# Grizzly Stik longbow 253 fps!



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Anyone see the ad for this bow - they claim that it is shooting over 250 fps - I wonder if that is with a Grizzly Stik arrow, Ashby Head and EFOC? Ok - they are claiming it as IBO speeds which is 5 grains per pound of draw @ a 30" draw

I suspect that since my bow is shooting 214 fps with a 7.4 grain per pound arrow at 29.75" draw - that my bow may shoot that fast too with a 5 gpp arrow.

Seems odd that a company that does everything it can to promote Ashby's theories about super heavy arrows would now be advertising a bow that they are putting their name on (it is a Korean Bow made by W&W) based on what even I would consider a light weight arrow.

This longbow has a built in plunger - wonder what that will do to the longbow classes - 

The bow is called the Qarbon Nano here is their slogan of sorts:

"The Qarbon Nano is an engineering marvel, a true work of art. Graceful limbs belie the momentum generating predatory beast within...They're quick to point, blazing fast, and deliver downrange."

hmm

If any of you guys take this for a free test drive - let me know what you think and what your chrono says.


http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/Webpage ... bpageId=56


----------



## Night Wing (Feb 4, 2009)

I strictly bowhunt so my aluminum arrows will never go below 10 GPP.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I bowhunt and shoot 3D - and my arrows that are just over 7 gpp do the job just fine for both.

But that is another issue...

Don't you find it odd that Alaskan Bowhunting Company - the makers of the super heavy Grizzly Stik arrows, the super heavy single bevel Ashby Tonto Head, the biggest promoters of Ashby's theories on extremely heavy arrows, extreme front of center, etc... are now advertising a bow and its speed based on 5 gpp of draw?

This company has done more to promote this heavy arrow stuff than just about anyone - and now they are out there bragging about a bow they are selling and how fast it is based on an extremely light arrow - odd ain't it?


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

$1499... lets see.. not sure about the math but I get 225 FPS with a 420 gr arrow, out of a [email protected] they don't tell you which weight bow that I could find anyway, so I am assuming that is their 70# bow at 30"... in effect really a 78# pull to get 253 FPS.... lets see I am pulling 29 1/2" so that is maybe 60# on my bow... 18#'s difference in DW.... hard to compare apples to oranges... but I am thinking that is a lot of money for a bow that doesn't outperform some of the bowyers bows out there like Ernie Mackenzie - Sapphire Bows, Kirk LAvender of Bigfoot bows etc... and they are cheaper for a custom fit to you bow.... Now don't even get me started about the evils of too much speed....


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

SOrry can't resist another quick note here... my arrows are also somwhere in the range of 100 grains heavier than their IBO arrow weight. Now to top that, how about getting 211FPS with an ILF bow with 32# limbs and 285Gr arrow ..... I got that at our recent State 3D where it weas mandatory to shoot through the chrono... even for the Trad guys.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

From the website:



> Speed Testing The GrizzlyStik Qarbon Nano All Carbon Longbow
> 
> IBO bow speeds are what everyone seems to compare these days. To calculate a bow's IBO speed you shoot a 350 grain arrow, from a 70# bow drawn 30”. This system is really set up for compounds and many recurve and longbows have historically been 70# bows @ 28" but drawn to 30". They just don't tell you that they're doing that. They're actually shooting a bow that's up to 8# heavier.
> 
> ...


According to further down that webpage it'll do 185fps at 28" and 10GPP, quick but not ground breaking. Not really that much faster then a set of TT longbow limbs on a smaller ILF riser.

-Grant


----------



## Jake T (May 31, 2008)

not only that, but they can't spell Carbon the right way.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Jake T said:


> not only that, but they can't spell Carbon the right way.


Hahahahahaha..... :thumbs_up


----------



## Van/TX (Jul 20, 2008)

It's called marketing. That's the first trad bow ad I've ever seen posting IBO speeds. Pretty dumb to me but it will probably sell bows since most folks don't have a clue what IBO speed means...Van


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Sure it is marketing - but it is the most bizarre marketing I have seen in a long time. 

A company that has made its mark by pushing the Ashby theory of extremely heavy arrows, extreme FOC, super heavy broadheads, etc... - is now marketing a bow based on extremely light arrows - hmmm

But I supposed judging by the thought processes of some of those who buy into the Ashby theories - they likely will not see any contradiction in this at all.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Sure it is marketing - but it is the most bizarre marketing I have seen in a long time.
> 
> A company that has made its mark by pushing the Ashby theory of extremely heavy arrows, extreme FOC, super heavy broadheads, etc... - is now marketing a bow based on extremely light arrows - hmmm
> 
> But I supposed judging by the thought processes of some of those who buy into the Ashby theories - they likely will not see any contradiction in this at all.


Buy into? What is it about Ashby have you disagreement with ?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

lets see - the idea that a heavy arrow always out penetrates a lighter arrow, the idea that a single bevel broadhead is superior to a double bevel, the idea that shooting arrows into dead animals is a superior way to test penetration than shooting into consistent mediums, etc...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> lets see - the idea that a heavy arrow always out penetrates a lighter arrow, the idea that a single bevel broadhead is superior to a double bevel, the idea that shooting arrows into dead animals is a superior way to test penetration than shooting into consistent mediums, etc...


A heavy arrow will outpenetrate a lighter arrow all else being the same... where does your information come from?

Penetration comes from a lot of variables, including drag, arrow diameter, broadhead design, and the taper of the shaft, if any. Wood arrows will not penetrate as well as a carbon arrow of the same weight probably, but weight will always out penetrate a lighter arrow if all variables are the same... in not only my experience but in everything I've ever been able to gather on the subject. Maybe you have some authoritative studies to the contrary you'd care to share?


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

here is my experience

part 1 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4RGcyZ_gJY

part 2 of 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAfK0sBsZBw&feature=related


----------



## pilotmill (Dec 10, 2008)

It isnt going to change the trad classes in any venue that I can see. It will just be ruled not legal with the button. Havent we all decided the speed game is a market ploy. You need to shoot accurately and a hunting distance thats comfortable to your skill. Lets not join the compound crowd and see how fast a bow shoots and proclaim the best bow the fastest. Alot of subjective things make a great bow, smoothness, stability, easy to shoot, looks good etc.


----------



## rsarns (Sep 23, 2008)

pilotmill said:


> It isnt going to change the trad classes in any venue that I can see. It will just be ruled not legal with the button. Havent we all decided the speed game is a market ploy. You need to shoot accurately and a hunting distance thats comfortable to your skill. Lets not join the compound crowd and see how fast a bow shoots and proclaim the best bow the fastest. Alot of subjective things make a great bow, smoothness, stability, easy to shoot, looks good etc.


I agree! Except I think the smart compound guys know it isn't about speed... look at most target bows (not 3D), if they are shooting much over 280 it won't be by much. Smoothness, stability and forgiveness (BH) is more important than speed.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> here is my experience
> 
> part 1 of 2
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4RGcyZ_gJY
> ...


Yeah.... I saw those earlier myself.... At least you took the time to test YOUR theory with a video record. :thumbs_up!

Don't take this wrong, the only thing you proved that on that shot, your faster arrow presumably went deeper once it came to rest. The problem with a test like yours is that it is not a repeated test. Get new media for each shot and test your theory there. Shooting through bone is live media and thus can provide varying result... as even Ashby's test have shown..

If I'm not mistaken, you had a damaged broadhead on your tests too... so again... is that really anything more than an instant case? 

I love anecdotal stuff because it brings new perspective to the table, but I'm sticking with the basics of what I've not only seen in my case the preponderance of times I've tried it, but what is available as bonafide testing of such... and most all manufacturers of bullets, arrows and broadheads will tell you that heavier arrows/bullet will out penetrate a lighter faster one, ALL THINGS ELSE BEING EQUAL.

As I've said, my wood arrows won't probably penetrate as well as a carbon even if heavier, if for no other reason than the size of the shaft creates more drag. The only thing that matters is that the broadhead go through the animal completely (ideally). Water Buffalo and Moose maybe.. dangerous bears maybe.. you might like to have a really heavy arrow, but for north american game, light arrows do just fine.

Aloha.. :beer:


----------



## trapperDave (Mar 12, 2005)

grantmac said:


> From the website:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thats just high average in the speed department. Not up to all the hype for sure. Pays to read the fine print :^)


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Um - I shot hundreds of shots into phone books and dozens into the Balistic Gel - all with the same results - I only put on film what you see - I figured it would be boring as hell to watch arrow after arrow doing the same thing.

I never had a damaged broadhead in my tests - had you watched them - you would see that I did not even use a broadhead.

I did a short clip to show what happened shooting both a lighter and a heavier through a shoulder bone from a pig: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vKslydefg0

But no broadhead was damaged and both arrows completely passed through the bone.

The reason that Ashby and others get varied results shooting into bone and animals is because they are not consistent mediums - on the other hand a phonebook and balistic gel are. You can take two different dead animals of the same species, size and weight, and shoot both in the exact same spot - and each arrow will encounter different resistance.

You can shoot two arrows in to the same animal a fraction of an inch apart and each arrow will encounter different resistance. These dead animal tests are pretty much useless and prove nothing.

Shooting two tuned arrows of different weights into a consistent medium proves which one has more penetrating energy - period. Whichever one has more penetrating energy in a phonebook will have more penetrating energy in a hard dry medium such as bone - whichever penetrates more in the balistic gell (a semi-moist medium) will penetrate more in flesh - simple as that.

Arrows do not lose or gain penetrating energy based on what you shoot them into.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Um - I shot hundreds of shots into phone books and dozens into the Balistic Gel - all with the same results - I only put on film what you see - I figured it would be boring as hell to watch arrow after arrow doing the same thing.
> 
> I never had a damaged broadhead in my tests - had you watched them - you would see that I did not even use a broadhead.
> 
> ...


Well Ok den... that absolutely does it... no more weight worries then for penetration. That makes it much easier for everyone... speed kills. I'd just like to know why your tests for some reason do not duplicate those of mine that I've witnessed shooting aluminum arrows against wood arrows and shooting 2219's against 2412's I think they were, where the 2219's pounded the 12's ? Any thoughts on that?

And you are absolutely wrong on your last statement. It matters a lot what you shoot into. I can tell you that with wood arrows against aluminum with 100% certainty. Shooting into a dry McKenzie target, my aluminum arrows always went deeper than my wood arrows except with broadheads on them and then it was a mixed bag. In a foam and plastic target, the woodies (heavier, as you might imagine) went much further through with either a broadhead or a target tip. In fact, against a broadhead, it makes a differnce there too... whether three bladed or two.

Now you might be right in that the "energy" part is always there, but how that energy compares to other arrows is definitely a factor by the medium shot into. 

I just had a thought... what range are you shooting these with? Have you tried this at 25 and 30 yards?
Aloha.. :beer:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

You are not comparing apples to apples - you cannot compare wood arrows to aluminum and then make some sort of conclusion about how arrow weight relates to penetration. You also need to make sure that both weight arrows are tuned out of the bow - which for me was no easy task and involved a lot of tuning. 

Also - I never said that a heavy arrow will not kill - in fact - had you watched my videos - you would have seen that I clearly stated that it is pretty much a horse a piece - whatever you gain in penetration from added weight - you lose from the decrease in velocity - and whatever you gain in penetration from increased velocity, you lose from the decrease in weight.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> lets see - the idea that a heavy arrow always out penetrates a lighter arrow, the idea that a single bevel broadhead is superior to a double bevel, the idea that shooting arrows into dead animals is a superior way to test penetration than shooting into consistent mediums, etc...


Did you read any of Ashby's latest studies? He found there were far more effective ways of increasing penetration than just weight... and he was getting equal penetration from a 64# bow shooting a 650 gr. arrow as he was a super heavy arrows from a super heavy bow that did not incorporate the same design features. Besides, I trust penetration on an animal a whole lot more than phone books. But back to the Nano...

It's a joke. Just like a lot of bows like it. It's for those folks who want to spend the money on something fancy, rather than taking the time to learn what to look for. There are folks who are building faster bows in their garage, and I wouldn't be suprised if my hybrids are coming close to to 180-185 at 10 gpp with a 28" draw, and I'm certainly not charging a grand and a half...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> You are not comparing apples to apples - you cannot compare wood arrows to aluminum and then make some sort of conclusion about how arrow weight relates to penetration. You also need to make sure that both weight arrows are tuned out of the bow - which for me was no easy task and involved a lot of tuning.
> 
> Also - I never said that a heavy arrow will not kill - in fact - had you watched my videos - you would have seen that I clearly stated that it is pretty much a horse a piece - whatever you gain in penetration from added weight - you lose from the decrease in velocity - and whatever you gain in penetration from increased velocity, you lose from the decrease in weight.


Actually I pointed out that my wood arrows were not as slick as aluminum. I also asked if you had a reason as to why full length 2219's out performed equal length 2412's or whatever they were... spined for 75# anyways... the 2412's were going faster.. :grin: 

Anyways, Kegan is also bringing up a lot of new stuff Ashby has been working on, such as FOC and penetration, and taper, both of which I am convinced have a lot to do with arrow flight and penetration. All in all, though, I'm into heavy arrows for two reasons... one I like them, two they penetrate, and I make my own.

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I have not shot aluminum arrows in over 10 years - regarding why one aluminum arrow that may have been going slower would out penetrate another - well there are several possibilities - obviously - both could not be tuned to the bow - so it is likely that the faster arrow may have been in a much more drastic paradox than the other - it is impossible for me to say - but again - your missing the apples to apples thing.

I will stick with what most consider light weight arrows 7-8 grains per pound of draw - why? I can shoot them much - MUCH more accurately - because they are shooting much flatter - and accuracy is king. Also - I know from my testing and field experience that they penetrate and kill animals just as dead as the heavy arrows that I am less accurate with.


----------



## AKRuss (Jan 10, 2003)

The IBO standard is done with a specific weight arrow. I'm sure the IBO rating is given as a uniform measure of performance and not as a suggested hunting setup.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I have not shot aluminum arrows in over 10 years - regarding why one aluminum arrow that may have been going slower would out penetrate another - well there are several possibilities - obviously - both could not be tuned to the bow - so it is likely that the faster arrow may have been in a much more drastic paradox than the other - it is impossible for me to say - but again - your missing the apples to apples thing.
> 
> I will stick with what most consider light weight arrows 7-8 grains per pound of draw - why? I can shoot them much - MUCH more accurately - because they are shooting much flatter - and accuracy is king. Also - I know from my testing and field experience that they penetrate and kill animals just as dead as the heavy arrows that I am less accurate with.


That is the point of accuracy isn't it.... :grin: Shot placement of all of the variables winds up being #1 while hunting, so I'm with you on that 100%. You ought to look into Ashby's latest stuff, if for no other point that to see if anything he's suggesting validates some of your equipment too... and if not... maybe an opportunity to experiment with some of it.. such as, in my case, tapering... 

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## trapperDave (Mar 12, 2005)

im confused.....or rather you are, dullbroadhead. why can two different wgt arrows not tune to the same bow? same spine, different wgts due to differing diameters and/or wall thickness.... you have truly lost me LOL


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

You are not confused - you are ignorant (and by the way - that is a statement of fact, not a personal attack -which your stupid ignorant "dullbroadhead" comment was).

If you think you can get 3 different arrows of the same spine, same diameter, and same material to all have different weights and all fly the same out of the same bow without a lot of tuning and experiments and adjustments to tip weight, nock weight, etc... - and to still have nearly the exact same FOC - well - forget it - your comment illustrated quite clearly how ignorant you are.

And this is how this will go - this guy who personally attacked me - totally unprovoked, calls me a "dull", etc... - will turn this around and make it look as if I personally attacked him.

childish


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

There is one fact that you really can't get around with heavier arrows:
They increase the efficiency of your bow, less energy is spent making noise. That means you can reduce or eliminate your string silencers and get back some of that speed you lost going with the heavier arrow. I find that with flemish FF+ strings on my selfbows I rarely need any silencing with arrows of 10-12GPP. 

I like long heavy arrows for another reason: they get my point on the animal at my hunting ranges. I still hunt from natural ground blinds so I've always got a pretty good idea how far I'm shooting, taking one more bit of mental gymnastics out of the shot just makes sense for me.

-Grant


----------



## trapperDave (Mar 12, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> You are not confused - you are ignorant (and by the way - that is a statement of fact, not a personal attack -which your stupid ignorant "dullbroadhead" comment was).
> 
> If you think you can get 3 different arrows of the same spine, same diameter, and same material to all have different weights and all fly the same out of the same bow without a lot of tuning and experiments and adjustments to tip weight, nock weight, etc... - and to still have nearly the exact same FOC - well - forget it - your comment illustrated quite clearly how ignorant you are.
> 
> ...


you do realize aluminums come in diffrent sizes (diameters and wall thicknesses) that spine the same????? Thereby giving one different wgt arrows that are tuned to the same bow...

dullbroadhead sounds about right to me, your ignorance is shining thru.


ps, did ya fall off the pirate ship?? lol


----------



## ozzypop (Sep 23, 2010)

Well looks like the same person that ruined the other forum is about to do it again.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

why would someone do a penetration test using different diameter shafts? Does that even make sense to you - oh - I suppose it does.


----------



## marc weier (May 26, 2009)

So let me get this right, I take 3 shafts all Gold tips and .500 spine in Ultralite Entradas, Hunters, and trads and they will not tune the same and weigh different weights? If I remember right the ultralights weigh 6.3 GPI and the trads are over 10. The spine is the same, weight doesn't matter and they will all tune the same.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Marc...

In my test - of which I linked too - I used .400 spine arrows - two were Carbon Tech Cheetah's - one with a weight tube and one without - the other was a Gold Tip Trad Hunter - 5575 - which is also a .400 spine - go look at my video and look at what I had to do to those arrows to get them all to fly tuned and still have the same relative FOC.

If you were take take a GT Hunter - 237.8 grains full lenght and a Ultra Light 214.6 grains full lenght - both 400 spine - the difference in weight is only 23.2 grains. The Difference between the Ultra Light and the Trad is more significant but still not much - just over 55 grains.

If you want to test diffences in penetration - you want more variation in weight than 23.2 grains or even 55 grains.

The arrows I tested weighed:

Carbon Tech Cheetah 349 grains

Carbon Tech Cheetah with weight tube 539

Gold Tip Trad - 562

the variation in weight between my arrows is over 200 grains - you try and see if you can just take two arrows of the same spine and shoot them out of the same bow that weigh over 200 grains difference and see if they both fly tuned without a lot of messing around with point weight and nock weight - not to mention getting them to both have the same FOC.

You guys have no clue till you try it - I thought it would be no big deal either - till I tried it.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Oh come on...

Sharpbroadhead your tests are great, but to try and use them as a definitive answer? Really? Your personal experience should be enough (your 7-8 gpp are not only more accurate but also kill critters well... they're the ones to use!) 

When you keep trying to use your tests as a somehow more conclusive answer than other tests, including Ashby's extensive testing, naturally it's going to rub people the wrong way. For what? You know what works for you. I'd also bet a pretty penny you could help more than a couple people if they came to you looking to tune better or improve their gear. At this point we're just bickering and that doesn't really help anyone with anything, does it?


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

kegan said:


> Oh come on...
> 
> Sharpbroadhead your tests are great, but to try and use them as a definitive answer? Really? Your personal experience should be enough (your 7-8 gpp are not only more accurate but also kill critters well... they're the ones to use!)
> 
> When you keep trying to use your tests as a somehow more conclusive answer than other tests, including Ashby's extensive testing, naturally it's going to rub people the wrong way. For what? You know what works for you. I'd also bet a pretty penny you could help more than a couple people if they came to you looking to tune better or improve their gear. At this point we're just bickering and that doesn't really help anyone with anything, does it?


Kids aint sposed to be so grown up.... go back to yer whittlin.... :grin:


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

rattus58 said:


> Kids aint sposed to be so grown up.... go back to yer whittlin.... :grin:


:lol:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Kegan - here is my take on it - and you and anyone else can take it for what it is worth. I have a degree in Applied Science and studied anatomy as part of that degree. I know that a dead animal is an incredibly inconsistent medium to test and compare arrow penetration. I don't care if Ashby spent 1000 years shooting in dead animals - it is bad science. In one of the Ashby reports he actually said that in order to do these tests (his penetration tests) accurately - you had to shoot the animal within a few moments after death - huh? Who has access to african game animals that they can kill and be able to shoot arrows into within a few moments after their death occured - and how were they killed to begin with? This is junk science that no one can duplicate or peer review. If you do some searches on the internet you can find a physics forum that was actually discussing Ashby's theories on arrow penetration and most of the members disagreed completely with his theories and use of physics formulas. Some disagreed with some of his stuff and agreed with others - but none were in 100% agreement with him.

Ashby is not the end all of arrow penetration - Jack Howard in the 1960's or early 1970's did penetration testing and found just the opposite as Ashby - which is pretty much what I found as well. 

I am not saying that what I have done is the end all of this issue either - but at least what I have done you can do at home and others can do as well to test for themselves - since I don't know of anyone who has access to game animals that have only been dead for a few minutes - I don't know of anyone who can duplicate Ashby's tests.

BTW - since the video camera has been around for a long time - how come none of his tests are on film?

I am sorry - but I think people are reading his stuff and shooting arrows that are unecessarily heavy and their accuracy is suffering because of it. But this is just my opinion - you can believe what you want and shoot what you want.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Marc...
> 
> In my test - of which I linked too - I used .400 spine arrows - two were Carbon Tech Cheetah's - one with a weight tube and one without - the other was a Gold Tip Trad Hunter - 5575 - which is also a .400 spine - go look at my video and look at what I had to do to those arrows to get them all to fly tuned and still have the same relative FOC.
> 
> ...


Question.... at what speed were your arrows traveling at? Here is what you say at 200 fps each.

grains	349
speed	200
KE	30.99123099
Momentum	0.30991231
momentum_1	3.099123099

grains	539
speed	200
KE	47.86324786
Momentum	0.478632479
momentum_1	4.786324786

grains	562
speed	200
KE	49.90564991
Momentum	0.499056499
momentum_1	4.990564991


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

rattus - I never said that all the arrows were traveling at 200 fps - that would be impossible - how could arrows with over 200 grains of difference in weight all travel at the same speed?

KE and Momentum formulas are not necessarily indicative of how a given arrow will penetrate against another arrow in a given medium - as you can see evidenced in my videos.

Here are the speeds of the arrows that I tested:

349 grains 214 fps

539 grains 178 fps

562 grains 174 fps

this is all in the video that I made and is linked too in this thread


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> rattus - I never said that all the arrows were traveling at 200 fps - that would be impossible - how could arrows with over 200 grains of difference in weight all travel at the same speed?
> 
> KE and Momentum formulas are not necessarily indicative of how a given arrow will penetrate against another arrow in a given medium - as you can see evidenced in my videos.
> 
> ...


grains	349
speed	214
KE	35.48186036
Momentum	0.331606172
momentum_1	3.316061716

grains	539
speed	178
KE	37.91247863
Momentum	0.425982906
momentum_1	4.25982906

grains	562
speed	174
KE	37.77358641
Momentum	0.434179154
momentum_1	4.341791542


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Wow...still going ? 
Awesome ... not just from thread to thread but forum to forum . Awesome :embara:




This topic , under different guises, is now spread across three different archery forums . 


How bored can you be ? 
Talk about an axe to grind .... maybe those with such vehement beliefs should write articles for magazines instead of hounding internet forums .
It is boring, argumentative and stale . People are not always going to agree , and to harangue whatever forum is availiable is just weird


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Isn't it interesting that the arrow with the least KE and P penetrated the most in both mediums - the phonebook and the ballistic gel? This clearly shows that there is more at work than just these two formulas


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

benofthehood - I did not bring up the heavy arrow thing - but when it is brought up I will share what I have found. This is a huge part of traditional archery and is brought up in many forums by many people - but because I hold a contrary view to what many hold - I am supposed to just keep silent - sorry - ain't gonna happen - I may be silenced because I don't go along with the two big "A's" of traditional archery - namely Asbell and Ashby - but such is life when one goes against the grain.


----------



## WindWalker (Jan 23, 2005)

Is this thread a remake of an earlier release or a sequel?


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Don't think it is a sequel...more like a prequel .
If Star Wars was great this is the much inferior and rightly maligned Phantom Menace :wink:


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Here's my thinking, if a 500-600gr. arrow will kill anything on this continent.........if the shooter does his or her part.......and it's good out of 45-60# bows, then a little added weight in the bow department would be like icing on the cake, and I like lots of icing........I also like Dr. Ashby and his tests, and if I'd ever have the occasion to hunt something that would either eat me or stomp me in to a little bloody spot, better believe I'll listen to what he as done and said........ OSB, might want to talk with Dr. Ashby yourself, he's a really nice fella, and loves to talk bowhunting, and would surely be the one to answer all of your questions.......and in reference to an earlier post.... no not exactly, the pirate ship has zero tolerance for BS..........


----------



## ozzypop (Sep 23, 2010)

Eloquent voodoo


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

It would be a great shame , now that this forum is really moving forward, to have it debased into repetitive argumentative posting , like so many other archery forums have been recently. 
A great shame .

Voodoo ... well said mate !


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Here is my last question regarding arrow weight to those who seem so upset by my results.

If you are an advocate of heavy arrows - most say that they want you to shoot 10 grains per pound of draw or more.

So - if a guy is shooting a 40lb bow a 400 grain arrow would be the recommendation.

Soooo - how is it that that same 400 grain arrow would suddenly not get the job done out of a 60lb bow?

Anyhow...it is what it is - I suggest that everyone do their own penetration tests if they have any doubts. My findings indicate that it doesn't mean anything - whatever is gained in penetration by increasing weight - is lost by the decrease in speed and whatever is gained in penetration by increasing speed is lost by the decrease in weight.

Funny - I am in the middle on this - and am made to look like an extremist because I don't agree with Ashby's findings - oh well - such is life.

I love shooting my bow - I kill what I need to kill - and I am sure that those who disagree with me do the same with their set ups - so it is all good - dead is dead - one arrow does not kill an animal any deader than another.

But a longbow that shoots 253 fps - this I want to see!


----------



## voodoofire1 (Jan 24, 2006)

Well since you asked, that exact same arrow from a 40# bow would hardly be the correct spine for shooting out of a 60#'er.......... now if you'd take a properly spined arrow for 60#'s and make it 400 grains( I prefer to stay above 500 myself) you would be ok on whitetails and other same size or smaller thin skinned game.........if that is you did your part correctly.......


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sharpbroadhead said:


> This clearly shows that there is more at work than just these two formulas


Absolutely...which is why you can NOT totally base an arrow's penetrating potential on just KE or MO. There are other factors at that apply.

Ray :shade:


----------



## Jimmy Blackmon (Sep 9, 2010)

tick tock tick tock I just love it.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sharpbroadhead said:


> I am sorry - but I think people are reading his stuff and shooting arrows that are unecessarily heavy and their accuracy is suffering because of it. But this is just my opinion - you can believe what you want and shoot what you want.


That's a personal opinion. Some folks can take advantage of a lighter arrow, but certianly not all. For closer range shooting this becomes even more evident. Some folks can't get used to a slower bow, others can shoot them wonderfully. That's all opinion. 

It seems you're unfairly lumping anyone who disagrees with you or mentions Ashby into the Ashby-cult (it's out there, but not everywhere.) That's not right. Frankly, in the world of killing critters with arrows I think "good science" is about as easy to accomplish as swimming over to Africa to go on a hunt. It's all well and good to do the numbers on paper... but if that were all that was necessary compounds wouldn't be bouncing super light arrows off of the shoulders of whitetail because they're using a poorly designed broadhead (I have the KE! I have the KE!). Likewise, I don't trust shooting into paper for any sort of definitive answers anymore than I trust that all answers to arrow lethality can truly be understood in a lifetime. I prefer to base my opinions on the accumulated evidence of the many rather than the one, and history shows heavy arrows are not to be taken lightly!

I certainly don't choose my arrows just by weight, and I doubt many do. Ray's new thread is pretty much spot on so far as what actually WORKS when it comes to shooting through critters, and I doubt many would disagree. Besides, GPP is for comparing bows, not arrows. Anything under 450 is light to me, regardless of bow weight. Anything over 650 can be considered heavy. I don't even shoot a heavy arrow by my own standards, at only 600 gr. these arrows are moving fast enough for me to consider them "just right"


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Hey Kegan - if it appears that I am lumping everyone into the Ashby cult - as you called it (admitting their is an Ashby cult is the first step of the 12 step program :wink - that is not my intention. I am probably doing that - due to bad experiences in these internet forums with card carrying Ashby cult members - :mg:! 

I am pretty much in the middle on this - I know that a slow heavy arrow will kill game, but I also know that a fast light arrow will kill game as well. 

I have come to believe that it is best to shoot as light an arrow as one can that will not void the bow makers recommendations, that will not make the bow excessively loud, is of course tuned to the bow, and is in the normal recommended FOC ranges for hunting. 

The only reason I say as light as possible within those parameters is because everyone will shoot a lighter faster arrow more accurately at unknown distances than a slower heavier arrow - all else being equal - simply put a flatter flying arrow is more forgiving of errors in distance judgement - whether you consciously judge distance or subconsciously (instinctive).


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> Hey Kegan - if it appears that I am lumping everyone into the Ashby cult - as you called it (admitting their is an Ashby cult is the first step of the 12 step program :wink - that is not my intention. I am probably doing that - due to bad experiences in these internet forums with card carrying Ashby cult members - :mg:!
> 
> I am pretty much in the middle on this - I know that a slow heavy arrow will kill game, but I also know that a fast light arrow will kill game as well.
> 
> ...


Let me be so bold as to correct something you said here... Flatter trajectory only lets you miss by less, if that is your argument. It also is an argument that is used by many who wish not to practice their skills, and statements such as this, foster a sort of disrespect for the fundamentals... in my opinion... which is an opinion of three, actually since there is a resident duo that confound me at most turns. I've nothing against speed, but speed has zero to do with accuracy. Tuning has everything to do with accuracy from a mechanical point of view, and form and mental capacities have everything to do with the rest.... again in my numerous number of opinions.

Reduced drop is not accuracy. It is reduced drop. If you are shooting at a target within your point blank range, I'll go along with the accurracy statement, but begrudgingly. :grin:

Much Aloha... 

:beer:


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

> The only reason I say as light as possible within those parameters is because _everyone will shoot a lighter faster arrow more accurately at unknown distances _than a slower heavier arrow...


Wrong. That might or might not be the "rule", but you fail to acknowledge there are always exceptions to the rule. Here are a few scenarios.

A good friend of mine made the same argument to me several years ago, to justify his buying a new bow (he didn't have to justify it to me, I was just giving him a hard time). He said he would shoot much better, especially on the long shots, because he could now shoot much lighter arrows. We shot a tournament together soon after that--conincidentally, it was the TN Classic at Twin Oaks. He blanked all the longer shots--shot under them. He's an excellent shot btw, the new bow/lighter arrows just weren't as magic as he imagined.

A neighbor came to be to get a new string not long after getting a new bow. He wanted one that was, IMO, way overbuilt, and I told him he didn't need so many strands. He told me he knew that, he wanted it overbuilt in an attempt to splow the bow down some. It was shooting too fast for him and he was shooting high all the time.

Some folks aren't the least bit interested in shooting past 20-25 yds, and don't want or need a faster arrow. For those of us that shoot split, it just increases the gap that much more at closer distances. 

If your goal is long range shooting, I can see where a lighter arrow could help. However, as the old saying goes, archery is about seeing how far you can shoot an arrow and still hit the target; bow hunting is about getting so close you can't miss. Some people are target archers, some are bow hunters, some are both. Folks have to do their homework and see what works best for them.

Chad


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

First off - I should have said all else being equal - in other words - out of the same bow, same string - same stability, same shooting form - only difference being a heavier slower arrow and a lighter faster arrow - and you will shoot more accurately because of the reduced drop or flatter trajectory - even in close range shooting - 35 yards or less.

rattus - do you not see the irony in your statement that "flatter trajectory only lets you miss by less" - isn't that more accuracy? 

LBR - a new bow and lighter arrows out of the same bow are totally different things. Bow design, how it feels to the shooter, etc... have much to do with accuracy. I guy could make a bow shoot fast as hell, but if it is drastically reflexed and poorly designed it will not be an accurate bow - no matter how fast it is.

regarding drop - consider the following:

using my two arrows and the following chart http://www.outdoorsden.com/archery/archbal.asp - If I judged a shot to be 20 yards and in reality it was 23 yards this is what would happen:

348 grain arrow 214 fps 47lb bow: the arrow would drop by 2.8 inches

562 grain arrow 174 fps 47lb bow - the arrow would drop by 4.2 inches 

If I judged a shot to be 28 yards and it was actually 30 this is what would happen:

348 grain arrow would miss the mark by 3.8 inches

562 grain arrow by 5.8

2 inches may not seem like a lot - but I will take it any day all else being equal. We bowhunters all know if something can go wrong it usually does - and I will take any edge in accuracy I can get. And 2 inches in 3D target shooting is HUGE.

Would I sacrifice a quiet bow for 2 inches - no - would I void a bowmakers recommendations for 2 inches - no - again - all else being equal and the bow still shooting quiet and within the bowmakers recommendations - I will take and recommend the lighter arrow everytime.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

sharpbroadhead said:


> First off - I should have said all else being equal - in other words - out of the same bow, same string - same stability, same shooting form - only difference being a heavier slower arrow and a lighter faster arrow - and you will shoot more accurately because of the reduced drop or flatter trajectory - even in close range shooting - 35 yards or less.
> 
> rattus - do you not see the irony in your statement that "flatter trajectory only lets you miss by less" - isn't that more accuracy?
> 
> ...


The fact that I'm subject to irony is not lost on me... to be sure... missing by less is not accuracy, however. Accuracy is missing by so much repeatedly and then knowing to correct it to hit what you aim at. That is accuracy, all the rest is just a result of a miss. I'm mindful of what you're saying, but a miss is a miss... and the point that I gave you, if you read it all, was that if you are within your point black range, a miss is still a hit, if you're hunting.... otherwise its wounded game.


----------



## LBR (Jan 1, 2004)

I think more practice and less paperwork will benefit archers the most.

Chad


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I do both - the only reason I have not been shooting for the last few days is because I am waiting for my string material to get here - otherwise I shoot pretty much everyday - not so much to practice - but rather because I just love shooting.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

At my hunting range I prefer a slow bow. Past my self-imposed limit of 20yds I've got no business taking the shot.
Heavy arrows are still quieter out of a given bow and thats a fact.

-Grant


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

grantmac said:


> At my hunting range I prefer a slow bow. Past my self-imposed limit of 20yds I've got no business taking the shot.
> Heavy arrows are still quieter out of a given bow and thats a fact.
> 
> -Grant


Well there is more to it than that too... the bow is not only quieter it has a "sweeter" feel to it. It's actually a deep feel you can actually feel in the riser/grip... and no twanginess... 

Aloha... :beer:


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

I don't consciously judge distance - If I feel I can make a shot - I take it - simple as that. I would say that the vast majority of my shots are around 20 yards - but some were closer - real close - once out of a ground blind - I could have touched the doe out the window. My longest shot when hunting i paced off after I recovered the buck - and if my paces are a yard - it was 40. Regarding bow noise - out of my tradtech Pinnacle - there is very little difference in sound between the lighter and heavier arrows - so slight that my wife when not looking could not tell the difference - one of my daughters could - but she said it was not much of a difference - I can't tell.


----------



## ebothwell (Jan 7, 2011)

*Avoiding Cheap Shots*

As a scientist, I'm comfortable saying that Sharpbroadheads has made some valid points and has used a reasonable level of science to support his contentions about arrow weight and penetration. I've found similar findings in foam on my own. He has also answered numerous questions and challenges with insight and without trashing anyone. Off course there is room for disagreements but jumping on him with name calling is clearly a cheap shot and what can turn an informative chat into the chatroom version of reality TV where the goal is to get people fighting instead of sharing data.


----------



## kraven (Jan 25, 2006)

I'm with ebothwell. 

sbh has made some good points here.


----------



## sharpbroadhead (Feb 19, 2004)

Thanks guys - appreciate it. I took soooooo many cheap shots in another forum - and was even banned from it - and I never violated one of their forum rules - when you go against the grain - you get slivers i guess.


----------



## kraven (Jan 25, 2006)

yeah, we'll see if archerytalk can rise above that kind of thing or not.
I have no issues with you being grilled about your data by rattus and others. I don't think it ever needs to be personal and mean spirited. 

Peer review is a good thing. Frankly, Rattus has been making my points and asking the questions I wanted to ask anyway, so I haven't really taken part in this much. I think you're doing a solid job of defending your methodology.


----------

