# My experience with low/mid/high FOC hunting arrows and broadheads.



## oldnewby (Oct 13, 2015)

This is extremely helpful information to those of us setting up to hint with a bow. Thank you for taking the time to write it up.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Nice write up.

Thanks.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Good stuff and thanks for sharing! :thumbs_up

My experiences mirror yours where I've concluded that like many other things in life?...the balance of opting to take the middle road makes for a better overall experience but if I had to lean one way or the other?...there'd be sharp heavy metal on the ends of my shafts...especially for purposes of hunting.


----------



## erik7x57 (Jan 4, 2012)

Very interesting...I'm experimenting with Beman Nightfall 300 spine with a 100 gr brass insert+125 gr point out of my 70# Strother Rush. At 28" it is about 560 grains and 16% FOC. My goodness does it hit hard, but more importantly I can't believe how straight it flew to the target compared to my standard 340 spine arrows and factory inserts. I plan on using it with either Muzzy Phantom or NAP Killzones, there should be penetration to spare.


----------



## Trey Hedrick (Jan 21, 2016)

great post!


----------



## Bill 2311 (Jun 24, 2005)

Ironically, it seems that the recent trend to real heavy heads is diminishing. "Back in the day" guys shot 125 grain tips as a standard. That was with a cedar shaft that weighed around 400 grains or so without the tip. 
I am sure that there is a reason Fred Bear designed his famous broadhead as 125 grain. Same for Zwickey.
I still see guys shooting 45# rigs wanting to shoot 200 grain heads/points. Not sure why, but if it works for them, then great. For me, my arrows run 16%-18% f.o.c. with my 125 grain tips and fly well out farther than I can shoot them accurately. I see no need to change.


----------



## 4 Fletch (Jan 25, 2014)

Fascinating, Sauk Mountain. Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

Nice post Sauk, thanks for taking the time to write it up.

I think I agree with your thoughts on the two carbon setups, most likely the difference is due to the weight difference more than FOC. I understand the theoretical reasoning behind the higher the better FOC trend, just not sure it works out that way in the real world. At least with the game most of us are hunting.

The only other difference is the broadhead, from photos it looks like the Classic has a sharper point and more tapered ferrule than the Stinger. Do you think the shape might have played a part in the better penetration of the heavier arrows?

I don't really have an opinion on the aluminum arrows. You would think that 9% would be enough, I think that's been a fairly common setup over the years. Maybe not good with broadheads though, gotta say I don't know.

My arrows usually end up with a slightly high FOC, mainly because I like the broadheads that are available in the 175-225 grain range.


----------



## Bender (Dec 6, 2006)

What is interesting here is that actually the numbers you got as to relating to hunting closely match what I also find good for target. Up to a limit. I have never shot arrows up to 24% FOC. Just wound up with arrows that were heavy enough to adversely affect cast beyond what I would accept for either hunting or target.

Setting aside the penetration controversy for hunting, and given a final good state of tune, the higher FOC delivers a more forgiving arrow, with good arrow flight quality. The lower end becomes more twitchy. I myself wind up around 15% for a hunting arrow, and shoot for building an arrow over 8% for target. (I'm always looking for building a light target arrow.) Below 8%, I have found "shootability" quickly deteriorates for us finger shooters. Once down to 6%, for me, it's basically unshootable, it becomes so squirrelly.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Your experiences (concerning tuning and forgiveness) mirror my own. The last few years I've shot the heavier Simmons broadheads exclusively, which all put me in the 15+% range on a regular carbon, and despite the big wide cutting surfaces and have been very easy to tune up. When I was using hardwood arrows with 125 gr tips I couldn't get a broadhead to fly well unless it was very small and narrow, and that was with larger fletchings, despite the accuracy of my field point arrows.


----------



## Sauk Mountain (Aug 3, 2015)

Easykeeper said:


> The only other difference is the broadhead, from photos it looks like the Classic has a sharper point and more tapered ferrule than the Stinger. Do you think the shape might have played a part in the better penetration of the heavier arrows?
> 
> I don't really have an opinion on the aluminum arrows. You would think that 9% would be enough, I think that's been a fairly common setup over the years. Maybe not good with broadheads though, gotta say I don't know.


Broadhead profile very well could have played a part in the difference in penetration. As far thinking 9% should be enough, I agree you'd think it should, and maybe for some bow/arrow combos it is. Several years ago I was at a local pro shop that has a pretty good traditional selection and chatted up an old timer. I don't remember how tuning came up, but he told me that he wishes he knew in the 50's what he knows now about arrow flight and tuning. He said you'd shoot all summer and get deadly with field points, switch over to broadheads and go hunting. When you missed or made a terrible shot, you chalked it up to buck fever and the thought that it was an arrow problem never crossed your mind. 



Bender said:


> What is interesting here is that actually the numbers you got as to relating to hunting closely match what I also find good for target. Up to a limit. I have never shot arrows up to 24% FOC. Just wound up with arrows that were heavy enough to adversely affect cast beyond what I would accept for either hunting or target.
> 
> Setting aside the penetration controversy for hunting, and given a final good state of tune, the higher FOC delivers a more forgiving arrow, with good arrow flight quality. The lower end becomes more twitchy. I myself wind up around 15% for a hunting arrow, and shoot for building an arrow over 8% for target. (I'm always looking for building a light target arrow.) Below 8%, I have found "shootability" quickly deteriorates for us finger shooters. Once down to 6%, for me, it's basically unshootable, it becomes so squirrelly.


Interesting that for target you don't like to drop below 8% for the same shootability problems I experienced at 9% with broadheads. Maybe what I experienced isn't all that uncommon.


----------



## Scarrcrow (Feb 28, 2017)

Old thread but super relevant to what I'm tinkering with as I bounce between my compound and recurve bows.


----------



## anthonyray (Jun 26, 2019)

The aluminum shafts didn't tune good with broadheads is cause they weren't bare shaft tuned tight. It's that simple
When shooting foc, it's about momentum. And once you drop arrow speed, you loose momentum. We can argue this all day long, but until you're willing to use chronographs and momentum calculators, you're only taking momentum 3 feet in front of your bow, where most guys get their arrow speed to figure out their momentum.
For 2 years, I shot asa 3D shoots in Arizona, with 15 to 25 mph winds, and the claims of guys boosting hfoc arrows was not what myself and other shooters saw or experienced. I suggest to otters is to build several sets of arrows and experiment for yourself to find the ideal setup for you. Some might like the high arc of a hfoc arrow... I do not!!


----------

