped field points and compare shaft diameter if possible.
> 
> Ray :shade:


He checked the shaft diameters. They're the same (one of the heavy and the light are the same shaft, one just has a weight tube).

I still say it's a wash- just shoot what you shoot best.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

kegan said:


> He checked the shaft diameters. They're the same (one of the heavy and the light are the same shaft, one just has a weight tube).


I don't remember him showing it as measured with a caliper. If he did...where in the video did it show him doing that?



kegan said:


> I still say it's a wash- just shoot what you shoot best.


It basically is a wash for hunting whitetail deer...but as far as a test to PROVE what penetrates more...it falls short!

Ray :shade:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> So much for this silliness.



To me, silliness is ignoring and/or discounting what people who guide and kill big game for a living say about penetration in favor of the results you got from shooting a phone book.

If I remember correctly, most suggest an arrow around 1,000 grains, heavier if you can get good flight. I think the minimum draw weight for most was 80#, maybe more depending on the guide. Like I said, don't take my word for it--ask them yourself or better yet, book a hunt.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

LBR said:


> To me, silliness is ignoring and/or discounting what people who guide and kill big game for a living say about penetration in favor of the results you got from shooting a phone book.
> 
> If I remember correctly, most suggest an arrow around 1,000 grains, heavier if you can get good flight. I think the minimum draw weight for most was 80#, maybe more depending on the guide. Like I said, don't take my word for it--ask them yourself or better yet, book a hunt.


I'd love to hear the phone convo of him arguing with a guide and trying to convince them with his phonebook test LOL!


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

Nothing compares to the real thing. The animal.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

Who needs a guide if you know what to do????!


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

When I did my testing - we actually shot an arrow that weighed about 1500 grains - we took one of those big fat alloy arrows and filled it with salt. I thought for sure that the penetration would be horrible because when I first shot it into a bag at 10 yards you could see the arc of the arrow - I darn near missed the entire bag because the arrow was moving so slow. then we shot it into the phone book (took a few tries to even hit it) and low and behold - it penetrated it pretty close to what all the other arrows did - a little less (probably due to the larger diameter) and same thing with the ballistic gel. So I have no doubt that a heavy arrow can and well penetrate - I just don't see any evidence that it penetrates better.

Oh, and Kegan - thanks- you are correct two of the arrows in my test were the exact same arrow - only one had a weight tube in it - so this nonsense about different diameter arrows in my test is just another failed attempt to discredit. One of the arrows had a slightly different diameter because it was a Gold Tip with the traditional wood grain on the outside of it - but two of them were the exact same arrow, except one had a weight tube in it.

And before I decided to do this test and film it - I literally shot hundreds and hundreds of arrows into phonebooks - I was getting every old phonebook I could get my hands on and I can tell you that the phonebook is a VERY consistent medium - I had my arrows marked and they penetrated to the exact same depth every single time with the exception of hitting very close to the binding or hitting in or very near the hole of a previous shot. 

The ballistic gel I did not shoot hundreds of arrows into before the test - it cost me almost $60.00 to make that gel. The first shots into it were what you see in the video - I wanted it fresh and without any previous shots for the testing. So what you saw in the video was what I saw for the first time as well. After filming we shot the hell out of that gel with my trad bow and with compounds - it held up pretty good and was very consistent, until it started getting really shot up.

We also shot at the phonebook and gel out to 35 yards in the range and the results were the same. The only reason I kept it closer for the video was that it was easier to film and would assure that I would not hit too close to the binding of the phonebook or edge of the gel. 

As far as nothing comparing to the real thing - I can only relate my personal experiences. I have been using the lighter arrow set up now for several years and have had complete pass through shots more often than not - and when not a complete pass through - it has always been a "poke through". I have blasted through shoulder blades and ribs with no issues at all. The last few years I have been using Rage 40KE expandable broadheads with amazing results.

Now would I use my 48lb recurve to hunt cape buffalo - of course not. If I could draw and accurately shoot an 80lb bow - would I use 7 - 8 grains per pound of draw shot out of an 80lb bow to hunt cape buffalo - probably, but I would do testing to see if that heavy of a draw bow would change the dynamics of the situation - but if the results were the same as my previous test and out of the 80lb draw bow 7 - 8 grains per pound of draw penetrated as well or better than a heavier arrow - I would have no problem using it. The other question is if, with a bow of that heavy of a draw, 7 - 8 grains per pound of draw would be to light for the bow to handle - a bowyer would have to answer that one.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

1. 1500 grain broad heads??! Why the heck would you do that??! I guess to test, but my limit would be 1000
2. I think you should try out 32" Ted nugent gold tips
3. I have a YouTube channel if you want me to post them if you dont want to (of coarse I will give you 100% credit)
4. Phone books cannot compare to a deer, because of the liquidy body and shoulder blades. 
5. expandable broad heads I have always used for small game, I now use a Martin hunter, daemon howett(misspelling?) recurve #55 @ 28" with Ted nugent full 32" green and black zebra striped arrows 500 grain?(I think they don't make them anymore) and a 150 grain Zwicky "No mercy" fixed blade,(non-expandable) so it doesn't break like expandables
6. Do you know Dick Palmer? Used 108 lb long bow with wood shafts(I think) 
7. The amount of comments you have and how much you write in one comment, tell me a lot about you. 
8. I am 16 and I have become many things. The title I hold now is Certified archery instructor. 
9. Do yourself a favor, and try staying off the Internet over the weekend, just to see if you can do it,(unless you NEED to do something) try meditating or something. If you don't want to do that read this book, http://www.miyamotomusashi.com/gorin.htm
Then Art of war by sun Tsu if you haven't. Then go into the woods with your traditional bow and sit in a pile of leaves, on the ground and sit there, all day. If you do this and consecrate on your surroundings, you will reach a new level of enlightenment. TRUST ME, it's for your body and mind. Or maybe start bojitsu training the next day. It's very calming, especially in the moonlight.


----------



## Speck1 (Jul 31, 2012)

16, Loooooool. Watch out Ken, you may have to stay after school! Speck


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

I am staying after today >_>


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

A interesting reading from a thread found here..nothing about trajectory..hmmmmmm

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1917375&p=1066090178#post1066090178

Loved this one too...

 http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1499203&page=2&highlight=phone+books 

The discussion pretty much sums it up...


Sorry for the hijack OP.....but thought you deserved to see the other side of the coin from past discussions on this ...Its amazing what you can find with the search feature here...

Mac


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

MAC 11700 said:


> A interesting reading from a thread found here..nothing about trajectory..hmmmmmm
> 
> http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1917375&p=1066090178#post1066090178
> 
> ...


I promise.... :grin:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Isn't it amazing the lengths these guys will go to try and discredit my simple test that ANYONE can do at home for themselves if they would only take the time and effort to do it.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Isn't it amazing the lengths these guys will go to try and discredit my simple test that ANYONE can do at home for themselves if they would only take the time and effort to do it.


You still don't get it do you...... The kid was right... you need to take a breather... go do some hunting...


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Isn't it amazing the lengths these guys will go to try and discredit my simple test that ANYONE can do at home for themselves if they would only take the time and effort to do it.


Yes....it's called thorough research.

Anyone who goes to greater lengths and tests things more thoroughly and more accurately will always have my respect....especially if they can also admit when they may be wrong or at least admit when they're wrong.

Ray :shade:


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

Kid? Who you calling kid? Lol


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> Kid? Who you calling kid? Lol


Well it might be relative.... :laugh:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> 1. 1500 grain broad heads??! Why the heck would you do that??! I guess to test, but my limit would be 1000
> 2. I think you should try out 32" Ted nugent gold tips
> 3. I have a YouTube channel if you want me to post them if you dont want to (of coarse I will give you 100% credit)
> 4. Phone books cannot compare to a deer, because of the liquidy body and shoulder blades.
> ...



1. We shot the 1500 grain heads to see what would happen and how they would penetrate.

2. I do not like GT arrows - they are horribly inconsistent in spine and weight.

3. You can share my videos all you want.

4. Phonebooks are a dry hard and CONSISTENT medium to simulate BONE. Ballistic Gel, which you conveniently neglected to mention, which was used in my tests as well as a phonebook IS AN ACCURATE and CONSISTENT representation of flesh.

5. If you don't like expandable heads don't use them - I have had great success with the Rage 40KE - best blood trails of any broadhead I have ever tried.

6. I know of Dick Palmer and my brother has a Palmer recurver.

7. The amount of comments and how much I write should give you an indication that I try to be as accurate as I can in everything I do.

8. You are 16 - great - you have a lot to learn. I have been shooting bows longer than you have been alive and am also an archery instructor and a champion archer.

9. Your sarcastic comment about me staying off the internet says a lot about you an the respect you show to people who are MUCH more experienced world class archers. And I will not be on the internet this weekend, as I am going on a hunt in Northern, MN and will not be back until Wednesday.

I have been bowhunting longer than you have be alive and do not need Spiritual aids form a long dead Chinese general, I will take my spiritual aid from my living Lord and God Jesus Christ. 

That all being said - my comment about the lengths that some will go to discredit my tests were in response to Mac searching the forum to try and discredit them - the comment had nothing to do with this young man's posts, in fact I did not even notice this post until just now.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

In all my setups I'm running from 7 and change to 9 and change so I would say in my experience is that 8 gpi is about perfect  

Fairly fast and I like a tad bit of FOC


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> 1. We shot the 1500 grain heads to see what would happen and how they would penetrate.
> 
> 2. I do not like GT arrows - they are horribly inconsistent in spine and weight.
> 
> ...


Ken take it easy its just a kid buddy 

Have a great trip and good luck I hope you get a good one 

BTW 

The book of five rings ( Go Rin No Sho ) by Miamoto Musashi is great reading and read in Harvard business school . You might like it 

sun Tzu is a bit long winded


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

3. You said share all I want. But you need to give them to me then I can put them on YouTube. 
5. I'll look up the rage 40ke, you should look up shark heads (I forgot who makes them)
7. No you spend a heck of a lot of time on the Internet
8. Sure, I have a lot to learn. But so do you. 
9.AND I WASN'T BEING SACRCASTIC AT ALL
Sorry to bust your bubble. But there is no god. Sorry. I know it's hard to accept, but it's all mental. Is he on a cloud or in space?


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

:thumbs_up I love go rin no sho
I hate auto correct, I can't write japanese


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

Isn't that a little light?


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> 3. You said share all I want. But you need to give them to me then I can put them on YouTube.
> 5. I'll look up the rage 40ke, you should look up shark heads (I forgot who makes them)
> 7. No you spend a heck of a lot of time on the Internet
> 8. Sure, I have a lot to learn. But so do you.
> ...



Kid please take it easy on the religious comments and respect everyone's beliefs 

We have enough arguing around here all ready


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

Sorry, just trying to help ^_^


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Ken
It might be helpful if you were to explain your criteria for what constitutes a *VERY consistent medium *and how you established that the telephone books satisfied your criteria. I'm assuming you measured the width, length and depth of each directory to establish the volume and calculated the density (Kg/m3) with the weight. I'm sure you then used on on line calculator to establish means and standard deviations to establish your *VERY consistent medium.*


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

yewselfbow - nope - no need for all that - I simply marked the arrow that was shot into it with a super fine sharpie magic marker and then shot into the same phone book until it was shot up - and guess what - low and behold every time (with the exception of hits right next to the binding or in the hole of a previous shot) the arrow penetrated the exact same depth to the mark I put on the arrow first shot into it. Without any calculations or forumulas I could easily and accurately determine that the arrow was encountering the same resistence shot after shot after shot. For my purposes - that was all I needed to see to know that the phonebook was consistent - unlike shooting into an animal (living or dead), a piece of wood, foam, etc...


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> 3. You said share all I want. But you need to give them to me then I can put them on YouTube.
> 5. I'll look up the rage 40ke, you should look up shark heads (I forgot who makes them)
> 7. No you spend a heck of a lot of time on the Internet
> 8. Sure, I have a lot to learn. But so do you.
> ...



The arrogance of the youth today is amazing. I have no bubble to burst. This "logic" is sort of like the neurosurgeon who was arguing that there was no soul. He stated that he has examined the human brain inside and out numerous times and never once did he see a "soul" and therefore - there is no such thing as a soul. The humble working man then asked him if, in all of his study of the human brain and all of the operations performed on the human brain, if he ever saw an idea.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> Sorry, just trying to help ^_^



Here's help. I don't know your status or situation, but if there are woods around you then go sit out there for an hour a day and observe nature. Very therapeutic, lots to be learned about the world around you. 
There are many fine hunters in Michigan, some who might even be willing to mentor a youngster and I promise you would never regret the experience. They will expect you to be respectful and not spit out every off the wall thought that comes to your mind. It would pay to learn to say yes sir and no sir, but I promise that in ten years you will thank them. Probably much sooner.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

Thanks for that Ken
but doesn't *(with the exception of hits right next to the binding or in the hole of a previous shot)* constitute an in-consistant medium.
and did you measure the penetration (in mm) and calculate the mean and the standard deviations from the diffent arrows?


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

I think souls are more like a aura


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Yew - no it does not - it is 100% consistent when properly used and understood - of which I did in my testing.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

JParanee said:


> so I would say in my experience is that 8 gpi is about perfect
> 
> Fairly fast and I like a tad bit of FOC


Me too :thumbs_up

Ray :shade:


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Yew - no it does not - it is 100% consistent when properly used and understood - of which I did in my testing.


... but you just said there were exceptions ... I'm sorry but you haven't answered my question .... *explain your criteria for what constitutes a VERY consistent medium and how you established that the telephone books satisfied your criteria. *


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Yewselfbow said:


> ... but you just said there were exceptions ... I'm sorry but you haven't answered my question .... *explain your criteria for what constitutes a VERY consistent medium and how you established that the telephone books satisfied your criteria. *



Hahaha, you are getting pretty funny, but there are lots of comedians already out of work. Just sayin. 

As I understand it the criteria was his own,set by him for his own purposes,which were obviously met to his satisfaction. Get the picture? I don't believe the tests or the results have ever been represented as scientific in any way. One man who was curious and set out to explore the possibilities. Simple, uncomplicated, easy to comprehend for most folks of average intelligence.


----------



## Yewselfbow (Jan 28, 2006)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Hahaha, you are getting pretty funny, but there are lots of comedians already out of work. Just sayin.
> 
> As I understand it the criteria was his own,set by him for his own purposes,which were obviously met to his satisfaction. Get the picture? I don't believe the tests or the results have ever been represented as scientific in any way. One man who curious and set out to explore the possibilities. Simple


Forest I appreciate it was Kens criteria and the telephone books satisfied his criteria. What I'd like to know is What was his selection criteria and what did he do to satisfy his selection. It's not too much too ask is it?


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

Actually Ken..I was saying it for others benefit about searching on the forum. .I already knew this. 

There is a multitude of great threads available for anyone wanting to know more. .just a click away. .

SEE..it's available for all when keeping track of what and who have made statements about various topics. .sorry if this upsets you..

Mac


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

Yewselfbow said:


> Forest I appreciate it was Kens criteria and the telephone books satisfied his criteria. What I'd like to know is What was his selection criteria and what did he do to satisfy his selection. It's not too much too ask is it?



Since you asked, In my opinion, yes. It's not a scientific study and he shares the results of his experiment with others. Is that too hard to understand? It just gets old, smart people pretending to not understand simple things.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> 3. You said share all I want. But you need to give them to me then I can put them on YouTube.
> 5. I'll look up the rage 40ke, you should look up shark heads (I forgot who makes them)
> 7. No you spend a heck of a lot of time on the Internet
> 8. Sure, I have a lot to learn. But so do you.
> ...


I like this kid.



FORESTGUMP said:


> Since you asked, In my opinion, yes. It's not a scientific study and he shares the results of his experiment with others. Is that too hard to understand? It just gets old, smart people pretending to not understand simple things.



What gets old is people showing their unscientific testing as fact that one idea(his own) is the right one, based solely on his own unscientific testing.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

Was that sarcastic???


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

FORESTGUMP said:


> Since you asked, In my opinion, yes. It's not a scientific study and he shares the results of his experiment with others. Is that too hard to understand? It just gets old, smart people pretending to not understand simple things.


AMEN - I explained it to him already - this just gets silly. I have found that many people have more education than intelligence. The New Testament warned of the days we live in - saying that in those days people will be ever learning, but never attaining a knowledge of the truth.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> Was that sarcastic???


I was referring to dullbroadhead.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

henro said:


> What gets old is people showing their unscientific testing as fact that one idea(his own) is the right one, based solely on his own unscientific testing.


I agree with this 1000000% - so when is the eye doctor going to stop doing this?


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

I laughed "dull broadhead" >_<
And I meant you said "I like that kid"


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

I like your arrow and bow setup


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Thru out the ages man has searched for ways to test performance of their weapons 

The Japanese in Feudal Japan took it to new heights by testing their arrows and swords on armor and flesh 

The flesh was from some live examples and some cadavers 

Arrows where tested on armor 

They where expected to penetrate flesh, with their long rather heavy nature of course they would do fairly well 

Eventually they evolved to testing on other medias like rolled soaked tatami mats 

My point is, yes live critters are the best to test on if you want real world results but that is hard won and very hard to duplicate the same parameters so we search for other medias to help us control the testing 

I see Phone books being as good as any, and at least repeatable 

Chances are if one setup performs well at this, it will perform on an equal level elsewhere 

Nothing is perfect....... especially in the field


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

no need for name calling "theforevermoron" - LOL - just kidding and giving it right back from the "dullbroadhead"


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

JParanee said:


> Thru out the ages man has searched for ways to test performance of there weapons
> 
> The Japanese in Feudal Japan took it to new heights by testing their arrows and swords on armor and flesh
> 
> ...


exactly the way I see it


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

THEFOREVERMAN said:


> I like your arrow and bow setup


Thanks it's been a work in progress lol. Here's my build thread: http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1685182&p=1068230668#post1068230668



THEFOREVERMAN said:


> I laughed "dull broadhead" >_<
> And I meant you said "I like that kid"


You seem to have a clue, which is good for a 16 year old.


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

I'm highly enlightened, I've been in zen all my life. I used to be called "grasshopper" or little Buddha as a child


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

sharpbroadhead said:


> exactly the way I see it


Sharp I wish ya would have quoted my edited version with out all the mistakes


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> no need for name calling "theforevermoron" - LOL - just kidding and giving it right back from the "dullbroadhead"


He didn't call you that, I did dummy. Quit pickin on the kid.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Dullbroadhead must play for the Miami Dolphins...


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

That brings me back to ace Ventura pet detective and Jim career is in the dolphin tank
"I can't do it captain!"


----------



## 337088 (Sep 9, 2013)

That was actually the first time anyone call me a name. And it made me laugh!


----------

