# What ACTUALLY kills...accuracy, bow weight, or ???



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

In a recent discussion about *"The Benefits of Shooting More Poundage"*, many opinions were given as to what was more important in terms of killing an animal. Some said accuracy. Some said bow poundage. Some said penetration. This got me thinking. All are important, but which is the *most* important? Accuracy without proper penetration is useless. Penetration is meaningless if the arrow impacts the wrong spot. Bow weight is irrelevant in the absence of the other two.

I also got me thinking about what allows for proper penetration, or more specifically what impedes penetration. Is it bow weight? Arrow weight? Arrow speed? In my opinion, one of the most overlooked aspects of penetration is the way an arrow actually impacts a target. If an arrow does not impact a target, whether it be foam or flesh, as close to perpendicular as possible, penetration is going to be limited, sometimes greatly so.

Think in terms of an arrow being a tube filled with ball bearings. Each and every one of the ball bearings is going to want to continue to travel in the direction in which it was propelled.









If the arrow impacts perpendicular to the target, all the bearings *"stack"* on each other, driving the entire *"tube"* forward behind the tip (broadhead). If the arrow impacts the target on any degree of an angle, each one of the ball bearings is acting independently, losing much of the stacking effect behind the tip. If all the force isn't behind the tip, it's not all working do drive the tip forward.

This is why super short shots on animals often result it poor penetration. If the arrow has not stabilized and is still flexing wildly, the results will be obvious. The quicker an arrow can get in a perpendicular line with the target, the better the penetration is going to be.

In my opinion, hunters spend way too much time is spent worrying about bow weight, arrow weight, arrow speed, and even exactly*where* an arrow is impacting a target, and not enough time is spent worrying about *how* an arrow is impacting a target. 

A hole in paper or foam scores the same whether it is 1" deep or 12" deep. Not so with live animals. Pinpoint accuracy scores, but it doesn't always kill.

Opinions?

KPC


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I think you're right. 

The way I think about it is if the arrow impacts without the center of mass on the same vector as the point, the center of mass will cause the arrow to rotate around the point (moment or torque). As the arrow continues to penetrate you will also have the hide and flesh working against the vector of the center of mass creating friction and a tendency for the arrow to pivot the opposite direction. 

All in all there is a lot of wasted energy or momentum and penetration will be reduced.

Then all you need to do is hit them in the right spot with an arrow that has enough momentum and a sharp broadhead...:wink:


----------



## MSExpat (Sep 17, 2015)

Tuning should be a given. No one should hunt without a properly tuned bow period. Accuracy, assuming the tuning is there is the next most important thing. I made most of my bow kills 30 years ago with a Hoyt Game Getter bow, aluminum arrows and Satelite broadheads from Walmart. Never had one deer get away and dropped a few in their tracks with straight down spine shots and one shot right between the eyes! This will be my first year back in bow hunting in a LONG time and I feel like I have a freaking death ray in my hands with my new HTR but I still will not take a shot unless I am certain of it. That is a skill that is hard for many to learn. You owe it to the animal and yourself to not shoot until a shot presents itself that you a certain you can make accurately. You will feel far better knowing your earned that clean kill and easy tracking job after putting in the time and patience to get it right.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Kev....I guess one could call me a "backyard bare shaft tuning freak"...and it may be why I've gone through about 24 bows in the past 4 years...I get'em...tune-em...and sell'em as then?...once tuned?...it's almost like the parties over for me and it's on too the next bow...that said?....

It's been my observations you have an extremely good point here...and I would think that...

*"An Impeccable State Of Tune"*

trumps all other aspects because if an archer is good enough to ensure his bare shafts are flying clean and true chances are?...they are well skilled and there's your accuracy where *"The Benefits of Shooting More Poundage"*...could quickly devolve into the archer being over-bowed in which case the accuracy factor becomes null and void as it rapidly leaves the building.

And as you seem to be inferring and alluding too?....here's where my extensive bares shafting experience comes in....

*"Penetration":* Can not be achieved by attempting to cut flesh with the side of your arrow. and creates a HUGE "Frictional Deficit" and anything other than...

*"Dead Straight In"*

is the equivalent of putting brake pads on your arrows the moment the broad-head pierces the hide.

And based upon the many examples I've seen of ill tuned shafts VS perfectly tuned shafts would allow me to state with confidence that...

All things being equal?...I would bet the farm that an extremely well tuned 35# bow would be just as lethal as an ill tuned 50# bow (if not more so).

Reasoning?...when I get bare shafts flying so straight and clean that all I see is the back of the nock?...they seem to penetrate my bales *"TWICE as Deeply"* as a bare shafts that's as little as 3-5 degrees off.

As all the weight and energy of that shaft is perfectly centered behind and focused on that tiny frontal area of the point...anything less?...and you're trying to penetrate something with..."The Side Of The Arrow"...and not it's point.

When I got my Axis arrows tuned too my Thunder Child?...I had to tighten up the ratchet straps on my bales just to have enough shaft sticking out to extract them from the front side! LOL!

I'd stand in front of a bear with that 46# Thunder Child and laugh...thinking the Bears about to have a real bad day! LOL!


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I think this is one advantage that higher FOC arrow setups have, at least mathematically. The closer the center of mass is to the point, the shorter the moment arm (leverage).

Even perfectly tuned arrows may not impact with the center of mass and point traveling along the exact same vector due to wind, release error, or minor contact between bow and target (unseen twig).


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

This is why I am wierd because I keep preaching center shot and launch at the first arrow node. You really have no hope of a straight arrow flight if you don't start straight. Sure the arrow straighten out down range but most its power is in the front end. Also this will allow you to shoot stiffer with less drag. Drag was not specifically mention. But is one of the most because it's at both ends of the arrow. 
Dan


----------



## Bill 2311 (Jun 24, 2005)

It is a combination of factors. Each affects the others if you look at poundage/brace height/center shot/arrow weight/speed/momentum.
I do a lot of bare shaft tuning and shooting. Bare shafts reveal issues with tune as well as your form. I have even found that changing grips and strings will result in a different bare shaft tune.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Bill 2311 said:


> Bare shafts reveal issues with tune as well as your form. I have even found that changing grips and strings will result in a different bare shaft tune.


^^Yep^^...Big Time!...which is why my standard practice quiver is comprised of 3 Fletched/2 Bare.....always.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Easykeeper said:


> Even perfectly tuned arrows may not impact with the center of mass and point traveling along the exact same vector due to wind, release error, or minor contact between bow and target (unseen twig).


This is true with every arrow shot with fingers, no matter how perfectly tuned the setup might be. It doesn't require, wind, a bad release, or contact with anything. At any point (distance) between the time the arrow leaves the bow and it impacts the target, the flex of the arrow is going to impede penetration, it's just a matter of how much. Every arrow shot with fingers flexes laterally and requires time (distance) to stabilize. It's the nature of the beast. The quicker an arrow stabilizes, the sooner it will be able to penetrate at it's best. If the arrow impacts the target while it is still flexing, penetration is going to be hampered.






In large part, that is why carbon arrows penetrate better than aluminum or wood. They are stiffer and therefore recover quicker, allowing the "stacking" action to happen sooner. That's why a lot of hunters (myself included) prefer the stiffest arrow that can be tuned to a particular setup. A lot of target archers don't understand or even agree. But for putting a hole in paper or foam, the amount of penetration doesn't really matter. If anything, I like my hunting arrows to be borderline stiff. Hunting with traditional equipment is a short distance game to begin with, therefore I want my arrow to recover in as short a distance as possible. 

So, in terms of what kills, I believe an argument could easily be made that accuracy being what it is, an arrow shot from a 45# bow that enters perpendicular to the target will penetrate better than an arrow shot from a 55# bow that doesn't impact as straight.

KPC


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Thanks Kev!...very interesting...and just help me decide which b ow my new cedars are going on as my Thunder Child is the one I'm grabbing if I ever head back into the hunting woods again....Thanks for posting!


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

Good post KPC. 

Tuning is numero uno. 

A good tapered coc bh can turn even low energy setups into good penetration/effectiveness...minimal transfer of forward energy on contact

i don't think oscillation is as much a factor as tuned arrow flight- it shouldn't be with the right BH....but can be when you talk over the top mech heads and short chisel points or contact with bone

I've been shooting slightly overspined arrows from my compounds- 300s for decades- tough shafts....


----------



## dan in mi (Dec 17, 2009)

Kevin,

I agree with your premise, but the video is a little misleading in this discussion. The flex shown on the video is not from shooting, but from the arrow slamming to a stop in a hard target. Almost a reverse paradox situation. Not representative of hitting a critter unless you hit a bone direct.

I also think CX did a little misdirection in the video. It is very hard to determine what the AL arrow is doing as the camo pattern implies flexing in flight as it rotates. 


To the OP question(s) in order

Accuracy - can't kill with a bad hit - period
Penetration - 3" will work in the right place (see above) but more is ALWAYS better

Along with your argument on penetration hit angle - where does blade sharpness come in? Sharper blade will still penetrate further than a less than sharp blade even with the angle of impact in the equation.

I believe after accuracy and penetration all the rest are minor players that add or subtract to the two majors.


----------



## gun (Apr 26, 2005)

Although I agree that a perfectly tuned arrow will out penetrate one that isn't tuned perfectly, I would imagine most of us are not good enough to shoot shaft after shaft with perfect form, especially under hunting conditions. This is probably even more support for tuning the best we can within our shooting abilities.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

dan in mi said:


> Kevin,
> 
> I agree with your premise, but the video is a little misleading in this discussion.


You're right Dan, it is a little misleading. It's kind of tough to just go to YouTube and find the exact thing you are looking for. 



Those arrows were shot from a shooting machine using a release and don't have anywhere near the lateral flex that a finger shot arrow would have.

What I was trying to illustrate is the energy that will be lost when an arrow doesn't enter perpendicular to the target. 

In regard to your question about broadhead sharpness. This will probably start a whole new argument, and borders on sacrilege to some, but I think broadhead sharpness is way overrated as it pertains to actual depth of penetration. Lets face it, it doesn't take much to push a dull broadhead through the chest cavity of a deer. Heck, it doesn't take much to push a field tip through the chest cavity of a deer. Sharp broadheads aid greatly in slicing blood vessels as opposed to pushing them aside, but in terms of penetration, anything with a point on the end sufficient to puncture the hide of a deer from a legal weight bow is sufficient to come out the other side.

We get so far in the weeds on some of this stuff sometimes. At the end of the day, you need to hit them in the right spot, *and* the arrow needs to be flying straight enough to penetrate sufficiently. *In a perfect world, both are obviously best.* However if you have to be more heavily weighted to one side, in my opinion perfect arrow flight and not so perfect accuracy kills more critters, and the opposite is true for winning tournaments.

KPC


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

dan in mi said:


> Accuracy - can't kill with a bad hit - period


I'd have to disagree with you on this one Dan. I guess you'd have to define a *"bad hit"* but there are thousands of deer killed every year as a result of absolutely awful hits. On a deer for example, there are blood vessels all the way from the base of the skull to the rump that if severed will result in a pretty short blood trails that lead to dead deer. In other words, I can miss my intended target (the chest cavity) by two feet and still have as quick a kill as if I had hit both lungs. However, if there isn't sufficient penetration to reach what is vital, it's just another flesh wound. 

KPC


----------



## dan in mi (Dec 17, 2009)

Can't argue that, but I'm still not aiming for the femoral.......... on purpose. 


I will stick with 3" will hit most anything vital. Unless of course you miss the Texas heart shot and need to get all the way to the liver.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

You have described the trigonometry of the forces using a ball bearings analogy. Nicely done.


----------



## Pushbutton2 (Sep 1, 2013)

Hemorrhagic shock


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

dan in mi said:


> Unless of course you miss the Texas heart shot and need to get all the way to the liver.


Hey, it's easier getting to the liver from that end than the other.



KPC


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

This is why bows that have more past center cut in the sight window than others, penetrate better w/ everything equal. They allow the archer to shoot a stiffer spine arrow which translates to a arrow w/ quicker recovery. Also fletching size can be a factor w/ recovery as well as speed.

W/out a doubt it's the broadhead that actually does the killing and having your broadhead as sharp as possible will aid in all things in consideration when killing animals.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Accuracy & tune I see these as the same thing you really can't tune unless you at least moderately consistent.

Followed by a very very sharp broad head.


----------



## Captainkirk (Sep 18, 2014)

Pushbutton2 said:


> Hemorrhagic shock


Ding, ding...give that man a ceegar! While accuracy, bow weight and ??? are all critical parts of the equation, the answer to the question of what actually "kills" is, of course...blood loss. Hemorrhagic shock, in other words.
Yes, you need the arrow to get to the proper location to do the damage necessary. Yes, you need the arrow to penetrate deeply enough to do it's work. But it's the work done by the broadhead that determines whether or not the shot is a non-lethal wound or a lethal kill. Bottom line.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

Not to throw a wrench in the works here but there are a couple things not taken into account. The arrow pitches down because of the mismatch in weight distribution along the length. The momentum of the energy isn't going to be on a straight line. It won't exactly follow the angle either. It's trailing the angle by some amount as the arrow pitches down. That involves some serious physics plus you have to take into account the extra weight on the back of the arrow from the nock and fletching. If the arrow were shot without a tip and it's weight the same front to back it will fly in a line parallel to the ground while the drag on the shaft slows it down. I'm more inclined to use an arrow that doesn't pitch so much primarily because it's a hindrance to accuracy trying to gauge the amount of drop over an unknown distance with heavy tips.


----------



## Sauk Mountain (Aug 3, 2015)

I've owned bows that range from 35 lbs to 60+ lbs. I bought the 35 lb bow earlier this summer so I could continue shooting through an elbow injury and would've hunted with that 35 lb bow this season if it met legal requirements. I think unless we're talking about really lightweight bows, that draw weight is the least important factor in the equation.


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

Offtopic
I could start new topic... " witch is most important to human new things dewelobment? Thum, brain, tool or eye"


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

ranchoarcher said:


> Not to throw a wrench in the works here but there are a couple things not taken into account. The arrow pitches down because of the mismatch in weight distribution along the length. The momentum of the energy isn't going to be on a straight line. It won't exactly follow the angle either. It's trailing the angle by some amount as the arrow pitches down. That involves some serious physics plus you have to take into account the extra weight on the back of the arrow from the nock and fletching. If the arrow were shot without a tip and it's weight the same front to back it will fly in a line parallel to the ground while the drag on the shaft slows it down. I'm more inclined to use an arrow that doesn't pitch so much primarily because it's a hindrance to accuracy trying to gauge the amount of drop over an unknown distance with heavy tips.



There are any number of reasons why an arrow might not impact perpendicular to the target. The point is the closer (quicker) you can get the tail of the arrow in line with the tip, along it's path of momentum, the easier it will be for that arrow to penetrate whatever it comes in contact with. Even the most poorly tuned arrows will stabilize eventually. The drag from the fletching will make sure that happens. 

People would be surprised how much an arrow flexes when it leaves a bow. Especially if the arrow is on the weak side for a given <script id="gpt-impl-0.5487861072523863" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_73.js"></script>setup. Seldom is an arrow going to be flying perfectly level. The key is getting the tail in line with the tip, along the path of momentum, at the point of impact.

If the red arrows indicate the path of momentum, you can have the sharpest broad head in the world and in terms of penetration, it's not likely to make up for the lost energy caused by the tail not working with the tip.









A dull nail hit squarely will penetrate further than a sharp nail hit with a glancing blow.









KPC


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

The arrow kills the animal. If the arrow hits the shoulder/leg/tree behind the animal, the animal is going to live. If the arrow hits the shoulder in a straight line, with a lot of force, the arrow might _still _not penetrate the shoulder, depending on a number of factors relating to tune and arrow design. If the arrow penetrates the lungs, but fails to exit the far side, the animal is going to die. If the goal is to kill the animal, an accurate shot with less penetration is going to be more effective than an arrow that misses that would have more penetration.

So I guess I would have to say that accuracy is the most important, followed closely by tune. Delivered energy (draw weight) should be nothing more than matching the right amount of power to the size of the animal (you don't need 90# for rabbits, and 30# is just going to piss a cape buffalo off).

Just my thoughts, though.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

GEREP said:


> There are any number of reasons why an arrow might not impact perpendicular to the target. The point is the closer (quicker) you can get the tail of the arrow in line with the tip, along it's path of momentum, the easier it will be for that arrow to penetrate whatever it comes in contact with. Even the most poorly tuned arrows will stabilize eventually. The drag from the fletching will make sure that happens.
> 
> People would be surprised how much an arrow flexes when it leaves a bow. Especially if the arrow is on the weak side for a given setup. Seldom is an arrow going to be flying perfectly level. The key is getting the tail in line with the tip, along the path of momentum, at the point of impact.
> 
> ...


This is why tuning and specifically bare shaft tuning is so important - 5 inch feathers will cover up many woes. 

Which brings us back to form, accuracy and consistency you can't tune if you don't have consistent form. 

Great images by the way


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

GEREP said:


> There are any number of reasons why an arrow might not impact perpendicular to the target. The point is the closer (quicker) you can get the tail of the arrow in line with the tip, along it's path of momentum, the easier it will be for that arrow to penetrate whatever it comes in contact with. Even the most poorly tuned arrows will stabilize eventually. The drag from the fletching will make sure that happens.
> 
> People would be surprised how much an arrow flexes when it leaves a bow. Especially if the arrow is on the weak side for a given <script id="gpt-impl-0.5487861072523863" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_73.js"></script>setup. Seldom is an arrow going to be flying perfectly level. The key is getting the tail in line with the tip, along the path of momentum, at the point of impact.
> 
> ...



The odd thing is we HAVE to use arrows that flex in order to get it to fly straight, subjectively speaking. If it's too stiff it bounces off the riser and flies sideways. Been there done that. Minimally the fletching will catch and make accuracy go out the window. If too whippy it's anybody's guess where it's going to hit. We've all seen what not so well tuned arrows won't do, hit where we aim. Face it, as trad shooters we like to make things difficult otherwise we'd shoot compound.


----------



## fentiger (Oct 22, 2013)

Even mini Blazers cover a multitude of sins. 

I can no longer bareshaft tune without severe frustration. Tuning is FP/BH POI. As a SWer have played with both fixed crawl and SWing out to 50yds with hunting kit and 80yds with field arrows.

Periodically shoot through paper at 5yds [max crawl] and sometimes see large tears but at 10yds the tears are decent for my skill level. In both cases the FP/BH's are on target. 

Use 2" Razrs and Blazers for hunting and Mini Blazers and Ice Blazers for targets.

To boost my confidence have upped poundage to help with a more consistent/cleaner release but not adversely affect hunting/3D accuracy. 

Accuracy is irrefutable, penetration potential needed to get the job done up for debate.


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

The penetration in my experience comes from selecting the stiffest, lightest shaft you can, maximizing point weight (while maintaining useful speed and tune) and minimizing tail weight.

In my experience little to no penetration is gained with physically heavy shafting or weight tubes.

Grant


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

The Arrow flex generates frequencies, fundamental and it's harmonic. You can choose to operate at one of the lesser harmonic or at the fundamental. See we will always have perfect setup but depending on you archer ability you can easily detune to the lesser harmonic, robbing the arrow of it's potential. The video clearly show this. Both arrow were on target but one lacked the transfer of the other. Same shooter.
Dan


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I just had to chuckle thinking of this thread and all the technical banter contained within as thoughts of Ryan Gill taking huge Bucks and many deer with his hand carved self bows casting river cane shafts tipped with stone points.

I would venture to imagine if he were involved in this conversation?...his answer would be...

"None of the above"

as I would think the Lions share of his success would be contributed towards things like...

Woodsmanship.

Knowing your prey and it's habits.

Cunning tactics in how you setup for the shot and knowing when and when not to take that shot.

But gear?...really?...especially when you take into consideration all other aspects required to taste success?

It's kind of comical it's even worth discussion.

Yet we do. LOL!!!


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Jinks, do sell yourself short on thinking just because it is self made these guys haven't overlook these details we techy talk about. 
Dan


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Jinks, do sell yourself short on thinking just because it is self made these guys haven't overlook these details we techy talk about.
> Dan


Never said they don't nor did I ever think otherwise...matter fact?...I'm sure the skill and knowledge involved to create a bow from a stave and an arrow from cane and stone most certainly surpasses most of what's being discussed here but I still find the comparison between the two ridiculously comical! LOL

If you can't see the humor?...that ain't on me man! :laugh:


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Ok, ha ha. :wink:
dan


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Ok, ha ha. :wink:
> dan


Can you imagine how much paradox a cane arrow with 1/2oz stone on the front being shot off a 65# self bow must have? LOL

Or how less efficient a true stickbows limbs are compared to oh say...a set of Hex7's?

Yet hunters like Ryan have little problem cleanly harvesting game with such and I'd say that show cases the other attributes I mentioned above real well...as compared too discussions of poundage.

These are the types of comparisons I'm finding humor in.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Jinks, I see a cane arrow with a rock two blade broadhead being very well matched with a inefficient selfbow at close range. I has to be to kill anything! It just may not hit with the same force as BD at longer shot. As you step up performance, tighter tolerances are required. That just how it goes. With My 50 pound compound I am not afraid of taking a 40 plus yard shot at a Elk. Which I have done with a complete past thru.
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

ranchoarcher said:


> The odd thing is we HAVE to use arrows that flex in order to get it to fly straight, subjectively speaking.


More so the case when risers weren't cut past center. For the most part, arrow flex is a product of the lateral movement caused by the string rolling off the fingers upon release. With modern recurve and longbow risers, many of which are cut well past center, flex is not so much a necessity, but a phenomenon to be dealt with.

KPC


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

JINKSTER said:


> I just had to chuckle thinking of this thread and all the technical banter contained within as thoughts of Ryan Gill taking huge Bucks and many deer with his hand carved self bows casting river cane shafts tipped with stone points.


Ryan has written a number of articles on improving gear and technique over the years. Back when I still regularly visited Primitive Archer's website, he was also doing the heavy bow thing, shooting bows in the 60-75# range regularly. 

The challenge of hunting with your own hand-crafted selfbow doesn't change the basics.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

I'm beginning to wonder if some here have so much angst in their heart that that they'd argue hunting with a modern rifle or hunting with a smooth bore flintlock are in the same class because they both require what?...the shooter to aim and squeeze the trigger?

If some folks put 1/10th as much effort into understanding the point of a comment as they do picking it apart?

My what a pleasant place we'd have here.


----------



## weirdjack (Jan 15, 2014)

> If some folks put 1/10th as much effort into understanding the point of a comment as they do picking it apart?


Oh no....then the internet might shut down for lack of interest!

But I do agree with you sir.
However, it's still the old; 'different streaks for different freaks'. Some freaks get a kick out of endlessly discussing things...and some freaks don't.
I find it mildly interesting to read, up until the point where isn't any longer and starts to chase its own tail.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> I'm beginning to wonder if some here have so much angst in their heart that that they'd argue hunting with a modern rifle or hunting with a smooth bore flintlock are in the same class because they both require what?...the shooter to aim and squeeze the trigger?
> 
> If some folks put 1/10th as much effort into understanding the point of a comment as they do picking it apart?
> 
> My what a pleasant place we'd have here.


I think you're being a little hard on us JINKS. It's not that we don't understand your points, it's just that you change them every 20 minutes or so. It's like trying to catch smoke in a net.



KPC


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

GEREP said:


> I think you're being a little hard on us JINKS. It's not that we don't understand your points, it's just that you change them every 20 minutes or so. It's like trying to catch smoke in a net.
> 
> 
> 
> KPC


In keeping an open mind and being gut level honest with myself?....

I can see where there's a fair amount of truth in that statement. LOL

carry on folks.


----------



## rembrandt (Jan 17, 2004)

kegan said:


> The arrow kills the animal. If the arrow hits the shoulder/leg/tree behind the animal, the animal is going to live. If the arrow hits the shoulder in a straight line, with a lot of force, the arrow might _still _not penetrate the shoulder, depending on a number of factors relating to tune and arrow design. If the arrow penetrates the lungs, but fails to exit the far side, the animal is going to die. If the goal is to kill the animal, an accurate shot with less penetration is going to be more effective than an arrow that misses that would have more penetration.
> 
> So I guess I would have to say that accuracy is the most important, followed closely by tune. Delivered energy (draw weight) should be nothing more than matching the right amount of power to the size of the animal (you don't need 90# for rabbits, and 30# is just going to piss a cape buffalo off).
> 
> Just my thoughts, though.


I agree here with Kegan......with todays BHs and the speeds we are getting where arrows pass completely thru the animals, I would have to say accuracy is the key and all else fall into line.....


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

rembrandt said:


> I agree here with Kegan......with todays BHs and the speeds we are getting where arrows pass completely thru the animals, I would have to say accuracy is the key and all else fall into line.....


Speaking from painful experience - a heavy arrow shot from a 65lb modern compound (very well tuned) won't penetrate a elks shoulder at 20 yards - sounded like a baseball bat hitting a tree - followed by the sound of a grown man crying. Elk carried on just fine for the rest of the year - we got him during rifle season 

Matt


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> Speaking from painful experience - a heavy arrow shot from a 65lb modern compound (very well tuned) won't penetrate a elks shoulder at 20 yards - sounded like a baseball bat hitting a tree - followed by the sound of a grown man crying. Elk carried on just fine for the rest of the year - we got him during rifle season


You speak volumes Matt! :thumbs_up 

Even the armchair hunter doesn't have to watch very many bow hunting shows to know this...I've seen many a deer run off with 2 1/2 feet of arrow sticking out of them and the broadhead barely in them and it's always a sad disgusting sight.

But a few bow hunters experience the fabled "complete pass through" because their razor sharp broadhead saw nothing but flesh and lungs and all of a sudden too them?....anything over 40#s is overkill? :laugh:

You're walking into the woods with nothing but a bow and some sharp sticks....I would think any wisdom would dictate that it should be as lethal as accurately possible.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

JINKSTER said:


> I'm beginning to wonder if some here have so much angst in their heart that that they'd argue hunting with a modern rifle or hunting with a smooth bore flintlock are in the same class because they both require what?...the shooter to aim and squeeze the trigger?
> 
> If some folks put 1/10th as much effort into understanding the point of a comment as they do picking it apart?
> 
> My what a pleasant place we'd have here.


Jinks, it's fine for you to offer your opinions, but you can't turn around with comments like this when those of us who do spend a lot of time trying to put meat in the freezer with single-string tackle have an honest rebuttal. Not only do you change your mind quite frequently, as GEREP points out, but you don't hunt with your traditional bows.

I've hunted with several kinds of traditional bows, from high performance hybrids and carbon arrows to selfbows and wooden arrows made from shoots. End of the day, the same basics apply. The reason I didn't connect while hunting with selfbows is because I spent too little time focusing on shooting skill and properly setting my gear up. It's easy to miss a "chip shot" when you don't work on those basics. One season I missed something like ten shots at deer with my selfbow. All under 20 yards, all on relaxed animals. 

Woodsmanship got me close enough, but my inability to seal the deal came _entirely_ from shooter failure.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

kegan said:


> Jinks, it's fine for you to offer your opinions, but you can't turn around with comments like this when those of us who do spend a lot of time trying to put meat in the freezer with single-string tackle have an honest rebuttal. Not only do you change your mind quite frequently, as GEREP points out, but you don't hunt with your traditional bows.
> 
> I've hunted with several kinds of traditional bows, from high performance hybrids and carbon arrows to selfbows and wooden arrows made from shoots. End of the day, the same basics apply. The reason I didn't connect while hunting with selfbows is because I spent too little time focusing on shooting skill and properly setting my gear up. It's easy to miss a "chip shot" when you don't work on those basics. One season I missed something like ten shots at deer with my selfbow. All under 20 yards, all on relaxed animals.
> 
> Woodsmanship got me close enough, but my inability to seal the deal came _entirely_ from shooter failure.


Kegan?...like I said...if folks put 1/10th the effort in to understand the point rather than seek an opportunity to tear someone apart?....and just to clarify?...I don't hunt any bows now and haven't in over 15 years....I just love shooting them and don't see myself in the woods alone anytime soon over my recent stroke...but I hunted my many Bear bows decades before I bought my first compound and most likely a few decades before your birth.

Changing my mind?...yep....I do that...but not as much as my bows and sometimes changing my mind is voluntary....other times?...it's done for me....by learning things from other members here....but the truth of Matt Potters words ring true for me here....I've seen it happen....and one was my arrow shot from a 78# Jennings Carbon XLR....in Indiana.

And just for the record?...I didn't take any posts to a personal level here yet...where others could not honestly say the same.

Take care....I'm out for a while....this sort of trial junk ain't good for my blood pressure....L8R.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

JINKSTER said:


> Take care....I'm out for a while....this sort of trial junk ain't good for my blood pressure....L8R.


Oh come on, lighten up a little JINKS. This was a pretty good discussion, very respectful for AT actually. 

It wasn't until you insinuated that we were discussing useless stuff (post #33), that the discussion kind of took a detour. 

Now hey, I have no problem poking fun in a thread, I've been known to do it a time or two myself. But when it comes back around, we probably should be so sensitive.

It's bad for our blood pressure.



KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

GEREP said:


> There are any number of reasons why an arrow might not impact perpendicular to the target. The point is the closer (quicker) you can get the tail of the arrow in line with the tip, along it's path of momentum, the easier it will be for that arrow to penetrate whatever it comes in contact with. Even the most poorly tuned arrows will stabilize eventually. The drag from the fletching will make sure that happens.
> 
> People would be surprised how much an arrow flexes when it leaves a bow. Especially if the arrow is on the weak side for a given <script id="gpt-impl-0.5487861072523863" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_73.js"></script>setup. Seldom is an arrow going to be flying perfectly level. The key is getting the tail in line with the tip, along the path of momentum, at the point of impact.
> 
> ...


So let explore this a little farther. When you let go of the string it releases it power in the archers intended direction, being straight on or quarting away. Now as this new found energy the arrow must absorb it in some manner via flex or breakage. The purpose of the arrow is delivery of the boardhead. So let say once the arrow has stabilized most of the force is in the head and the tail is just there along for the ride and stabilization. Now the only difference in the above picture will be that both nails are going to penetrate the same only one has to go further to exit the wood. Right?
Dan


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JINKSTER said:


> You speak volumes Matt! :thumbs_up
> 
> Even the armchair hunter doesn't have to watch very many bow hunting shows to know this...I've seen many a deer run off with 2 1/2 feet of arrow sticking out of them and the broadhead barely in them and it's always a sad disgusting sight.
> 
> ...


What I learned from that experience is that accuracy kills not horse power - If I couldn't get there with the compound I was shooting then there isn't a stick bow made that was going to get through that shoulder.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

DDSHOOTER said:


> So let explore this a little farther. When you let go of the string it releases it power in the archers intended direction, being straight on or quarting away. Now as this new found energy the arrow must absorb it in some manner via flex or breakage. The purpose of the arrow is delivery of the boardhead. So let say once the arrow has stabilized most of the force is in the head and the tail is just there along for the ride and stabilization.  *Now the only difference in the above picture will be that both nails are going to penetrate the same only one has to go further to exit the wood. Right?* Dan


In my opinion, no. That would *only* be the case if the power imparted on the nail was the same, which it is not. 

If the hammer (force) was square to the nail, *then* the only difference would be the distance the nail would have to travel.









If the force is not perpendicular to the target, substantial energy will be lost.

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

You can't really use a hammer to illustrate the force because if the transfer was complete (via tuning and good form and arrow spinning) the moment of inertia will force the tip straight even if it's at a angle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia
Dan


----------



## dan in mi (Dec 17, 2009)

If the arrow isn't flying true, the hammer analogy is spot on. Don't believe it? Shoot an improperly spined arrow through paper. You will get a horizontal tear that shows the force is not in a straight line with the direction of the arrow.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

You're also forgetting that we aren't really talking about the force imparted on the arrow by the bow, we are referring to the force of the arrow imparted on the target (i.e. penetration). In this case, the arrow shaft is the hammer and for all intents and purposes, the broad head is the nail. If the hammer and nail aren't perpendicular with the target, much energy is lost. 

Think in terms of swinging the hammer in an arc. It makes no difference how the hammer traveled TO the nail, as long as it's square to the nail at impact. You could swing the hammer in a complete figure "8" and the only thing that matters is the precise moment of impact. Same is true for an arrow hitting a target. 

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

I still have to believe that a quartering away shots are best. I will admit I have not yet shot my prey quartering away. 
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

The position of the target is irrelevant DD. Broadside or or quartering away, it's about the tail of the arrow being in line with the tip, in the direction of the momentum, at impact. 

KPC


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

If the black line is the arrow, and the red arrows are the direction of momentum, the first two examples, whether broadside or quartering away, will result in maximum penetration. In the third example, where the arrow is not perpendicular with the direction of momentum, penetration will be reduced substantially.









KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

You forget that the second node will alway follow the first in a straight line even tho the tip and nock are flexing opposite each other. So in your own terms the nail will never be straight with the hammer.
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

It will never be perfectly in line, but the more the arrow stabilizes, in the direction of momentum, before impact, the better penetration will be.

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Ok.
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

It's the reason people paper tune for bullet holes. 

Sooner or later the flex between the two nodes straightens out in flight. Sooner is better than later as you don't want the arrow to make impact with the target with any more flex between the nodes than their has to be. 

If it's still flexing at impact, it may not affect a "score," but it will most definitely affect penetration. 

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

I always tune board head separately from field tips. Down range grouping for best performance. Top shooter taught me that. Kind of like starting out new. Once tune that bow/arrow combo never changes.
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

DD:

Maybe this crude diagram will illustrate what I am trying to explain.









As you said, when the arrow is flexing ( *2.*), the rear node will follow the front node along the line of momentum. (*a. & b.* ) 

However, if the tip impacts the target in this flexed position (*1.*), the tail is forced in the opposite direction (*3.*), and the "stacking" effect is greatly reduced, robbing the arrow of energy used to actually penetrate the target.

So, my original point was that while a person can become extremely proficient at getting the tip to impact at a certain point (*"accuracy"*), unless the arrow is striking the target as close to perpendicular as possible, penetration is going to be greatly affected. This doesn't matter much when you are just adding up points on paper or foam, but it matters greatly if you are trying to penetrate to reach vital organs.

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

GEREP said:


> DD:
> 
> Maybe this crude diagram will illustrate what I am trying to explain.
> 
> ...


Nice illustration. I have not disagreed with this. Only needed to dig a little deeper. As you say. It flexes around the nodes. During these flexures which occur 4 times per cycle. 2 per cycle being perpendicular at a given distant to the target. Good analogy of a bare shaft would be 3" or greater tear thru paper at 6 feet. However this kind of tear is about one arrow spine weak. which can be overcome by massive fletching with field point, not so much as with board head. 1" or less is more desirable for hunting. bullet holes are very had to come by with fingers. Good form and perfect tuning would make this possible at all distant past 6 feet.

Now as the arrow starts it's swimming path to the target the drag of the fletching turn forward energy into spin. Just like a bullet it's now forcing the arrow to a straighter path. Also the forward mass (board head/field point) is starting to carry more of the force. How much depends on your FOC.

So as the arrow spins then these undesirable angle impacts become less, lets say on the order of 10 percent.
If it was the case with the arrow striking the target like a bare shaft then any shot at any angle would glance of the target.
So I do agree, but I don't think it has that big of a impact as we think. I can be wrong here. 
Sharp had a video were he stated a fast arrow penetrated more. I really thing that arrow was just tuned better at that distance. I am not sure he repeated the test at long distance. 
Dan


----------



## ptgarcia (Apr 3, 2014)

grantmac said:


> The penetration in my experience comes from selecting the stiffest, lightest shaft you can, maximizing point weight (while maintaining useful speed and tune) and minimizing tail weight.
> 
> In my experience little to no penetration is gained with physically heavy shafting or weight tubes.
> 
> Grant




Yeah, Grant has the right idea here. Move the center of mass as close to the tip and off-angle hits become less of an issue.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Interestingly enough, even as the arrow rotates in flight, the flex between nodes remains lateral. (see the attached video starting at the :17 second mark.) 






The further down range the arrow flies, the more it stabilizes and the less it flexes. The less it is still flexing at impact with the target, the greater the penetration is going to be. That is why many hunters (including myself), who's shots tend to be very short, most often inside 20 yards and quite often only half that, try to shoot as stiff an arrow as possible. They flex less, stabilize quicker, and penetrate deeper as a result.

As to any shot impacting the target at an angle and glancing off, that's not very likely, especially with a sharp, cut on contact tip. In order for the a tip to glance off, the angle would have to be so severe that a shot like that shouldn't even be taken. (such as an angle so severe that the blade could hit before the tip) Otherwise, if the tip and tail of the arrow are in the same line with the direction of momentum, once the hide is pierced, the arrow doesn't know what angle it's entering at. It's just penetrating mass at that point. 

KPC


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> You really have no hope of a straight arrow flight if you don't start straight.


Don't agree with that.

If the back of the arrow leaves behind and in the same direction as the front of the arrow, who cares how that path lines up relative to the center shot path of the bow?



> Also this will allow you to shoot stiffer with less drag. Drag was not specifically mention. But is one of the most because it's at both ends of the arrow.


This, I do agree is relevant. If the arrow is still in the flexing process, even if it is perfectly perpendicular with direction of travel, the shaft will impede penetration.

I am not a very experienced hunter. In fact, I am lousy at the actual hunting part, but I would offer this observation.

I once shot a deer with a 46# bow, head on, from about an 11:00 position (relative to the deer), right into the chest.

It was a .500 spine arrow, full length, with very not extreme FOC (418 gn arrow, standard 20 gn insert, 125 gn head). 

When the arrow cleared the bow, it was probably 2 yards away from the deer's point of impact.

It wasn't a pass through, but I think that if the severe angle didn't put the arrow into several ribs lined up to all catch the same broadhead, I believe it would have kept going. 

It did, though, manage to bury itself a couple of feet into the thing's chest, and after jumping up and running about 35 yards, it dropped, thrashed for a bit, and was stone dead by the time I got there to prod it.

But, like I said, my experience is limited, so take that with a bucket of salt


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

GEREP said:


> Interestingly enough, even as the arrow rotates in flight, the flex between nodes remains lateral. (see the attached video starting at the :17 second mark.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just love these video clips. But offend wonder why there isn't more of the hunter? See when you add a big nasty board head to the mix the degree of the difficulties become huge. This is why I have seen top shooter sight in at 100 yards. I have gone as far as 60 yards with my compound and 35 yards with the bare bow recurve. 

Now at the end of the day. You as a Bowhunter have to make a goal to maximize every little thing like what we have covered here. It is also good for us to have these types of threads because lots of us either don't know or forgot. I take my hunting very serious as you. We owe it to are prey. Thank you KPC.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Don't agree with that.
> 
> If the back of the arrow leaves behind and in the same direction as the front of the arrow, who cares how that path lines up relative to the center shot path of the bow?
> 
> ...


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> I just had to chuckle thinking of this thread and all the technical banter contained within as thoughts of Ryan Gill taking huge Bucks and many deer with his hand carved self bows casting river cane shafts tipped with stone points.
> 
> I would venture to imagine if he were involved in this conversation?...his answer would be...
> 
> ...


Not so comical when Ryan Gill is right about the way he shoots. Heavy bow at 20" snap draw with super short stiff, light arrows tip with sharp rock deadly 15 yard shot.
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> If the back of the arrow leaves behind and in the same direction as the front of the arrow...


Does it?

KPC


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> DD:
> 
> Maybe this crude diagram will illustrate what I am trying to explain.
> 
> ...


Great illustration.

So the greater FOC will, then, have less loss of penetration/momentum when the tail is kicked around, and more easily straighten out again...

I wonder, also, though, what parameters affect how quickly the oscillations dampen...


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Why detune a arrow to the weak side if you really have no need. We and I have been taught to tune from weak to stiff. This easier? We may be just backwards there?
> Dan


Maybe


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Does it?
> 
> KPC


Perfectly? Never. If a bare shaft flies very similarly to fletched arrows, I'd wager it's pretty close.

I think, in this regard, it is mostly a function of tune, in which case, yes, the tune is important.

Am I missing something? Maybe I should rephrase that. What am I missing?


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> Great illustration.
> 
> So the greater FOC will, then, have less loss of penetration/momentum when the tail is kicked around, and more easily straighten out again...


I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.



BarneySlayer said:


> I wonder, also, though, what parameters affect how quickly the oscillations dampen...


A number of things but I would think the two major factors would be stiffness of the shaft and drag on the tail end.

KPC


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Good god - bare shaft tune until your bare shafts group with your fletched at 20 - call it good and go hunt.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Perfectly? Never. If a bare shaft flies very similarly to fletched arrows, I'd wager it's pretty close.
> 
> I think, in this regard, it is mostly a function of tune, in which case, yes, the tune is important.
> 
> Am I missing something? Maybe I should rephrase that. What am I missing?


Barney, that easy get a 32 draw and penetration will not be a problem. When I bought my son a compound bow I had to get the longest draw option plus extra 1" string long 300 arrow and at 60 pounds he was blowing thru everything. Didn't even bare shaft just sight in.
Dan


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.


I guess that I'm saying that, in the case of the arrow impacting while still undergoing flexure, as you illustrated...

If FOC is higher, it is more prone to correct the orientation as it penetrates the medium, correct?

If the flexure through the process we refer to as paradox creates non-ideal geometry, it would make sense, from a purely theoretical level, that you'd want less flexure to start with, and you'd want it to stop flexing as quickly as possible.

In fact, if you wanted to get silly, you could figure out the distances where the flexure straightened out, and then say, I want to take shots at 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 yards, but not at 4.5, 7.5, 10.5, 13.5 or 16.5 yards, or however the periods and relative phase coincided with distance.

However, it seems that a degree of flexure is desired to make everything work well

Dan is pointing out that if you put the arrow center shot to begin with, you can have a stiffer dynamic spine arrow that will flex less. That sounds fine, and there is some sense to that, though I wonder, if that is the end all, why not use really, _really_ stiff arrows, and set up the rest _past_ center? It's not like you can't tune that too, and if your arrows are even stiffer, you can get less flexure, and more efficient energy transfer... Why not simply choose the stiffest shaft you can get, lightest broad head you can get, and move center shot and plunger tension to make that come out straight? Less FOC, though you'd have far less flexure.

My best guess is that some degree of flexure is actually desired, in terms of providing a forgiving system that has less variance in output as a function of variances in shot execution. I mean, in the 'tuning for tens' process, you 'start' finding an arrow by setting a rigid plunger to put the arrow in a center shot position, and find an arrow that flies well there. Then you move it slightly out of center shot, and adjust the plunger tension. If there was something magical about center shot, don't you think somebody would realize that things worked far better if they just stopped with the arrow set up center shot? 




> A number of things but I would think the two major factors would be stiffness of the shaft and drag on the tail end.


I think the drag on the tail end would be a good bet, as it absorbs energy, though I wonder how much that oscillation actually dies within the range of what most of us hunt. 

I would guess that the damping properties of the material itself might play a role.

I would think that the stiffness of the shaft itself wouldn't, though if the dynamic spine were higher for a given setup, it might flex less to begin with. But if it were just a stiffer shaft, with a heavier front end to bring the dynamic spine down, it would flex as much as a weaker shaft with less point weight, or a shorter length.

Dunno, though I think that really, Matt had the serious issues nailed with...



> Good god - bare shaft tune until your bare shafts group with your fletched at 20 - call it good and go hunt.


So, I guess, I would submit my vote to the answer to the original question....

Rapid blood loss, however you can make that happen


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Barney, that easy get a 32 draw and penetration will not be a problem. When I bought my son a compound bow I had to get the longest draw option plus extra 1" string long 300 arrow and at 60 pounds he was blowing thru everything. Didn't even bare shaft just sight in.
> Dan


How fortunate for him!

Unfortunately for me, when I draw to 32 inches, I shoot like garbage


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

BarneySlayer said:


> I guess that I'm saying that, in the case of the arrow impacting while still undergoing flexure, as you illustrated...
> 
> If FOC is higher, it is more prone to correct the orientation as it penetrates the medium, correct?
> 
> If the flexure through the process we refer to as paradox creates non-ideal geometry, it would make sense, from a purely theoretical level, that you'd want less flexure to start with, and you'd want it to stop flexing as quickly as possible.


Again, I'm not sure I totally understand your question, but if I'm understanding you correctly, I don't think there is a whole lot of "correction" going on once the arrow impacts the target. I would think that once the tip makes contact, it's path (red arrow) is pretty much fixed. What does happen though, is the back end is still going to want to travel in the direction of the momentum (blue arrow), actually working against the tip and robbing it of energy needed to penetrate to it's maximum.









To the rest of your question, a lot of hunters (including myself) feel exactly that way. As I said before, I want to shoot the stiffest arrow I can tune. They flex less, recover faster, and as a result penetrate deeper. 






BarneySlayer said:


> So, I guess, I would submit my vote to the answer to the original question....
> 
> Rapid blood loss, however you can make that happen


I agree, and the *"however you can make that happen"* part was the purpose for me starting this thread. 

This conversation was an offshoot and a continuation of the *"Benefits of Shooting More Poundage"* thread. I was trying to encourage people to think in a direction other than the typical *"accuracy kills"* or *"more poundage = better penetration,"* stuff and realize that as simple as this all is, it is still a system, and each of the components are very much interdependent on each other. 

For a hunter, accuracy without adequate penetration is just as useless as great penetration in the wrong spot, and both of them are useless without woodsmanship and knowledge of the animal being hunted. Being able to hit a quarter at 20 yards every single time and having a great penetrating setup is absolutely useless when the quarter is likely to be moved between the time you release and the time the arrow impacts. 

For a hunter, *"accuracy"* is one of those things that can be a moving target...literally. Brady Ellison knows that if he does everything right, at least the target isn't going to move. If he misses, *HE* misses. It's never an issue with the target. That is not the case with a hunter. A hunter can pick a spot, and execute perfectly by putting his arrow in that EXACT spot he wanted to. Unfortunately, whatever he's shooting at might not, and often isn't, in the same spot when the arrow gets there.

Quite often, bad hits are *less* a product of not being ac<script id="gpt-impl-0.030303705271639614" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_73.js"></script>curate enough, and *more* a product of not being choosy enough.

KPC


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

matt_potter said:


> good god - bare shaft tune until your bare shafts group with your fletched at 20 - call it good and go hunt.


^^this^^


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Not sure what happened with that last sentence, but it was supposed to be:

"Quite often, bad hits are less a product of not being accurate enough, and more a product of not being choosy enough."

:wink:

KPC


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

GEREP said:


> Not sure what happened with that last sentence, but it was supposed to be:
> 
> "Quite often, bad hits are less a product of not being accurate enough, and more a product of not being choosy enough."
> 
> ...


Every new Hunter should read that sentence 5-10 times. If it doesn't feel right it isn't. 

None of us need the meat - LOL if you add it all up venison is like 15 dollars a pound. You don't NEED to take the shot so make sure when you do it's a perfect one.


----------



## Sauk Mountain (Aug 3, 2015)

Matt_Potter said:


> Good god - bare shaft tune until your bare shafts group with your fletched at 20 - call it good and go hunt.


Yeah what he said...


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

GEREP said:


> Not sure what happened with that last sentence, but it was supposed to be:
> 
> "Quite often, bad hits are less a product of not being accurate enough, and more a product of not being choosy enough."
> 
> ...


I totally agree. I see this more than I would like. Hunters not showing ability to let down on a shot for whatever reason. In fact, I will applaud them in a shoot if they letdown under pressure.
If it doesn't feel right don't take it. Now that's "Instinctive".
Dan


----------



## 4nolz (Aug 17, 2011)

Yeah but they are applauding a guy on LW who shot a fast walking deer in the neck...anyone not is a "Trad police hater"..... SMDH

Potter x3


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

GEREP said:


> Not sure what happened with that last sentence, but it was supposed to be:
> 
> "Quite often, bad hits are less a product of not being accurate enough, and more a product of not being choosy enough."
> 
> ...


Man, I sure hear that. While shooting as accurately as possible is a good thing, in terms of minimizing the range of variables, targets with free will and movement add a whole other dimension.

As a new and pretty green hunter, when I talk to new archers who express that they'd like to explore hunting, after they get accurate enough, I tell them that learning to execute the shot is the easy part. Actually getting a shot worth taking with a bow is the really hard part, and even if they want to practice with a camera, it is that part which is the biggest obstacle, so by all means, don't wait until you've got the beginning of the end part perfected to learn the rest of it.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

BarneySlayer said:


> Man, I sure hear that. While shooting as accurately as possible is a good thing, in terms of minimizing the range of variables, targets with free will and movement add a whole other dimension.
> 
> As a new and pretty green hunter, when I talk to new archers who express that they'd like to explore hunting, after they get accurate enough, I tell them that learning to execute the shot is the easy part. Actually getting a shot worth taking with a bow is the really hard part, and even if they want to practice with a camera, it is that part which is the biggest obstacle, so by all means, don't wait until you've got the beginning of the end part perfected to learn the rest of it.


I hear you. Work with some trophy guides they will test you to see if you have the right stuff. I am the same. If I don't I won't. walked in on many of game and sensed that there was something wrong. At that point in time I was just a spectator, nothing more or less. I am not trying to blow smoke here. I like to think that I have taken my shooting and tuning to the ninth degree. If I was going to take a 20 yard shot I will make sure I can shoot good group at 35-40 yards. So then when you shoot 20 yards you mentality is more like it a 40 yarder.

Dan


----------



## fieldnfeathers (Nov 7, 2013)

GEREP said:


> If the black line is the arrow, and the red arrows are the direction of momentum, the first two examples, whether broadside or quartering away, will result in maximum penetration. In the third example, where the arrow is not perpendicular with the direction of momentum, penetration will be reduced substantially.
> 
> View attachment 2962402
> 
> ...


Agree with this completely. An arrow will always penetrate better when it hits the target straight. Anyone who has spent any amount of time bareshaft tuning will witness this first hand. It's the exact reason why I am so picky with bareshaft tuning my bow. When it's straight at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 yards....I'm done tuning. I fletch it up, put a broadhead on it, and then shoot. I have never had to adjust my tune with broadheads after my bareshaft tune with recurves or compounds. They fly exactly where I want. I shoot at or below 1 1/4" diameter cut on contact heads. The "dog" isn't wagging it's tail, and the "tail" isn't wagging the dog.

With that said, I'm a hunter first. I shoot paper in the off-season daily when possible. I hone my skills so when the time comes in a hunting scenario and I draw my bow, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt the arrow is going where I want it to. This confidence, IMHO, helps tremendously when "it's go time".

So, to answer the question.....In a properly tuned setup like I've outlined above, accuracy kills. To me, a properly tuned setup is part of the accuracy equation.


----------



## Txbowhunter87 (Oct 1, 2015)

quartering away shots are the deadliest in my opinion from my experience, everytime i have killed a hog or deer with a quartering away shot they are dead within 50-100 yards, and dead quick


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Here a test for the RH shooter, opposite for left. Bare shaft shot at a right hand facing 3d target at lets say 15 yards. The shot has to be real hunting. So let have a well aimed but poorly executed shot (plucked). After that shot make note of the arrow and how it penetrated or if any. Now move to a straight on shoot repeat the above. What's the difference and how can I fix it?
Dan


----------



## Txbowhunter87 (Oct 1, 2015)

the hammer in the nail comparison is laughable at best


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking DD, but here is my take on it, if it's what I think you are asking.









*All other things being equal*, if all you are doing is shooting a quartering away foam target as opposed to a direct on foam target, amount of penetration should be the same or very close to it. 

It might be different if the amount of quartering away angle is so severe that the side of the tip makes contact before the actual tip, but if the tip is impacting the foam, the penetration should be the same. Foam is foam. the arrow doesn't know which way the target is oriented.

KPC


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Txbowhunter87 said:


> the hammer in the nail comparison is laughable at best


Really? Why's that? Please do explain.

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Simulating a fast walking deer and a instinctive shooter. 
Dan


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

GEREP said:


> Really? Why's that? Please do explain.
> 
> KPC


I don't think he can now Kev...but looks like he may have set a new record for getting banned.

3 posts.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Well DD, you had me curious so I did the experiment just as you described. (I think) Sorry, I could only do it from 10 yards.









First shot was directly square to the target. Second shot was at a sharp quartering away angle just as you described. As you can see, I took a piece of pink duct tape and marked the penetration point on each arrow.









Yep, just as I suspected. Amount of penetration was exactly the same. Even my cat agrees...she had to check it out too.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

GEREP said:


> Well DD, you had me curious so I did the experiment just as you described. (I think) Sorry, I could only do it from 10 yards.
> 
> View attachment 2972746
> 
> ...


I did say bare shaft. Nice Kitty.
Dan


----------



## fieldnfeathers (Nov 7, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I did say bare shaft. Nice Kitty.
> Dan


You mean like this? TT Titan II, 50# TT Black Max Carbon/Wood medium limbs all the way down with 29" draw. Arrows are 32" Gold Tip Trad .300 spine arrows with 100 grain brass insert and 125 field tip. Absolutely perfect bareshaft.



















I used pink tape to show consitency. Ha, ha.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

_*"I did say bare shaft. Nice Kitty.

Dan"*_


You sure are picky DD...but OK, I'll play.

















Same result.

KPC

P.S. If you want the cat, you can have her. I'll even throw in some food and a plastic mouse. Come get her.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Now did you pluck? No need for another cat!
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

fieldnfeathers said:


> You mean like this? TT Titan II, 50# TT Black Max Carbon/Wood medium limbs all the way down with 29" draw. Arrows are 32" Gold Tip Trad .300 spine arrows with 100 grain brass insert and 125 field tip. Absolutely perfect bareshaft.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This one is about right. Nock left on straight shot. Angled straight in. No energy lost. The energy followed the path of the flexure. Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

A very weak shaft, very stiff and a well tuned. All shot the same way. All followed the flexure path without any energy lost. The angle turn the shaft inward. Do you agree?
Dan


----------



## fieldnfeathers (Nov 7, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> This one is about right. Nock left on straight shot. Angled straight in. No energy lost. The energy followed the path of the flexure. Dan


A .300 spine showing weak on a 55# bow. Ha, ha. Thats laughable. No, the target was angled slightly. I assure you this setup shoots right down the middle. I'm way too picky to shoot anything less.


----------



## fieldnfeathers (Nov 7, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> View attachment 2973234
> 
> A very weak shaft, very stiff and a well tuned. All shot the same way. All followed the flexure path without any energy lost. The angle turn the shaft inward. Do you agree?
> Dan


I would 100% guarantee you that the bottom arrow in that picture would not have the same penetration as an arrow entering that same target straight. That's the point this discussion has turned into.


----------



## fieldnfeathers (Nov 7, 2013)

Here you go. Same as before, but shot on the right was done intentionally by dropping nock low on purpose. Look at the penetration difference. Both shots fired as close to straight on as possible.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

So your saying the energy lost is at the bow. Or the point of the arrow is now pushing up thru the layers of padding as opposed in between.
Dan


----------



## fieldnfeathers (Nov 7, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> So your saying the energy lost is at the bow. Or the point of the arrow is now pushing up thru the layers of padding as opposed in between.
> Dan


Energy is lost because the arrow is entering the target crooked. In my example of the crooked arrow....Energy is not transfering straight down the shaft, its being wasted. The momentum of the lower part of the arrow is now taking the arrows energy and shoving it sideways into the target as opposed to down the shaft in a linear path. 

You could do the same test with solid foam with near similar results. The layering orientation of the target is irrelevant in the fact that a crooked arrow will not penetrate as far as a straight arrow. The layering may change the difference between the two, but it will never be the same.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

fieldnfeathers said:


> Energy is lost because the arrow is entering the target crooked. In my example of the crooked arrow....Energy is not transfering straight down the shaft, its being wasted. The momentum of the lower part of the arrow is now taking the arrows energy and shoving it sideways into the target as opposed to down the shaft in a linear path.
> 
> You could do the same test with solid foam with near similar results. The layering orientation of the target is irrelevant in the fact that a crooked arrow will not penetrate as far as a straight arrow. The layering may change the difference between the two, but it will never be the same.


That my point the energy lost is at the bow and the shooter. It never gets to the target, it's been displaced by being misdirected. When you shot the target on at angle it didn't. So perpendicular shot are not better than quartering shots. Right?
Dan


----------



## fieldnfeathers (Nov 7, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> That my point the energy lost is at the bow and the shooter. It never gets to the target, it's been displaced by being misdirected. When you shot the target on at angle it didn't. So perpendicular shot are not better than quartering shots. Right?
> Dan


No, the energy lost is in how the arrow enters the target. If it enters the target straight, it's been proven that the angle of the target doesn't make a difference....within reason. A perpendicular shot on a deer may pass completely through, whereas an extreme angle shot may not due to the fact the arrow would be experiencing resistance for a longer period of time.

In the case of the crooked arrow in my example, it's getting to the target with nearly the same energy as the straight arrow. However, the energy of the arrow is being wasted with sideways momentum vs linear momentum. I suppose the crooked arrow might have slightly less energy, but the fact that it was not flying stiff tells me its not by much. Certainly not enough to decrease penetration by half like my example showed.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

DDSHOOTER said:


> That my point the energy lost is at the bow and the shooter. It never gets to the target, it's been displaced by being misdirected. When you shot the target on at angle it didn't. So perpendicular shot are not better than quartering shots. Right?
> Dan


That is incorrect. The energy is lost at the target because *at impact*, the tail of the arrow is not working in the same direction as the tip. Had the arrow been allowed to stabilize, the penetration would have been the same, or very close to it. 

Same as the hammer and nail analogy. You can swing the hammer with the exact same amount of force but if it hits one nail perfectly square, and the other nail on an angle, the one that is struck squarely will penetrate further.

As you can see by the tests, the angle of impact means nothing. It's all about whether or not the tip and the tail are working in unison. (stacking)

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

The energy is lost because it's not transferring to the mass weight. In the extreme nock low case the arrow still made it to the target with very little energy. Things like FOC, Center cut out or plungers or tiller adjustments. These are all things we need to get the arrow to leave the bow as square as possible because we desire maxium transfer of energy for accuracy and target penetration. If your were to put a light tip in that arrow it would slap the target sideways as if to hit a tree on the way to the target. lost of penertration at the target only happen were the energy of the mass weight cannot overcome the brick. 
Dan


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

You're both correct...it all matters.


----------



## fieldnfeathers (Nov 7, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> The energy is lost because it's not transferring to the mass weight. In the extreme nock low case the arrow still made it to the target with very little energy. Things like FOC, Center cut out or plungers or tiller adjustments. These are all things we need to get the arrow to leave the bow as square as possible because we desire maxium transfer of energy for accuracy and target penetration. If your were to put a light tip in that arrow it would slap the target sideways as if to hit a tree on the way to the target. lost of penertration at the target only happen were the energy of the mass weight cannot overcome the brick.
> Dan


Ha, ha. Glad you now agree that a crooked arrow won't penetrate as far as a straight one. 

It's truly elementary physics. The crooked arrow doesn't magically transfer it's energy straight towards it's tip when it hits a target....regardless how much the tip weighs. With the potential energy being close between straight and crooked, the penetration results are proof of energy loss at the target. This energy loss is in the form of friction. Friction caused by the momentum of the arrow trying to take the arrow sideways through the target. Friction in the target forces the arrow upward as the shaft hits the target. All of that friction is force applied into the target by the lower half of the arrow in my example.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> You're both correct...it all matters.


You know jinks your right. Force transfer happen at both ends the bow then the target. So I will say this. It's more important at the bow then at the target. Only as far as accuracy. 
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

DDSHOOTER said:


> The energy is lost because it's not transferring to the mass weight. In the extreme nock low case the arrow still made it to the target with very little energy. Things like FOC, Center cut out or plungers or tiller adjustments. These are all things we need to get the arrow to leave the bow as square as possible because we desire maxium transfer of energy for accuracy and target penetration. If your were to put a light tip in that arrow it would slap the target sideways as if to hit a tree on the way to the target. lost of penertration at the target only happen were the energy of the mass weight cannot overcome the brick.
> Dan


This is simply not the case. The mass weight is the same in both arrows. The energy delivered to both arrows from the bow is the same. The only difference is how the energy is being delivered to the target and how much is being dissipated. One has the majority of the energy directly behind the tip, driving it forward. It is utilizing the supplied energy efficiently. The other arrow is using the supplied energy inefficiently by expending part of it in the direction he tip wants to go and part of it in the direction the tail wants to go.












KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Ok then shoot a arrow straight without any tip mass weight? Once the string leaves the nock. The tail has no energy only drag. Lack of drag in the tail leaves only path is with the mass weight ( tip). Tail end will pass the front end without tip weight or lack thereof.
There has to be transmitting during launch and drag after. Once it gets to the target energy efficiency is in the front mass weight.
Dan


----------



## fieldnfeathers (Nov 7, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Ok then shoot a arrow straight without any tip mass weight? Once the string leaves the nock. The tail has no energy only drag. Lack of drag in the tail leaves only path is with the mass weight ( tip). Tail end will pass the front end without tip weight or lack thereof.
> There has to be transmitting during launch and drag after. Once it gets to the target energy efficiency is in the front mass weight.
> Dan


Energy efficiency is in hitting the target straight. Within reason, which is what we are talking about, you can put whatever weight you want to on an arrow as long as it tunes. That doesn't change the fact that a straight hitting arrow will always out penetrate a crooked hitting arrow with the same specs.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Diver enters the water traveling straight, little splash, more penetration down.

Diver enters the water traveling not so straight, more splash, less penetration down.

Diver enters the water perpendicular to their motion, massive splash, and a lot of pain, almost no penetration, maybe broken bones depending on the velocity.

The diver can make a clean entry straight down, or at an angle (like off a starting block).

Getting dragged behind a speed boat, well, different story


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

DDSHOOTER said:


> You know jinks your right. Force transfer happen at both ends the bow then the target. So I will say this. It's more important at the bow then at the target. Only as far as accuracy.
> Dan


But in doing so?...you just changed the topic of discussion.

and folks say I'm like trying to catch smoke with a net? :laugh:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Ok then shoot a arrow straight without any tip mass weight? Once the string leaves the nock. The tail has no energy only drag. Lack of drag in the tail leaves only path is with the mass weight ( tip). Tail end will pass the front end without tip weight or lack thereof.
> There has to be transmitting during launch and drag after. Once it gets to the target energy efficiency is in the front mass weight.
> Dan


Huh?

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

JINKSTER said:


> But in doing so?...you just changed the topic of discussion.
> 
> and folks say I'm like trying to catch smoke with a net? :laugh:


Lol. not catching smoke. Blowing alittle maybe.
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

GEREP said:


> Huh?
> 
> KPC


The test was changed. My thoughts were that the pluck would induce a turn of the mass weight were at the angle shot would penetrate further than the straight arrow. Well not much. I got .25".

I see your point and half of me can't argue. But there this little thing that Easykeeper said on post 5.
I see the arrow as a microscopic train. That right locomotive train. Were as it likes to be pulled over the hill not pushed. Were I think I went wrong, maybe, was there is some mass weight in the caboose. Were it will whip the tail end in extreme conditions.

So I will agree with Matt. Just bare shaft tune out to 20 yards.
Dan


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Lol. not catching smoke. Blowing alittle maybe.
> Dan


I understand. 

:laugh:


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

This has always puzzled me? Why do traditional archers use such heavy arrow tips. As much as rifles? Way more than compound. But then only shoot short hunting shots? We surely know how to tune? Now don't say because we don't use a release. I shot and still shot my compound with finger. Maybe are sights are off? Because maybe we sight off the wrong part of the arrow?

Lets look at the diver, Barney. These no splashing dive are pro's. But in competition they make a big splash. They been doing this all the life. But you watch the Chinese and they seem to pull themselves thru the surface of the water. Really very little penetration or splash? Why?
I offer up these question because this was the way we were told. Sid will post thing that don't follow the traditional ways. He's not blowing smoke I assure you this.
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I see your point and half of me can't argue.


If I were you, that's the half I'd go with. And that ain't blowing smoke.

:wink:

KPC


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

GEREP said:


> In a recent discussion about *"The Benefits of Shooting More Poundage"*, many opinions were given as to what was more important in terms of killing an animal. Some said accuracy. Some said bow poundage. Some said penetration. This got me thinking. All are important, but which is the *most* important? Accuracy without proper penetration is useless. Penetration is meaningless if the arrow impacts the wrong spot. Bow weight is irrelevant in the absence of the other two.
> 
> I also got me thinking about what allows for proper penetration, or more specifically what impedes penetration. Is it bow weight? Arrow weight? Arrow speed? In my opinion, one of the most overlooked aspects of penetration is the way an arrow actually impacts a target. If an arrow does not impact a target, whether it be foam or flesh, as close to perpendicular as possible, penetration is going to be limited, sometimes greatly so.
> 
> ...


This is why the oft disparaged ASHBY approach to arrows is actually a correct one. Either very heavy arrows, where distance estimation is often compromised, but aren't deflected by impact, or arrows that follow the point, forward cg/FOC... or other described conditions, aids penetration and accuracy, in that light arrows for "instinctive" shooters provide better margins... an Ashby argument.... :grin:


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

rattus58 said:


> This is why the oft disparaged ASHBY approach to arrows is actually a correct one. Either very heavy arrows, where distance estimation is often compromised, but aren't deflected by impact, or arrows that follow the point, forward cg/FOC... or other described conditions, aids penetration and accuracy, in that light arrows for "instinctive" shooters provide better margins... an Ashby argument.... :grin:


I have no desire to debate the Ashby approach, but I will say this with the utmost confidence. 

No matter what weight or material the arrow is, what weight the tip is, what the tip design is, or what the FOC is, the closer the tail is to being in a straight line with the tip, along the line of momentum at impact, the better the penetration is going to be. 

Furthermore, the further those things get out of line, the more penetration is going to be reduced. You can take that one to the bank. 

KPC


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

DDSHOOTER said:


> This has always puzzled me? Why do traditional archers use such heavy arrow tips. As much as rifles? Way more than compound. But then only shoot short hunting shots? We surely know how to tune?


For your consideration Dan....

In my most recent experiments and experiences tuning in a batch of top notch wood shafting?...this exercise has taught me much...and most of it by osmosis! LOL!

For instance?...the end of the journey saw me writing off the 30" shaft with a 100gr glue-on point...oh it was fast and flat shooting alright but noticeably less forgiving than the 29" shaft with a 125gr point...and at the end of the day?...the arrow that (by far) seemed both "most forgiving" and? "most lethal" was also the extreme minimum I would go and wound up being a 28" shaft with a 160gr point and I couldn't help but take notice that the 28"/160gr shaft consistently penetrated 4"s-7"s deeper into my bales *and not once* did the 29"/125gr arrow even come close too that same level of performance...these pix were taken last night as I shot both configurations dozens of times from distances varying from 12yds-20yds....the 28"/160gr shaft is the one with the black marker on the white nock...




















as I submit my following thoughts too you first in the question form of....

*"So what's the difference that's causing this staggering delta in penetration performance?"* 

where upon deeper thought we come to realize that....

*"It takes a much stiffer dynamic spine to push a heavier point and remain within the spectrum of tuned."*

where we can now glean that the heavier, stiffer, more weight forward arrow is placing a much higher tax upon the limbs and?.....

_*"Sucking The Energy Right Out Of Them!"*_

where lighter arrows are more a "hitting a ping pong ball with a baseball bat" type of scenario...(insert exaggeration to clarify)

which is also why the screaming fast bows shooting super light arrows are typically much louder and usually require great attention in the "silencing department"...where once we venture into the 10-12GPP+ realm?...a set of yarn puffs seems to severe the bows vocal chords quite nicely...and very little energy is getting injected into the riser (to cause vibes) or out the end of the limb tips to create noise...why?....because all that energy went into pushing the heavy pointed, dynamically stiff...spine.

But that's just at the bow so?...what about "at the target"?...where Kev's vid comes to mind as the weaker spined arrow breaks into the hoola dance upon impact while the dynamically stiffer arrow maintains it's structural integrity and plows on ahead....deeper. 

As far as "Short Hunting Shots" are concerned?...bow hunting the thickets along the Eastern seaboard is a vast difference from the "no place to hide" wide open spaces mid-west...and this is often the foundation of many an internet debate concerning shot distance where if I'm hunting an area that I can "see" more than 30yds?...I'm probably in the wrong spot cause big boy don't hang there....old bucks are like old men...they don't lolly gag around and hang out at the mall for hours...they go to where they need to go...get the job done...quick and silent...then go home and lay down with as little interaction with others as possible where in the mid-west?...40yds is a "close shot" no matter what the age. 

Does that help? 




rattus58 said:


> This is why the oft disparaged ASHBY approach to arrows is actually a correct one. Either very heavy arrows, where distance estimation is often compromised, but aren't deflected by impact, or arrows that follow the point, forward cg/FOC... or other described conditions, aids penetration and accuracy, in that light arrows for "instinctive" shooters provide better margins... an Ashby argument.... :grin:


They each have their place but for those shooting heavy metal from bows of less than 50#s is anything beyond 20yds really "a shot"?


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

That my problem I can get to 10-12 gpp without going heavy or high poundage bow. My gaps are not compromised neither. But do see you points. 
Thanks
Dan


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> For your consideration Dan....
> 
> In my most recent experiments and experiences tuning in a batch of top notch wood shafting?...this exercise has taught me much...and most of it by osmosis! LOL!
> 
> ...


 Well that's true enough....No losses usually means short range shots... :grin: and you prove my point... light arrows with heavy points.... :thumbs_up... :laugh:


----------



## Sauk Mountain (Aug 3, 2015)

I shoot 600 grain arrows out of a 45lb bow and don't consider them heavy. I think they're around 14% FOC. 14 gpp. That should do it.


----------



## Jim Casto Jr (Aug 20, 2002)

Sauk Mountain said:


> I shoot 600 grain arrows out of a 45lb bow and don't consider them heavy. I think they're around 14% FOC. 14 gpp. That should do it.


Interesting. I think 10 gpp is heavy.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Jim Casto Jr said:


> Interesting. I think 10 gpp is heavy.


I think that for the mainstream over time, 10 grains borders certainly on average to heavy and suggested for hunting by the likes of Fred Bear and other notables of the time. Ashby, on the other hand, has published a paper that I personally have witnessed and agree with... and that is a properly spined light arrow with a heavy point has penetration of bows many pounds heavier... in other words you might need an arrow spined for 70# for a 45# bow with a heavy tip... flies great, penetrates, and the point drives the path... IN MY OPINION.... a great answer to the heavy arrow... :grin:


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

rattus58 said:


> I think that for the mainstream over time, 10 grains borders certainly on average to heavy and suggested for hunting by the likes of Fred Bear and other notables of the time. Ashby, on the other hand, has published a paper that I personally have witnessed and agree with... and that is a properly spined light arrow with a heavy point has penetration of bows many pounds heavier... in other words you might need an arrow spined for 70# for a 45# bow with a heavy tip... flies great, penetrates, and the point drives the path... IN MY OPINION.... a great answer to the heavy arrow... :grin:


Now your taking. What's the FOC. I do like very small fletching. 3x2 or 4x2 Razor feathers. 
Dan


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

rattus58 said:


> Ashby, on the other hand, has published a paper that I personally have witnessed and agree with... and that is a properly spined light arrow with a heavy point has penetration of bows many pounds heavier... in other words you might need an arrow spined for 70# for a 45# bow with a heavy tip... flies great, penetrates, and the point drives the path... IN MY OPINION.... a great answer to the heavy arrow... :grin:


Yep...the point is the rock and the light arrow shaft winds up the string that's tied too that rock! :laugh:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Now your taking. What's the FOC. I do like very small fletching. 3x2 or 4x2 Razor feathers.
> Dan


While I have witnessed this phenomena first hand, it was not at my hand. I shoot wood only... and even tapered both fore and aft to self nocks... seem to run about 700 to 800 grains with spines near 80... Hickory... 3/8 dowels might be a tad much... :grin:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

JINKSTER said:


> Yep...the point is the rock and the light arrow shaft winds up the string that's tied too that rock! :laugh:


Good analogy... :thumbs_up


----------



## dwilkis (Aug 15, 2009)

Another variable to add to the mix...animal movement. With our chosen tools and their fps, how much does the animals reaction to the shot effect the penetration? All of the tests have been on static targets. Someone throw a block target on a pendalum and gauge the difference in penetration from the same block static. Good discussion folks. Shows we strive for humane kills.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

dwilkis said:


> Another variable to add to the mix...animal movement. With our chosen tools and their fps, how much does the animals reaction to the shot effect the penetration? All of the tests have been on static targets. Someone throw a block target on a pendalum and gauge the difference in penetration from the same block static. Good discussion folks. Shows we strive for humane kills.


I know for a fact that the arrow will carry the same path of the point. I shot a elk 42 yards. The hit was in the lung area. As the arrow hit she spun away. This didn't stop the arrow it was not only a complete passthru the arrow traveled several yards at a slightly square direction. Now I cannot tell you how far thru the arrow was? But it wasn't all the the way. At that time I was in the 12 gpp range and 240 fps.
Dan


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

Arrow recovery is what effects penetration. The more severe the recovery the more velocity is lost and the energy the arrow has at impact. This is why we fletch arrows. The fletching is key to recovery. This is why many wood arrowsmith like using large fletching. Arrow spine from one wood shaft to another can vary as much as 10+lbs in spine and fletching w/ high profile 5 1/2'' fletching, a smith can hide that variance.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

I will add this tought. Stand in front of a chronograph someday. 
Dan


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

overbo said:


> Arrow recovery is what effects penetration. The more severe the recovery the more velocity is lost and the energy the arrow has at impact. This is why we fletch arrows. The fletching is key to recovery. This is why many wood arrowsmith like using large fletching. *Arrow spine from one wood shaft to another can vary as much as 10+lbs in spine *and fletching w/ high profile 5 1/2'' fletching, a smith can hide that variance.


They do ONLY if you're not taking the time to build your arrow sets properly.


----------



## ismo131 (Nov 19, 2014)

This is funnie topic. Your arrow will fly strate. Anotherwise you couldent shoot it. I ones try out too stiff arrow without fethers and broadhead on from 18 yards. It didn't hit bank but 10 feet ower and landed flat stopped on tree. It flue like sidewinder missale hot on target plane[emoji6] air to air [emoji573]


----------



## weirdjack (Jan 15, 2014)

Wow.....I took three days off from reading the forum and this discussion is still going on? 
So I got caught up on the most recent couple of pages, now my head hurts.
Carry on.


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I will add this tought. Stand in front of a chronograph someday.
> Dan


A poorly tuned arrow shot thru a chrono at 6 or less feet away may register faster #'s than a well tuned arrow that penetrates better out to 20yrds.

I had a 68lbs recurve that would shoot a 650+gr arrow in the high 180's fps but I couldn't get that thing to bareshaft anything well. Shot 3 deer w/ the setup and never got a passthru, all shots w/in 20yrds. Took the same arrow thru a well tuned 50lbs bow and blew thru 2 whitetails and that setup was shooting in the 150fps.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

overbo said:


> A poorly tuned arrow shot thru a chrono at 6 or less feet away may register faster #'s than a well tuned arrow that penetrates better out to 20yrds.
> 
> I had a 68lbs recurve that would shoot a 650+gr arrow in the high 180's fps but I couldn't get that thing to bareshaft anything well. Shot 3 deer w/ the setup and never got a passthru, all shots w/in 20yrds. Took the same arrow thru a well tuned 50lbs bow and blew thru 2 whitetails and that setup was shooting in the 150fps.


I was referring to consistent reading. Overbo, I am not giving you advice on what tune best for you. But I do know I seen tunes faster.
Dan


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

i will say this, a quartering away shot is the best shot to take for hunting, thats a fact regardless of cute theories, ive seen it, ive done it, and accomplished the quartering away shot, thats all i look for now when taking game


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> i will say this, a quartering away shot is the best shot to take for hunting, thats a fact regardless of cute theories, ive seen it, ive done it, and accomplished the quartering away shot, thats all i look for now when taking game


Your absolutely right.
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> i will say this, a quartering away shot is the best shot to take for hunting, thats a fact regardless of cute theories, ive seen it, ive done it, and accomplished the quartering away shot, thats all i look for now when taking game


As DD said, you are right. However, the position of the target doesn't have anything to do with this particular discussion.

The discussion was about an arrow being perpendicular to the direction of momentum at impact. If that target is quartering away, broadside, or quartering to, and the arrow is not perpendicular with the direction of momentum at impact, the amount of penetration will be greatly reduced. 

KPC


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

GEREP said:


> As DD said, you are right. However, the position of the target doesn't have anything to do with the discussion.
> 
> The discussion was about an arrow being perpendicular to the direction of momentum at impact. If that target is quartering away, broadside, or quartering to, and the arrow is not perpendicular with the direction of momentum at impact, the amount of penetration will be greatly reduced.
> 
> KPC


thats common sense though right? i mean a well tuned arrow and a clean release will do its job for you, i think sometimes folks over-think their set-ups


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

DDSHOOTER said:


> I was referring to consistent reading. Overbo, I am not giving you advice on what tune best for you. But I do know I seen tunes faster.
> Dan


Don't quite understand what you mean DD. My point is, great #'s thru a chrono at 6 feet away doesn't always translate to more penetration. A poorly tuned arrow will loss a lot of velocity down range because of recovery. This is why many of the ultra speed traditional bows have a 3/16 window cut pass center.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> thats common sense though right?


You would think so...


KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

overbo said:


> Don't quite understand what you mean DD. My point is, great #'s thru a chrono at 6 feet away doesn't always translate to more penetration. A poorly tuned arrow will loss a lot of velocity down range because of recovery. This is why many of the ultra speed traditional bows have a 3/16 window cut pass center.


Inconsistent reading indicate poor to borderline tuning. When I make striker plates for an archer I will advise not inside center shot for that same reason. Bell curve tuning is just that it's hard to tell were you are as far as forgiving and unforgiving arrows. 
I am not sure a fast vs slow arrow= poor vs great penetration. I will say the fast arrow would be hard to tune if it was unforgiving setup. 
Dan


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

It was pointed out to me (thanks easykeeper) that when I said the following...





GEREP said:


> As DD said, you are right. However, the position of the target doesn't have anything to do with this particular discussion.
> 
> The discussion was about an arrow being perpendicular to the direction of momentum at impact. If that target is quartering away, broadside, or quartering to, and the arrow is not perpendicular with the direction of momentum at impact, the amount of penetration will be greatly reduced.
> 
> KPC



...I used the wrong word to describe the desired position of an arrow at impact.

Instead of using *perpendicular*, I should have used *parallel.*

The closer the arrow is to being parallel with the direction of momentum at impact, the better the penetration is going to be. 









On the flip side, the farther the arrow is from being parallel with the direction of momentum at impact, the more penetration is going to be reduced.

Sorry for any confusion.

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Easykeeper said:


> I think this is one advantage that higher FOC arrow setups have, at least mathematically. The closer the center of mass is to the point, the shorter the moment arm (leverage).
> 
> Even perfectly tuned arrows may not impact with the center of mass and point traveling along the exact same vector due to wind, release error, or minor contact between bow and target (unseen twig).


Thank you KPC, now I am fully on board with what your saying.
Dan


----------



## overbo (Feb 7, 2015)

DDSHOOTER said:


> Inconsistent reading indicate poor to borderline tuning. When I make striker plates for an archer I will advise not inside center shot for that same reason. Bell curve tuning is just that it's hard to tell were you are as far as forgiving and unforgiving arrows.
> I am not sure a fast vs slow arrow= poor vs great penetration. I will say the fast arrow would be hard to tune if it was unforgiving setup.
> Dan


Exactly DD,
I've said the exact same thing in regards to some of those super fast setups. They can be very touchy to shoot consistently.


----------



## Hoythews71 (Sep 22, 2010)

Shoot what weight is comfortable within reason. Anything under #45 is getting questionable. Sharp broadhead blades are a huge factor. The sharper the better. Shot placement is the biggest factor though. In general, and very general, hit just behind the crease of the front leg and mid body and you fill the freezer.


----------

