# F.O.C. Penetration Myth DESTROYED



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Get on the train boys...


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Better link for the mobile crowd

https://youtu.be/4YNa_6PU2JA


----------



## BDZ65 (May 20, 2004)

I wonder, do people shoot high F.O.C. for increased penetration or like me do they do it for increased arrow stability with fixed blade broad heads?


----------



## Dunndm1 (Jan 11, 2017)

Why would it matter if there is an extra 250 grains in the front or 250 between the whole arrow? It's mass... mass is mass. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TAIL~~CHASER (Dec 14, 2015)

Come on Josh!
It's almost Valentine Day.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Great job. You have proved physics never lies. Got to love it


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

Can't wait to the cult comes out....


----------



## gemart (Mar 29, 2015)

Looks like what I've been thinking is confirmed. Mass is king of the penetration equation.


----------



## bhutso (Jan 4, 2007)

Nice job


----------



## blademaker22 (Feb 10, 2011)

Your science is bad because you posted this vid on a Sunday. Everybody knows that only the devil sciences on Sunday. Repent now and recite ten "hail Ashby's".


----------



## blademaker22 (Feb 10, 2011)

Seriously though, can you do a test where the foc is the same and the mass changes? I strongly suspect that the results will be the same based on my own backyard sciencing. That should really twist some knickers.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

gemart said:


> Looks like what I've been thinking is confirmed. Mass is king of the penetration equation.


I agree with 1 caveat: You have to have clean straight arrow flight coming out of the bow. 

I really believe the reason the myth persisted so long was because Ashby was using traditional equipment. With a recurve, archer's paradox is MUCH more pronounced. It is impossible to get a clean arrow release with a recurve, in comparison to a modern, tuned compound. 

I truly believe that a high f.o.c. arrow corrects itself much faster and cleaner out of a recurve. I believe that mass and straight arrow flight are the two most important determining factors for penetration. Keeping all this in mind, of course Dr. Ashby would conclude that heavy high foc arrows penetrate better when shooting a recurve. He was correct.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

GuntherChaconne said:


> I agree with 1 caveat: You have to have clean straight arrow flight coming out of the bow.
> 
> I really believe the reason the myth persisted so long was because Ashby was using traditional equipment. With a recurve, archer's paradox is MUCH more pronounced. It is impossible to get a clean arrow release with a recurve, in comparison to a modern, tuned compound.
> 
> I truly believe that a high f.o.c. arrow corrects itself much faster and cleaner out of a recurve. I believe that mass and straight arrow flight are the two most important determining factors for penetration. Keeping all this in mind, of course Dr. Ashby would conclude that heavy high foc arrows penetrate better when shooting a recurve. He was correct.


I will be conducting tests with a recurve in the future to try to prove my theories.


----------



## Flatwoodshunter (Feb 3, 2013)

I like it, good job.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

blademaker22 said:


> Your science is bad because you posted this vid on a Sunday. Everybody knows that only the devil sciences on Sunday. Repent now and recite ten "hail Ashby's".


lololololololololololololololololol

This wins best comment of the day. DO YOU HEAR THAT PEOPLE??? Don't even bother trying to beat it.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Flatwoodshunter said:


> I like it, good job.


Thank you flatwoods. I put alot of work into this one. Even got yelled at by the grumpiest curmudgeon at the Waxobe indoor range.


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

EFOC debunked.....case closed- grin


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Now with the the heavy arrow. Build a average hunting arrow of what 425 gr. Now let’s see penetration. Don’t worry about foc. Only mass. I’d like t see penetration difference. Thanks


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

blademaker22 said:


> Seriously though, can you do a test where the foc is the same and the mass changes? I strongly suspect that the results will be the same based on my own backyard sciencing. That should really twist some knickers.


I'm confused. Give me a little more detail and I might be able to do it.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

enewman said:


> Now with the the heavy arrow. Build a average hunting arrow of what 425 gr. Now let’s see penetration. Don’t worry about foc. Only mass. I’d like t see penetration difference. Thanks


That I can do.


----------



## Makaveli (May 18, 2011)

One arrow that weighs like 525 grains with like a 14% FOC and another arrow that weighs like 425 grains with the same 14% FOC


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Beendare said:


> EFOC debunked.....case closed- grin


Next up will be broadhead testing. We very well may see some difference with fixed blade broadheads.

And then testing with broadheads and simulated bone. I'm pretty sure we will see at least SOME penetration improvement with high foc for that.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Makaveli said:


> One arrow that weighs like 525 grains with like a 14% FOC and another arrow that weighs like 425 grains with the same 14% FOC


yes that I can do


----------



## TAIL~~CHASER (Dec 14, 2015)

enewman said:


> Now with the the heavy arrow. Build a average hunting arrow of what 425 gr. Now let’s see penetration. Don’t worry about foc. Only mass. I’d like t see penetration difference. Thanks


Here you go. Doesn't make much matter.
https://youtu.be/8yLcRjNp9R8


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

bhutso said:


> Nice job


Thanks bhutso


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

BDZ65 said:


> I wonder, do people shoot high F.O.C. for increased penetration or like me do they do it for increased arrow stability with fixed blade broad heads?


I'm not sure but I bet alot of people will change the reason they shoot high foc after they see this video.


----------



## joffutt1 (Mar 23, 2008)

enewman said:


> Now with the the heavy arrow. Build a average hunting arrow of what 425 gr. Now let’s see penetration. Don’t worry about foc. Only mass. I’d like t see penetration difference. Thanks


I'd be interested in this as well. 

Josh, anyway to measure the penetration into that block of the 2 arrows in the video? Certainly seems negligible whatever the depths were. 

I appreciate these tests and think I've seen enough to CONFIRM what I thought before where having an average FOC 10-12% arrow will get you where you want to be. I do believe at a cost of speed that a heavier arrow will penetrate deeper but that FOC isn't that reason. 

Well done, sir.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

joffutt1 said:


> I'd be interested in this as well.
> 
> Josh, anyway to measure the penetration into that block of the 2 arrows in the video? Certainly seems negligible whatever the depths were.
> 
> ...


Agreed. Thank you for watching.


----------



## SonnyThomas (Sep 10, 2006)

More important things in the works right now. I ain't missing re-runs of Mr. Magoo over Ashby or FOC penetration stuff. Ah chit. Good balance of arrow, say 10% FOC with heavy arrow. Broadhead cuts, heavy shaft is the driving force behind the broadhead. Now, back to Mr. Magoo cartoons.


----------



## blademaker22 (Feb 10, 2011)

GuntherChaconne said:


> blademaker22 said:
> 
> 
> > Seriously though, can you do a test where the foc is the same and the mass changes? I strongly suspect that the results will be the same based on my own backyard sciencing. That should really twist some knickers.
> ...


Sorry. I should have been more clear. I'm suggesting using mass as the variable instead of FOC. Like Makaveli suggested, something along the lines of a 400gr arrow vs a 500gr arrow - both with the same FOC percentage. 

I have been doing some testing along those lines by shooting arrows through various simulated bones (wood and plastic) and measuring penetration into foam behind it. My results are showing that it takes a fairly large increase in mass to make a barely measurable increase in penetration. I am curious if the results would be the same when shot into gel.

Keep up the good work.


----------



## shoeminator42 (Sep 23, 2017)

Heavy

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk


----------



## digsafe (Jan 4, 2018)

Isn't it a pretty well known fact that a heavier arrow will penetrate more vs lighter arrow?


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

GuntherChaconne said:


> Next up will be broadhead testing. We very well may see some difference with fixed blade broadheads.
> 
> And then testing with broadheads and simulated bone. I'm pretty sure we will see at least SOME penetration improvement with high foc for that.


I'm on your side , good videos. But I still don't think we will see foc increase with broadheads or bone. I just feel like mass gets the job done. I do believe that foc gives better arrow flight, especially at longer ranges and gives better groups. But other than that I think arrow weight does more than efoc. I would love to see more testing to tho.


----------



## Seadonist (Jan 5, 2015)

BDZ65 said:


> I wonder, do people shoot high F.O.C. for increased penetration or like me do they do it for increased arrow stability with fixed blade broad heads?


Bingo. When I added more weight to the front of my arrows, I got more consistent flight. The added weight/ mass was a bonus when it came to penetration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BDZ65 (May 20, 2004)

with todays compounds it's really not worth the debate. Sure more arrow mass will harness more energy from the bow and deliver more of that energy to the target than less arrow mass, but with todays bows who cares! Shoot the heaviest arrow with which you are happy with the trajectory and move on. If shooting fixed blades keep F.O.C. > 10% and you should have good stability, open on impacts probably fly fine with less F.O.C.


----------



## deadquiet (Jan 25, 2005)

I've said for a while I think FOC might help on game.....when you rely on small gains to make a difference. I have also said it's overshadowed by arrow weight and really hard to measure. To the point where I could never draw a conclusion in the field with arrows of the same weight but different FOC's. 

The part I don't buy is testing things in different mediums than the intended use to prove a point. IOW we all know you can take a lighter arrow and shoot it faster from the same bow. Online calculators will tell you they have more KE and then people shoot two arrow in a foam block (one light and one heavy) and BOOM lighter faster arrows penetrate better........defunked? destroyed? No, just plain wrong.........lol.


So I'm not saying that I really buy the whole FOC thing as advertised but it's going to take more than the test you did to make me buy it. Unless you are hunting self made ballistic gel box targets.


----------



## Dilleytech (Dec 29, 2017)

Makaveli said:


> One arrow that weighs like 525 grains with like a 14% FOC and another arrow that weighs like 425 grains with the same 14% FOC


Yes do this, but! Do two tests one where the arrows are flying at the same speed, and then another where they are being shot from the same bow at just whatever the speed change is based off increase weight. 

I think what some want to see is if the penetration is really worth the loss of speed.


----------



## deadquiet (Jan 25, 2005)

TAIL~~CHASER said:


> Here you go. Doesn't make much matter.
> https://youtu.be/8yLcRjNp9R8


So they take two different bows.....one a 332 IBO the other a 342 IBO bow and shoot 10 pounds more draw weight on the slower bow to make a equal comparison?

IOW they are testing two different setups.............If you want to show the facts and not inject a bunch of variables or unknowns you shoot the heavier arrow and lighter arrow off the same bow......otherwise it's smoke & mirrors IMO.


----------



## TAIL~~CHASER (Dec 14, 2015)

deadquiet said:


> So they take two different bows.....one a 332 IBO the other a 342 IBO bow and shoot 10 pounds more draw weight on the slower bow to make a equal comparison?
> 
> IOW they are testing two different setups.............If you want to show the facts and not inject a bunch of variables or unknowns you shoot the heavier arrow and lighter arrow off the same bow......otherwise it's smoke & mirrors IMO.


That's why I said didn't make much matter. Pertaining to the video. Guess I should have been more clear on that.


----------



## dsdhunts (Aug 26, 2015)

I will be the bastion of bad news. 

The myth of foc in soft tissue was never stated by Ashby. Thank you for debunking that. Mass always won in that test. 

What Ashby did state if there is serious resistance to penetration (like water buffaloes bone) high foc breaches it better and penetration was higher vs. low foc. even those arrows with much more mass and low foc and even higher # bows. 

That concept was lost in many an argument over foc. 

The more mass behind the tip the more energy was wasted in the arrow basically ~~~> flexing and shooting the nock out the back. The more solid the object struck was. Instead of breaching it. And only in that was foc a determing factor of penetration. 

You and your hat have set straight many a misunderstanding. 

Can’t wait to see if the breaching he observed can be repeated in your lab.


----------



## hunter11 (Dec 16, 2007)

I liked it.....corrected variables from the other test. Loved the look you gave concerning the cardboard/bone breech, LOL :thumbs_up


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Keep on chipping away at all the FOC mis-information, Josh. 

You're actually doing what those who advocate strongly for one side or the other "should" have done before jumping on whichever bandwagon they happened to jump on, so good on you.



hunter11 said:


> ... Loved the look you gave concerning the cardboard/bone breech, LOL


Ditto. "the look" was worth 1000 words.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

digsafe said:


> Isn't it a pretty well known fact that a heavier arrow will penetrate more vs lighter arrow?


Yes but it would be nice to measure it and come up with some bar graphs and differential percentages.


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

Dilleytech said:


> Yes do this, but! Do two tests one where the arrows are flying at the same speed, and then another where they are being shot from the same bow at just whatever the speed change is based off increase weight.
> 
> I think what some want to see is if the penetration is really worth the loss of speed.


I actually did just this last week. I wanted to see difference in speed because I got some heavy arrows I was going to just waste on small game for the sake of not using my good arrows.. I wrote down everything I found doing this. Both arrows A and B were shot from 30 yards with same bow , same draw weight.

Arrow A---- 26" CTC 354.6 grains
10.37% foc
308 fps
75 ft-lbs
10 3/8" penatration 

Arrow B-------26" CTC 482 grains
10% foc
270 fps
78.3 ft-lbs
9 5/16" penatration 
Both shot in a new Big Boy target. So to me looking at those numbers is not enough to shoot heavier arrow to gain 3 ft-lbs but loose 38 fps. And the extra speed also gained more penatration than the heavier arrow.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

bowshootn70 said:


> I'm on your side , good videos. But I still don't think we will see foc increase with broadheads or bone. I just feel like mass gets the job done. I do believe that foc gives better arrow flight, especially at longer ranges and gives better groups. But other than that I think arrow weight does more than efoc. I would love to see more testing to tho.


My testing has NOT been showing a relation between higher foc and better grouping. I suspect that it would if the bow was not tuned though. This will be a subject for future testing.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

GuntherChaconne said:


> Yes but it would be nice to measure it and come up with some bar graphs and differential percentages.


Did you measure your two arrows


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

BDZ65 said:


> with todays compounds it's really not worth the debate. Sure more arrow mass will harness more energy from the bow and deliver more of that energy to the target than less arrow mass, but with todays bows who cares! Shoot the heaviest arrow with which you are happy with the trajectory and move on. If shooting fixed blades keep F.O.C. > 10% and you should have good stability, open on impacts probably fly fine with less F.O.C.


There are many other debaters would debate you over whether or not its worth the debate.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Dilleytech said:


> Yes do this, but! Do two tests one where the arrows are flying at the same speed, and then another where they are being shot from the same bow at just whatever the speed change is based off increase weight.
> 
> I think what some want to see is if the penetration is really worth the loss of speed.


That would be complicated. Perhaps at some point in between semesters.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

dsdhunts said:


> I will be the bastion of bad news.
> 
> The myth of foc in soft tissue was never stated by Ashby. Thank you for debunking that. Mass always won in that test.
> 
> ...


There was more than one hat involved bub. Let's get that straight from the jump.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

hunter11 said:


> I liked it.....corrected variables from the other test. Loved the look you gave concerning the cardboard/bone breech, LOL :thumbs_up


Thank you sir


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

nestly said:


> Keep on chipping away at all the FOC mis-information, Josh.
> 
> You're actually doing what those who advocate strongly for one side or the other "should" have done before jumping on whichever bandwagon they happened to jump on, so good on you.
> 
> ...


Thanks Nestly. Let's try to do a field round sometime this year. I think it would be a good time.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

bowshootn70 said:


> I actually did just this last week. I wanted to see difference in speed because I got some heavy arrows I was going to just waste on small game for the sake of not using my good arrows.. I wrote down everything I found doing this. Both arrows A and B were shot from 30 yards with same bow , same draw weight.
> 
> Arrow A---- 26" CTC 354.6 grains
> 10.37% foc
> ...


Looks like speed trumped mass in that situation. I would like to see you do it in a more controlled medium like a ballistic gel block though lol.


----------



## George Charles (Oct 18, 2012)

enewman said:


> Did you measure your two arrows


Good question. I thought I missed it.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

gemart said:


> Looks like what I've been thinking is confirmed. Mass is king of the penetration equation.


Mass x Velocity actually.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Josh. Wonder if it would help people to see. 

Place a 1/2 plywood in front of gel. I know it’s not bone but atleast it’s somthing hard to breach. Shoot each arrow 6 times. Take measurements each time. Then take the average of the two arrows. 

Thanks


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

And Gunther just keeps on schooling the Ashby bunch. Great job.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Hidden Danger said:


> And Gunther just keeps on schooling the Ashby bunch. Great job.


Hahahaha. Yes


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

GuntherChaconne said:


> Looks like speed trumped mass in that situation. I would like to see you do it in a more controlled medium like a ballistic gel block though lol.


Oh yea for sure. I do think speed is better up to a point, but then there reaches a point the mass will definitely get more penatration at a slower speed. It's got to be like anything. There is a balance at one point then as those points change one takes over and out performs the other. Now on the two arrows I shot I forgot to mention the difference in diameter as well. Heavy arrow was an xx75 aluminum arrow and light arrow was a carbon standard gold tip. So I know diameter played in as well. Bigger diameter took on more friction. I believe they would have been closer had they been equals as far as diameter and material.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

bowshootn70 said:


> Oh yea for sure. I do think speed is better up to a point, but then there reaches a point the mass will definitely get more penatration at a slower speed. It's got to be like anything. There is a balance at one point then as those points change one takes over and out performs the other. Now on the two arrows I shot I forgot to mention the difference in diameter as well. Heavy arrow was an xx75 aluminum arrow and light arrow was a carbon standard gold tip. So I know diameter played in as well. Bigger diameter took on more friction. I believe they would have been closer had they been equals as far as diameter and material.


Also , an arrow that gets it's momentum from velocity sheds it's momentum at a faster rate than one that gets it's momentum from mass.


----------



## dnv23 (Feb 8, 2011)

Awesome video, I really enjoy the testing and the commentary. Keep up the good work!


----------



## Njdeerhunter76 (Jan 10, 2018)

enewman said:


> Now with the the heavy arrow. Build a average hunting arrow of what 425 gr. Now let’s see penetration. Don’t worry about foc. Only mass. I’d like t see penetration difference. Thanks


Me too!


----------



## gemart (Mar 29, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> Mass x Velocity actually.


Truth, but it’s MASS x velocity IMHO. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

I thought this vid was going to show if field points and fixed heads were grouping together on those arrows you say have the same dynamic spine... was it because you didn’t have time or don’t know how?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

This is pathetic. Cardboard = bone and the sarcastic look. Nothing more than a troll posting for attention.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

plecavalier said:


> This is pathetic. Cardboard = bone and the sarcastic look. Nothing more than a *troll* posting for attention.


... did someone say troll... oh look who finally showed up.

"the look" was funny and well played .... but I guess maybe not to those with an alternate reality.


----------



## dnv23 (Feb 8, 2011)

henro said:


> I thought this vid was going to show if field points and fixed heads were grouping together on those arrows you say have the same dynamic spine... was it because you didn’t have time or don’t know how?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think you're just mad because you have waisted a bunch of time and $$$ on your new EFOC arrow build. 

No matter what he does you guys are gonna say something negative and he should've done this or that. He showed the bare shaft was hitting with fletched so from my experience fixed blades will be right there also. Have you ever tuned bare shafts or do you not know how?


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

dnv23 said:


> I think you're just mad because you have waisted a bunch of time and $$$ on your new EFOC arrow build.
> 
> No matter what he does you guys are gonna say something negative and he should've done this or that. He showed the bare shaft was hitting with fletched so from my experience fixed blades will be right there also. Have you ever tuned bare shafts or do you not know how?


Then why won’t he do it? Should take no more than a few minutes if he’s such a super tuner right? A pro like himself wouldn’t just be one of those guys who shoots mechanicals because he can’t get fixed heads to group together right? A pro like himself wouldn’t be one of those guys who just moves his sight pins to the fixed head poi because he doesn’t have correct spine and/or knowledge of the tuning process right? If you’re so sure of yourself why not do it to prove your test subjects are each optimally tuned and have the correct dynamic spine with such dramatic differences in FOC? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## samhel (Dec 31, 2010)

DESTROYED. [emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wolfseason (Nov 9, 2006)

I like high FOC for arrow flight never thought about penetration. I shoot a 70lb bow and have a 30 inch draw penetration has never been an issue. I did notice tighter groups at distances past 50 yards. Archery isn't a one size fits all thats the fun part. I'ld guess put a broad head on and shoot into bone the high FOC might penetrate a bit better.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

gemart said:


> Truth, but it’s MASS x velocity IMHO.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I prefer medium on the Mass and large on the Velocity.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Hidden Danger said:


> I prefer medium on the Mass and large on the Velocity.


If I could shoot a 480 gr arrow at 345 fps. I’m sure that’s all I would to. But since I cannot I have to do things to improve my penetration. So since I cannot do it with velocity I must due it with mass. So we cannot compare what you do to what I do.


----------



## gemart (Mar 29, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> I prefer medium on the Mass and large on the Velocity.


Have you been able to achieve that? Amazing!!

About all I can get is
MO: 0.692
KE: 98.73

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joffutt1 (Mar 23, 2008)

henro said:


> Then why won’t he do it? Should take no more than a few minutes if he’s such a super tuner right? A pro like himself wouldn’t just be one of those guys who shoots mechanicals because he can’t get fixed heads to group together right? A pro like himself wouldn’t be one of those guys who just moves his sight pins to the fixed head poi because he doesn’t have correct spine and/or knowledge of the tuning process right? If you’re so sure of yourself why not do it to prove your test subjects are each optimally tuned and have the correct dynamic spine with such dramatic differences in FOC?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Because you're one guy and nobody else cares that he does this.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

joffutt1 said:


> Because you're one guy and nobody else cares that he does this.


Well I’m guy two. I would like to see him do this


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

dsdhunts said:


> I will be the bastion of bad news.
> 
> The myth of foc in soft tissue was never stated by Ashby. Thank you for debunking that. Mass always won in that test.
> 
> ...



really sad it took halfway through page 2 for someone to say the correct things, well done. 

ballistic gel is a terrible medium for archery. its homogenous(the same all the way through), so it has no density variation. 

while i do think ashby went off the deep end, he has some valid points. 

a lot of chest thumping about physics in this 'debunking,' but very minimal understanding of actual physics. in homogenous ballistic gel, equal mass arrows, no matter the other variables, will penetrate similarly. 

where FoC wins out, is when there is impact paradox with any heterogenous media. meaning varying density, bones, moving tissue. in order to properly understand impact paradox, the arrow must encounter a harder object, not gel or foam... or cardboard. there needs to be an impulse of sufficient magnitude for the arrow to flex. 

lets use spine as a comparison. it seems most people understand arrow spine, though some days reading on here makes me question that. we can all agree that a higher poundage bow with a longer arrow needs a stiffer spine than a short draw arrow. agree so far? now we all should know that more front weight requires a stiffer spine . still agree? what i just described is LAUNCH PARADOX. arrow flex as stored energy from the bow is released and then stored in the arrow. 

now, think about the opposite happening when an arrow hits a hard target, IMPACT PARADOX. the arrow flexes as it imparts its stored energy to breach a target. the higher FoC arrow has more of its mass at the point of impact, meaning less mass to flex the arrow, which is less lost energy. 

the higher FoC arrow requires a stiffer spine as at launch it is more unstable due to the front weight, but the trade off is that its MORE stable at impact. that is physics.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

joffutt1 said:


> Because you're one guy and nobody else cares that he does this.


Or because he’s afraid the spine is too weak ruining any validity to whatever false prophecies he’s proclaiming. Just a bunch of guys here that don’t know how to build properly spined arrows or what they do to penetration. Archerytalk hasn’t changed. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

gemart said:


> Have you been able to achieve that? Amazing!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yep. It's my current setup.


----------



## joffutt1 (Mar 23, 2008)

henro said:


> Or because he’s afraid the spine is too weak ruining any validity to whatever false prophecies he’s proclaiming. Just a bunch of guys here that don’t know how to build properly spined arrows or what they do to penetration. Archerytalk hasn’t changed.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So why come back? ;-)


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Spine schmine. I pull trigger , arrow blows through. Lol


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

joffutt1 said:


> So why come back? ;-)


Was hoping to see someone had found a clue... nope. Should’ve known better. This is archerytalk. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

enewman said:


> If I could shoot a 480 gr arrow at 345 fps. I’m sure that’s all I would to. But since I cannot I have to do things to improve my penetration. So since I cannot do it with velocity I must due it with mass. So we cannot compare what you do to what I do.


Exactly. We all have to find out what works the best for us individually.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

enewman said:


> Well I’m guy two. I would like to see him do this


I'll be number three.


----------



## loujo61 (Apr 29, 2005)

Josh, take the added back weight out of the 11% arrow and remeasure It's FOC and TAW then shoot it with the 24% FOC arrow into the gel and compare. 
*Remember to adjust your sight for each arrow* or you'll break another arrow... Putz :embara:


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

continued... 

FoC also penetrates better in cases of arrow redirection from the initial vector. we can all agree that a bow launches an arrow in an arc and will stay on that course unless acted on by an outside force. a twig, a rib, a shoulder blade, a leg bone. having more weight in the front requires a larger force to redirect it. objects with more mass require more force to move it, newtonian, we can all agree on that. 

an arrow is a system of parts, we must all understand that, just like a bow. a 475gr arrow with 18% FoC (my arrow) is different than a 475gr arrow with 9%. just as a 70lb 29" 'slow' bow, my guardian, is different than a 70/29 full throttle speed bow.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

loujo61 said:


> Josh, take the added back weight out of the 11% arrow and remeasure It's FOC and TAW then shoot it with the 24% FOC arrow into the gel and compare.
> *Remember to adjust your sight for each arrow* Putz :embara:


But then the overall mass will not be the same. So therefore it will not be a true FOC % comparison.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

jaximus said:


> continued...
> 
> FoC also penetrates better in cases of arrow redirection from the initial vector. we can all agree that a bow launches an arrow in an arc and will stay on that course unless acted on by an outside force. a twig, a rib, a shoulder blade, a leg bone. having more weight in the front requires a larger force to redirect it. objects with more mass require more force to move it, newtonian, we can all agree on that.
> 
> an arrow is a system of parts, we must all understand that, just like a bow. a 475gr arrow with 18% FoC (my arrow) is different than a 475gr arrow with 9%. just as a 70lb 29" 'slow' bow, my guardian, is different than a 70/29 full throttle speed bow.


All of what you posted has already been talked about. So I would say. No they don’t understand this or this post would have died as soon as it came out.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

jaximus said:


> continued...
> 
> FoC also penetrates better in cases of arrow redirection from the initial vector. we can all agree that a bow launches an arrow in an arc and will stay on that course unless acted on by an outside force. a twig, a rib, a shoulder blade, a leg bone. having more weight in the front requires a larger force to redirect it. objects with more mass require more force to move it, newtonian, we can all agree on that.
> 
> an arrow is a system of parts, we must all understand that, just like a bow. a 475gr arrow with 18% FoC (my arrow) is different than a 475gr arrow with 9%. just as a 70lb 29" 'slow' bow, my guardian, is different than a 70/29 full throttle speed bow.


Finally...there's hope after all.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Hidden Danger said:


> But then the overall mass will not be the same. So therefore it will not be a true FOC % comparison.


Hate them variables


----------



## loujo61 (Apr 29, 2005)

Hidden Danger said:


> But then the overall mass will not be the same. So therefore it will not be a true FOC % comparison.


Neither will the velocity, they will be the same arrow with different FOCs, lets see if it makes much difference in penetration.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

loujo61 said:


> Neither will the velocity, they will be the same arrow with different FOCs, lets see if it makes much difference in penetration.


The mass and velocity must remain constant when doing a true apples to apples comparison with the only difference being FOC and a slight deviation in dynamic spine.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

loujo61 said:


> Neither will the velocity, they will be the same arrow with different FOCs, lets see if it makes much difference in penetration.


A slight increase in mass will out penetrate a slight increase in velocity. An arrow that gains it's momentum from velocity will shed it's momentum value at a higher rate than one that gains it's momentum from mass.


----------



## loujo61 (Apr 29, 2005)

Hidden Danger said:


> The mass and velocity must remain constant when doing a true apples to apples comparison with the only difference being FOC and a slight deviation in dynamic spine.


Let's see what the extra velocity can do for the lighter arrow.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Hidden Danger said:


> A slight increase in mass will out penetrate a slight increase in velocity. An arrow that gains it's momentum from velocity will she'd it's momentum value at a higher rate than one that gains it's momentum from mass.


Well said.


----------



## loujo61 (Apr 29, 2005)

plecavalier said:


> Well said.


A test like this should prove that the heavier tipped slower arrow will penetrate better, ones got a 315gr tip and the other has a 235gr tip, 80gr difference in TAW. Right?


----------



## jacobh (Jun 7, 2009)

I don't buy into the FOC or the weight. Any arrow will kill a animal


----------



## loujo61 (Apr 29, 2005)

Hidden Danger said:


> A slight increase in mass will out penetrate a slight increase in velocity. An arrow that gains it's momentum from velocity will shed it's momentum value at a higher rate than one that gains it's momentum from mass.


Have Josh shoot them both through the chrono too.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

jacobh said:


> I don't buy into the FOC or the weight. Any arrow will kill a animal


Haha. Then build you a 200 gr arrow and go kill an elk with it. Make sure you center punch the leg


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

loujo61 said:


> A test like this should prove that the heavier tipped slower arrow will penetrate better. Right?


In ballistic gel? Sure. It might. But this guy hasn't showed any specs or tuning qualifications of this arrow. So for starters I don't even know if the damn arrow is even tuned to that bow let alone what changing something on that arrow will do. So predictions? meh...


----------



## TAIL~~CHASER (Dec 14, 2015)

enewman said:


> Haha. Then build you a 200 gr arrow and go kill an elk with it. Make sure you center punch the leg


Off the beaten path a little but this shoots a 375 gr. Carbon arrow @ 26" long at 450 fps. with a 100 gr. Head
https://youtu.be/dwqMkjYjmtw

https://youtu.be/p6z69koruSg

https://youtu.be/ch2WjcgKVcI


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

jacobh said:


> I don't buy into the FOC or the weight. Any arrow will kill a animal


Interesting statement. I amaging you don't even believe this yourself. But let's say you do. You buy your arrows at walmart and never even look at the spine? Just slap on a head and go hunt is that it? 22 will kill an elephant, doesn't make a smart choice. In fact it's a stupid choice and that's a stupid comment. Proper gear isn't a religion you get to buy into or not. 21,000+ posts on here and that's what you have to say?


----------



## jacobh (Jun 7, 2009)

Don't aim for the leg. Shoot a 450 gr arrow into that same leg bone and the same thing will happen. I hit a doe at 20 yds fmf 468 gr didn't pass through. Also hit a doe same area 400 gr same type of head and it blew through. Facts are there's not that big of a difference or not as much as many want to believe


QUOTE=enewman;1107101643]Haha. Then build you a 200 gr arrow and go kill an elk with it. Make sure you center punch the leg[/QUOTE]


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

TAIL~~CHASER said:


> Off the beaten path a little but this shoots a 375 gr. Carbon arrow @ 26" long at 450 fps. with a 100 gr. Head
> https://youtu.be/dwqMkjYjmtw
> 
> https://youtu.be/p6z69koruSg
> ...


Got a friend that has one. It’s bad ass.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

TAIL~~CHASER said:


> Off the beaten path a little but this shoots a 375 gr. Carbon arrow @ 26" long at 450 fps. with a 100 gr. Head
> https://youtu.be/dwqMkjYjmtw
> 
> https://youtu.be/p6z69koruSg
> ...


Not even a bow...Why am I not surprised. You know what? Why don't' you put the bow down and get you one of those.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

jacobh said:


> Don't aim for the leg. Shoot a 450 gr arrow into that same leg bone and the same thing will happen. I hit a doe at 20 yds fmf 468 gr didn't pass through. Also hit a doe same area 400 gr same type of head and it blew through. Facts are there's not that big of a difference or not as much as many want to believe
> 
> 
> QUOTE=enewman;1107101643]Haha. Then build you a 200 gr arrow and go kill an elk with it. Make sure you center punch the leg


[/QUOTE]

I center shoot all my animals straight up the legs. 

And straight up the leg there is no bone. Just muscle. 

So what was different between the two arrows. Spine, brand, foc, did you hit same place. What about the animal. Did it react the same way. I doubt it. What about flight. Where they both the same. See lots of variables. So you can’t make one claim then try to trash another one with out looking at variables.


----------



## loujo61 (Apr 29, 2005)

plecavalier said:


> In ballistic gel? Sure. It might. But this guy hasn't showed any specs or tuning qualifications of this arrow. So for starters I don't even know if the damn arrow is even tuned to that bow let alone what changing something on that arrow will do. So predictions? meh...


315gr tip > 235gr tip=80gr more TAW it sure should. 603gr/24% FOC arrow verses a 523gr/?% FOC arrow. How much more penetration? I'd like to see...


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

jacobh said:


> Don't aim for the leg. Shoot a 450 gr arrow into that same leg bone and the same thing will happen. I hit a doe at 20 yds fmf 468 gr didn't pass through. Also hit a doe same area 400 gr same type of head and it blew through. Facts are there's not that big of a difference or not as much as many want to believe
> 
> 
> QUOTE=enewman;1107101643]Haha. Then build you a 200 gr arrow and go kill an elk with it. Make sure you center punch the leg


[/QUOTE]

That's because there's only 50 grains between the two arrows. Not surprised you didn't get through everytime. Add 200gr to that and do the same shot. It'll get through the majority of the time. It's about odds. Your odds are low with 450. In this case sure, 50/50 because you only mentioned/shot 2. That's why the Ashby reports are so important. It's thousands of results. The heavier the arrow the better the odds. Simple as that.


----------



## TAIL~~CHASER (Dec 14, 2015)

plecavalier said:


> Not even a bow...Why am I not surprised. You know what? Why don't' you put the bow down and get you one of those.


It's a 100% carbon arrow.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

TAIL~~CHASER said:


> It's a 100% carbon arrow.


What? I said "it's not even a bow" and you tell me "its' 100% carbon arrow".


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

dnv23 said:


> Awesome video, I really enjoy the testing and the commentary. Keep up the good work!


Thank you sir


----------



## nontypical225 (Jan 4, 2009)

GuntherChaconne said:


> Next up will be broadhead testing. We very well may see some difference with fixed blade broadheads.
> 
> And then testing with broadheads and simulated bone. I'm pretty sure we will see at least SOME penetration improvement with high foc for that.


Check out all my broadhead videos I’ve done. Let me know what you think


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

jaximus said:


> really sad it took halfway through page 2 for someone to say the correct things, well done.
> 
> ballistic gel is a terrible medium for archery. its homogenous(the same all the way through), so it has no density variation.
> 
> ...


Another quoter of Ashby. Just stop now. If foc is greater , and out penetrates, it's gonna do it against whatever it comes in contact with, not ONLY bone . And what you just described is nothing more than saying it like this..." Correct spine" even Ashby himself has came back and stated foc has no barren, and here you are quoting old bs findings. And a stiffer spine requires more foc, so more foc IS more WEIGHT. That statement" it's physics" is just a simple way of saying "I believe in something but can't prove it " never been PROVEN that foc did anything MASS doesn't do as equal.


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

henro said:


> I thought this vid was going to show if field points and fixed heads were grouping together on those arrows you say have the same dynamic spine... was it because you didn’t have time or don’t know how?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think first video showed how the different arrows were grouping together.


----------



## pinwheeled (Apr 27, 2008)

jacobh said:


> Don't aim for the leg. Shoot a 450 gr arrow into that same leg bone and the same thing will happen. I hit a doe at 20 yds fmf 468 gr didn't pass through. Also hit a doe same area 400 gr same type of head and it blew through. Facts are there's not that big of a difference or not as much as many want to believe
> 
> 
> QUOTE=enewman;1107101643]Haha. Then build you a 200 gr arrow and go kill an elk with it. Make sure you center punch the leg


[/QUOTE]

Good one. I assume your not being serious here. You just know that this is a hot topic every other day with no end in sight right? You just wanted to stir the pot by posting something this stupid?


----------



## TAIL~~CHASER (Dec 14, 2015)

plecavalier said:


> What? I said "it's not even a bow" and you tell me "its' 100% carbon arrow".


Yep... 375 gr. total, think about that. But.. But.... But.. a light carbon arrow deflection.


----------



## jacobh (Jun 7, 2009)

Wow pinwheel that's so nice of u to say!!!! No ive jumped the heavy arrow bandwagon. I drove myself nuts listening to guys like u on here talk about how only heavy arrows penetrate. I then just bought the maxima reds weighing 400 gr and shot and started having fun again. Surprise I still blow arrows through everything I shoot even with the dreaded Rages that get no penetration. So stupid?? I guess if proven results are stupid then I guess it is


----------



## Rick! (Aug 10, 2008)

bowshootn70 said:


> I actually did just this last week. I wanted to see difference in speed because I got some heavy arrows I was going to just waste on small game for the sake of not using my good arrows.. I wrote down everything I found doing this. Both arrows A and B were shot from 30 yards with same bow , same draw weight.
> 
> Arrow A---- 26" CTC 354.6 grains
> 10.37% foc
> ...


And to every one point backyard test, there is the other side.

My Pro Hunters at 364gr at 295ish fps with Muzzy Trocars penetrate my highly calibrated Glen Del Buck 1-1 1/4" less than my Maxima Reds at 50grains heavier and 18fps slower. Now what do we do? Drop our drawers and measure for the tie-breaker?

Nobody asked the obvious which shows that untrained observers are prevalent in this discussion.

_So, did Josh take the 11% arrow apart and see if the weight broke loose and became a kinetic hammer?
What about in gel test #1? Were any arrows inspected for liberated weights? 
Any good test engineer worth his salt would perform that type of post mortem examination._

BTW, until we get the final report peer reviewed, it's still not science. 

Also, ain't none of you have contributed to the sport like Dr. Ashby. 
How many of you have an SCI award with your name attached to it?

Carry on folks, I'm going to get some popcorn and watch from the cheap seats.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Rick! said:


> And to every one point backyard test, there is the other side.
> 
> My Pro Hunters at 385gr at 295ish fps with Muzzy Trocars penetrate my highly calibrated Glen Del Buck 1-1 1/4" less than my Maxima Reds at 50grains heavier and 20fps slower. Now what do we do? Drop our drawers and measure for the tie-breaker?
> 
> ...


At a minimum there should have been at least a tape measure in the video. At least act like you where going to use it Or maybe I missed it


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

First time reading this thread so I havent read any of the replies so I assume I will be piling on invalidating this "test" . :set1_rolf2:

"The cardboard will simulate heavy bone breach" :set1_rolf2:

Before you did test #1 you were told to include thin ply or 3/8" drywall to act as the heavy bone breach. You refused. NOW you use a medium about a heavy as a thin hide and deem it a bone breach?? I susspect that is why you looked into the camera and mad that expression that clear was meant to mean

"sorry guys, even I known this is total BS but I dont want to use thin ply or 3/8" drywall to even attempt to debunk ashby"

So you have now shot a total of 5 arrows in flaws experiments and have arrived at a conclusion. :set1_rolf2::set1_rolf2:

Keep trying. In the distant future, you may even produce something of value or substance. I dont have a problem with you wasting your time but I take issue with you wasting mine.

Im quite certain the OP and some of his followers (re quiver sniffers) will take issue with my post.

I wont care. :wink:


----------



## bhutso (Jan 4, 2007)

Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, Bubba "Spare Tire" Dixon.


----------



## ontarget7 (Dec 30, 2009)

I’m always amazed at the FOC and arrow weight threads. It’s always a hot topic and like a soap opera. 

I say shoot what you want and just be accurate 

Good job on the myth destroyed video 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

ontarget7 said:


> I’m always amazed at the FOC and arrow weight threads. It’s always a hot topic and like a soap opera.
> 
> I say shoot what you want and just be accurate [emoji6]
> 
> ...


Man I’ve been sick all weekend. I’m so glade this was there. Gave me something todo while lying in bed. Man I hate being sick


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

bhutso said:


> Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, Bubba "Spare Tire" Dixon.


Hehe


----------



## cruizerjoy (Dec 20, 2016)

No surprise for me. It was just as I would have guessed as far as penetration. I will say however I don't think a piece of cardboard can be compared to bone. Maybe a harder entry material would change the results maybe not. Its my understanding that more foc helps down range accuracy of broadheads in windy conditions according to some pro archers and may have better penetration. That is why I use more foc but not extreme. I do enjoy your videos so keep em coming.


----------



## BTtuner (Sep 28, 2017)

I believe spine has a lot to do with this test as well and how it effects penetration. I would use an OT2 program to make sue both arrows are perfectly spined along with weight. Yeah you can have a 600 gr arrow with over 20% foc but if its a very weak spined arrow it wont correct the same way on the shot and when it hits a solid target it has a wet noodle effect when penetrating. I would redo the test with proper spine to see if it makes a difference.


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

A youtube video about EFOC arrows equal in value to that of the OP's video.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Inn.Outdoorsman said:


> A youtube video about EFOC arrows equal in value to that of the OP's video.


Eyes needs me somes of thems


----------



## dnv23 (Feb 8, 2011)

Inn.Outdoorsman said:


> A youtube video about EFOC arrows equal in value to that of the OP's video.


Thanks for taking the time to make the video. Lol

Those broadheads look about as good as those garbage sights, quivers and rests you are pushing on people.


----------



## jacobh (Jun 7, 2009)

Man aim telling u I never knew how intelligent AT users were and how stupid the rest of the world is. U all need to pay yourselves on the back and go hug mom and dad and thank them. U guys are by far the smartest people I've ever come across. So Thank u


----------



## Outsider (Aug 16, 2011)

I never thought people will adjust FOC for better penetration. To me FOC is just for how fast the arrow stabilize.


----------



## jacobh (Jun 7, 2009)

^^^^ exactly funny how smart others are though lol


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

jacobh said:


> Man aim telling u I never knew how intelligent AT users were and how stupid the rest of the world is. U all need to pay yourselves on the back and go hug mom and dad and thank them. U guys are by far the smartest people I've ever come across. So Thank u



Now see that’s funny. Smart ass people. This is what keeps the world going round. I love being a smart ass. The way I see it life is to short to go around mad or what ever all your life. Have fun enjoy life and be a smart ass. Because in the end. We are all just worm food


----------



## PSUHunter89 (Aug 20, 2012)

Inn.Outdoorsman said:


> First time reading this thread so I havent read any of the replies so I assume I will be piling on invalidating this "test" . :set1_rolf2:
> 
> "The cardboard will simulate heavy bone breach" :set1_rolf2:
> 
> ...


Gunther owns so much real estate in your brain right now that you chose to be apart of his threads and you're blaming him for wasting your time lol


----------



## archer58 in pa (Jan 3, 2007)

Well, I guess E=mc(2). That's it.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

BTtuner said:


> I believe spine has a lot to do with this test as well and how it effects penetration. I would use an OT2 program to make sue both arrows are perfectly spined along with weight. Yeah you can have a 600 gr arrow with over 20% foc but if its a very weak spined arrow it wont correct the same way on the shot and when it hits a solid target it has a wet noodle effect when penetrating. I would redo the test with proper spine to see if it makes a difference.


In the Part 1 video, he did use arrow calculation software which showed all the arrows to be within the "optimal spine" range. Having said that, I'm not sure the software accurately factors the high tail weight of the arrows used in the test, but he did in fact use "software". If you watch his early videos, he gives all the specifics, about the arrows and the weight distribution and the bow, so you could easily plug that info int OT2 and compare to the AA results. 

(He also changed bows after the original test, so all the arrows would now would likely be somewhat overspined for the bow he's using)


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Here , let me help you guys with the heavy bone breach with a low FOC arrow setup. It's a 326 gr Fmj 400 (cut to 27.5" , 426 gr total) with a 100 gr 2 blade rage shot from 30 yards. How's that for deflection?
https://youtu.be/zN6sGhsAejU


----------



## jacobh (Jun 7, 2009)

Hard to tell in your vid. Looks like it blew through or did it glance off the side???


----------



## BillyRay (Oct 16, 2003)

Outsider said:


> I never thought people will adjust FOC for better penetration. To me FOC is just for how fast the arrow stabilize.


This. Never once in my archery career have I heard anyone argue for FOC in terms of penetration. Maybe there is an incredibly small minority out there that wants to believe it I suppose.


----------



## friedm1 (Jan 31, 2007)

If anything, i just know im never buying anything from INN OUTDOORSMAN.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

bhutso said:


> Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, Bubba "Spare Tire" Dixon.


Lol comment of the day


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> Here , let me help you guys with the heavy bone breach with a low FOC arrow setup. It's a 326 gr Fmj 400 (cut to 27.5" , 426 gr total) with a 100 gr 2 blade rage shot from 30 yards. How's that for deflection?
> https://youtu.be/zN6sGhsAejU





jacobh said:


> Hard to tell in your vid. Looks like it blew through or did it glance off the side???


right link?...maybe this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgTreHaFr0U


----------



## ppkaprince98 (Mar 13, 2008)

BillyRay said:


> This. Never once in my archery career have I heard anyone argue for FOC in terms of penetration. Maybe there is an incredibly small minority out there that wants to believe it I suppose.


Yea thats where im lost also.^^^ Adding mass will increase MO, but mass is mass front or back. 

On a side note, Thanks for making the video OP whether it proved a point or not.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

archer58 in pa said:


> Well, I guess E=mc(2). That's it.


If you're doing to state laws I prefer Newton heck even Murphy to Einstein. But this one is way more relevant. This is drag force. It shows the resistance of an object based on velocity and mass. When applied to archery it will show you how your fast, light arrow is no match to my slow heavy one. No FoC, no cape buffalo. Just physics.

FD=1/2pu^2cda

If your head doesn't hurt too much after that we can chat about that impact flex and time of impulse and how it'll relate back. But for now, as you can clearly see, velocity is squared in penetration whereas mass remains constant. I'll take heavy and slow over fast and light anyday. You see,way before we even get to discussing what FoC does during penetration we must establish a few things including an understanding of the what's involved. And this has zero to do with this ridiculous trolling video.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> Here , let me help you guys with the heavy bone breach with a low FOC arrow setup. It's a 326 gr Fmj 400 (cut to 27.5" , 426 gr total) with a 100 gr 2 blade rage shot from 30 yards. How's that for deflection?
> https://youtu.be/zN6sGhsAejU


My wife could have made a delicious soup out of that ham bone even after you shot an arrow through it. 

I want you to think about that for a second... Ok now stop thinking about it. 

Carry on.


----------



## spike camp (Jun 2, 2008)

PSUHunter89 said:


> Gunther owns so much real estate in your brain right now that you chose to be apart of his threads and you're blaming him for wasting your time lol



“Mental gymnastics”


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

plecavalier said:


> archer58 in pa said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I guess E=mc(2). That's it.
> ...


Call the video whatever you like bud. The proof is in the pudding.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

GuntherChaconne said:


> My wife could have made a delicious soup out of that ham bone even after you shot an arrow through it.
> 
> I want you to think about that for a second... Ok now stop thinking about it.
> 
> Carry on.


Ok what about just smoking it and eating the bone marrow out of it.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

jacobh said:


> Hard to tell in your vid. Looks like it blew through or did it glance off the side???


It left the vanes stuck in the bone. You be the judge. Lol


----------



## Outsider (Aug 16, 2011)

Inn.Outdoorsman said:


> Before you did test #1 you were told to include thin ply or 3/8" drywall to act as the heavy bone breach.


What he did is perfect. No variations in drywall or plywood structure that will affect the test results. What he did is a clean penetration test. This is the way it should be done.


----------



## archer58 in pa (Jan 3, 2007)

plecavalier said:


> If you're doing to state laws I prefer Newton heck even Murphy to Einstein. But this one is way more relevant. This is drag force. It shows the resistance of an object based on velocity and mass. When applied to archery it will show you how your fast, light arrow is no match to my slow heavy one. No FoC, no cape buffalo. Just physics.
> 
> FD=1/2pu^2cda
> 
> If your head doesn't hurt too much after that we can chat about that impact flex and time of impulse and how it'll relate back. But for now, as you can clearly see, velocity is squared in penetration whereas mass remains constant. I'll take heavy and slow over fast and light anyday. You see,way before we even get to discussing what FoC does during penetration we must establish a few things including an understanding of the what's involved. And this has zero to do with this ridiculous trolling video.


I was trying to keep it simple. Not saying a light arrow is better than a heavy one. Only FOC does not come into the equation.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

It was a dead center shot.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

GuntherChaconne said:


> Call the video whatever you like bud. The proof is in the pudding.


That's the most intelligent comment you can come up with after what I wrote; "the proof is in the pudding"? You guys are nuts and it's not in a good way. Nothing but a troll.


----------



## dsdhunts (Aug 26, 2015)

I wanted to post again but had nothing to add

That hippo shot was ? 
Compared to the rio rogan vid. 

The times I shot bone I had more failed arrows and heads then breaching regardless of mass or velocity.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

archer58 in pa said:


> I was trying to keep it simple. Not saying a light arrow is better than a heavy one. Only FOC does not come into the equation.


It's not simple when you talk about FoC and penetration. I clearly said we have to understand certain things before that. If we could possibly get to impact flex(we chose not to call it impact paradox anymore) we could get to that part of the equation because yes, it absolutely is part of it. But you have to get through time of impulse. Something which I doubt we will get to on here.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Hidden Danger said:


> It was a dead center shot.


For the record , that was a 426 gr arrow @338 fps. Your results may vary.


----------



## brendan's dad (Feb 21, 2013)

Hidden Danger said:


> For the record , that was a 426 gr arrow @338 fps. Your results may vary.


That must be some set-up? 85-90 lbs?


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

enewman said:


> GuntherChaconne said:
> 
> 
> > My wife could have made a delicious soup out of that ham bone even after you shot an arrow through it.
> ...


Damn I've never even heard of that. That sounds delicious


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

plecavalier said:


> GuntherChaconne said:
> 
> 
> > Call the video whatever you like bud. The proof is in the pudding.
> ...


Lol whatever you like bud. Just because you get butthurt, doesn't make me a troll. 

I put a huge amount of time, effort, and planning into making this video, and making the test fair. 

You didn't like the outcome, so you're going to pick it apart. It's as simple as that. I can see that you are another one of these guys that considers himself to be an expert.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

GuntherChaconne said:


> plecavalier said:
> 
> 
> > GuntherChaconne said:
> ...


Of course now you will start dictating all the ways I need to change the test to suit you, because you are the expert. It gets old. 

I will be doing tests with broadheads and bone breach simulations in the future so relax.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

GuntherChaconne said:


> Damn I've never even heard of that. That sounds delicious


Look it up. It looks dang good. I’ve not tried it but we need to. We can make a video. Don’t shoot bones. Let’s eat them ahaha. I can get them for around 12 each here at the butcher. I need to stop procrastinating about it and just do it.


----------



## I like Meat (Feb 14, 2009)

Heck, I came here for the xgirls, and all I got was arguments over FOC and arrows .... 

Keep up the work with the Vids .... anytime anyone tosses some cold water on these Ashby quiver sniffers, its a good thing ... :wink:


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

GuntherChaconne said:


> Lol whatever you like bud. Just because you get butthurt, doesn't make me a troll.
> 
> I put a huge amount of time, effort, and planning into making this video, and making the test fair.
> 
> You didn't like the outcome, so you're going to pick it apart. It's as simple as that. I can see that you are another one of these guys that considers himself to be an expert.


Is "proof is in the pudding" not exactly Ashby's testing method? Kinda funny that Ashby minions prefer calculations to real world testing. Ashby didn't google mathematical equations on the internet to "prove" his theories, he shot arrows and examined and compiled the results. The "problem" with the ashby tests is not with anything ashby did, it's all the mini-me ashby wannabes that are drawing conclusions from his test that ashby himself would no doubt dispute.

Keep on making pudding, it's way more relevant than those who spend 5 minutes googling a topic and then run to AT and try to convince everyone they are an expert on the subject.


----------



## Joshm0968 (Apr 2, 2015)

jaximus said:


> really sad it took halfway through page 2 for someone to say the correct things, well done.
> 
> ballistic gel is a terrible medium for archery. its homogenous(the same all the way through), so it has no density variation.
> 
> ...


Well said, 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

brendan's dad said:


> That must be some set-up? 85-90 lbs?


That was at 78 lbs.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Hidden Danger said:


> That was at 78 lbs.


I'm now curious as to see what my 480 gr arrow @345 will do.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

nestly said:


> Is "proof is in the pudding" not exactly Ashby's testing method? Kinda funny that Ashby minions prefer calculations to real world testing. Ashby didn't google mathematical equations on the internet to "prove" his theories, he shot arrows and examined and compiled the results. The "problem" with the ashby tests is not with anything ashby did, it's all the mini-me ashby wannabes that are drawing conclusions from his test that ashby himself would no doubt dispute.
> 
> Keep on making pudding, it's way more relevant than those who spend 5 minutes googling a topic and then run to AT and try to convince everyone they are an expert on the subject.


Spot on. Nestly hits the nail on the head once again. 

FOR THE RECORD: Guys... If you are going hunting for heavy boned African animals with a recurve or longbow, I highly suggest you study up on Ashby. He is definitely the foremost expert in that area.


----------



## PSUHunter89 (Aug 20, 2012)

I think you should spend lots of money on, lets say, 50 bones. Build tons of low FOC and high FOC arrows that weigh the same and take a ton of time to build. Then blow them up in the big bones. Take the average of both arrows making sure to discard the measurements of arrows that clearly deviate from the average. Make sure you post a teaser video of just a couple arrows so all of Newtons descendants can tell you what was wrong with your test before you waste all of your arrows. When the results show the difference is so meaningless to the modern compound archer go back to the bone store and ask for fresher because those bones were to dried out for the high FOC arrow to really do its thing.


----------



## GRIMWALD (Sep 28, 2012)

PSUHunter89 said:


> I think you should spend lots of money on, lets say, 50 bones. Build tons of low FOC and high FOC arrows that weigh the same and take a ton of time to build. Then blow them up in the big bones. Take the average of both arrows making sure to discard the measurements of arrows that clearly deviate from the average. Make sure you post a teaser video of just a couple arrows so all of Newtons descendants can tell you what was wrong with your test before you waste all of your arrows. When the results show the difference is so meaningless to the modern compound archer go back to the bone store and ask for fresher because those bones were to dried out for the high FOC arrow to really do its thing.


LOL!!!!
You don't even have to go as far as the test mediums used.
I built just shy of 400 arrow for testing. Conservatively at $ 10.00 per arrow, I invested $4,000.00 dollars, just in arrows. Not to mention my time to build them. 
Then there was the expense to upgrade not only my Hooter Shooter, my indexing methods/procedures and I had devise a uniform method of testing wear and tear (durability).
This was knowing before hand that the test would be invalidated because I didn't start with factory new shafts.
LOL!!!!

GRIM


----------



## jeffrichards (Sep 1, 2010)

Tagged


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

good job glacier!!! but that was kinda easy though. I got one for you what's the best broadhead for hunting big trophy whitetail bucks? a big mechanical or fixed head? Let's see if you can debunk any myths

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Allegedly a lightweight Arrow at a distance of about 30 yards will have the same kinetic energy as a heavy Arrow that's because at a distance of 30 yards the speed of the light Arrow catches up to the heavier arrow in terms of ke. In other words at distances past 30 yards the heavier Arrow loses kinetic energy much faster than light weight high speed Arrow. Is that true Gunther?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Joshm0968 (Apr 2, 2015)

Norma S Racks said:


> Allegedly a lightweight Arrow at a distance of about 30 yards will have the same kinetic energy as a heavy Arrow that's because at a distance of 30 yards the speed of the light Arrow catches up to the heavier arrow in terms of ke. In other words at distances past 30 yards the heavier Arrow loses kinetic energy much faster than light weight high speed Arrow. Is that true Gunther?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


You have it perfectly backwards lol. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Norma S Racks said:


> Allegedly a lightweight Arrow at a distance of about 30 yards will have the same kinetic energy as a heavy Arrow that's because at a distance of 30 yards the speed of the light Arrow catches up to the heavier arrow in terms of ke. In other words at distances past 30 yards the heavier Arrow loses kinetic energy much faster than light weight high speed Arrow. Is that true Gunther?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Kinetic energy is not the deciding factor when it comes to the Penetration potential of an object. Momentum is.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Joshm0968 said:


> You have it perfectly backwards lol.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


nope youre upside down man

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Hidden Danger said:


> Kinetic energy is not the deciding factor when it comes to the Penetration potential of an object. Momentum is.


Archers are wasting their time figuring out kinetic energy this whole time it's been a big waste of time you should give them the formula to figure out momentum. That way they don't waste their time figuring out kinetic energy anymore what they need to figure out his momentum figuring out kinetic energy that's a waste of time.you should help them.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## newbowthunder (Jan 21, 2012)

dnv23 said:


> Thanks for taking the time to make the video. Lol
> 
> Those broadheads look about as good as those garbage sights, quivers and rests you are pushing on people.


Dang.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk


----------



## friedm1 (Jan 31, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> Archers are wasting their time figuring out kinetic energy this whole time it's been a big waste of time you should give them the formula to figure out momentum. That way they don't waste their time figuring out kinetic energy anymore what they need to figure out his momentum figuring out kinetic energy that's a waste of time.you should help them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


wait, is figuring out momentum a waste of time, your post is vague.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Archers calculate kinetic energy. You said that momentum is the deciding factor in penetration. You should learn archers to calculate momentum .don't you think.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## tmead (May 10, 2010)

Norma S Racks said:


> Archers are wasting their time figuring out kinetic energy this whole time it's been a big waste of time you should give them the formula to figure out momentum. That way they don't waste their time figuring out kinetic energy anymore what they need to figure out his momentum figuring out kinetic energy that's a waste of time.you should help them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


p=mv 

Go forth and tell all your friends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

my friends are deer hunters. They already know that there rig is going to get a pass through unless they hit shoulder.There's no reason to figure out pressurized mass volumes.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Joshm0968 (Apr 2, 2015)

Norma S Racks said:


> nope youre upside down man
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


The force is strong with this one. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

I'm being serious man. shoot a lightweight Arrow straight up into the air and heavy Arrow straight up into the air .the light arrow will go further .the heavy arrow loses speed quicker.speed is an ingredient of kinetic energy .at some point the lightweight and the heavy Arrow are going to have the same kinetic energy. I think this distance is 30 yards.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## nontypical225 (Jan 4, 2009)

Hidden Danger said:


> Here , let me help you guys with the heavy bone breach with a low FOC arrow setup. It's a 326 gr Fmj 400 (cut to 27.5" , 426 gr total) with a 100 gr 2 blade rage shot from 30 yards. How's that for deflection?
> https://youtu.be/zN6sGhsAejU


was that bone a dry bone? it sure looks like dry meat on it. if so that makes sense you would see that. when bones dry out it becomes more brittle and easier to blow through. I have shot a ton of big bones testing broadheads with a really good setup and not very many would do what that did! most of my tests were with a 470ish or heavier arrow going around 295fps for reference


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

friedm1 said:


> wait, is figuring out momentum a waste of time, your post is vague.





Norma S Racks said:


> my friends are deer hunters. They already know that there rig is going to get a pass through unless they hit shoulder.There's no reason to figure out pressurized mass volumes.


This is correct. Momentum remains the same whether the archer has calculated it or not.


----------



## bhutso (Jan 4, 2007)

nontypical225 said:


> was that bone a dry bone? it sure looks like dry meat on it. if so that makes sense you would see that. when bones dry out it becomes more brittle and easier to blow through. I have shot a ton of big bones testing broadheads with a really good setup and not very many would do what that did! most of my tests were with a 470ish or heavier arrow going around 295fps for reference


I didn’t believe it till I saw it 

Amazing setup


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> I'm being serious man. shoot a lightweight Arrow straight up into the air and heavy Arrow straight up into the air .the light arrow will go further .the heavy arrow loses speed quicker.speed is an ingredient of kinetic energy .at some point the lightweight and the heavy Arrow are going to have the same kinetic energy. I think this distance is 30 yards.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Your basing your previous post that heavy arrows slow down faster by shooting straight up into the air hahaha. I think I saw this on a show. Hahaha


Found it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yviQ2kRPDo


----------



## nontypical225 (Jan 4, 2009)

bhutso said:


> I didn’t believe it till I saw it
> 
> Amazing setup


I honestly think the results would be different in fresh wet bone. not knocking his video, but with the hundreds of pounds of bones I have shot I have a hard time believing it would hold up to fresh bone! I however could be wrong I like to see the results though.


----------



## bhutso (Jan 4, 2007)

nontypical225 said:


> I honestly think the results would be different in fresh wet bone. not knocking his video, but with the hundreds of pounds of bones I have shot I have a hard time believing it would hold up to fresh bone! I however could be wrong I like to see the results though.


You are talking about a 470 grain arrow @295 vs a 480 grain arrow at 335 

My setup is similar to what you are talking about in your testing 
He’s got 40 FPS on us 
It’s almost not human lol


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

enewman said:


> Your basing your previous post that heavy arrows slow down faster by shooting straight up into the air hahaha. I think I saw this on a show. Hahaha


Trust me kid a heavy arrow is going to lose speed faster than a light Arrow.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## bhutso (Jan 4, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> Trust me kid a heavy arrow is going to lose speed faster than a light Arrow.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


This is simply not true 

Not debatable 
It’s been tested many times 

Here’s one 
https://youtu.be/3OM7NWgYdbw


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> Trust me kid a heavy arrow is going to lose speed faster than a light Arrow.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Damn you must be old as hell if your calling me a kid. Haha. Thanks.


Here is a ballistic chart. Put in some info. And take a look. You will see that your incorrect. Also just go to any physics page you will also see your incorrect. 

http://peteward.com/ballistic.calc.htm


----------



## nontypical225 (Jan 4, 2009)

Hidden Danger said:


> For the record , that was a 426 gr arrow @338 fps. Your results may vary.





bhutso said:


> You are talking about a 470 grain arrow @295 vs a 480 grain arrow at 335
> 
> My setup is similar to what you are talking about in your testing
> He’s got 40 FPS on us
> It’s almost not human lol


According to his post I was only 426. I haven’t calculated it but off the top of my head that should put the to close to the same.


----------



## bhutso (Jan 4, 2007)

nontypical225 said:


> According to his post I was only 426. I haven’t calculated it but off the top of my head that should put the to close to the same.


Yeah guess I read it wrong 

I have seen the video before and doubted it but after talking to the guy I believed 
That’s just me

By those number 

His 106.05 KE 
6.331 MO

Yours 90.73 KE 
6.151 MO


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

bhutso said:


> This is simply not true
> 
> Not debatable
> It’s been tested many times
> ...


He was shooting a BowTech probably had a broken limb they're testing only at 20 yards. why can't they test that 40? Not a good test. 20 yards come on. The guys math is all goofed up that's like if your arrow drops a half an inch at 20 that means it's only going to drop one inch at 40 yeah right

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## TAIL~~CHASER (Dec 14, 2015)

335 gr. Fresher bone, 100 gr. broadhead. Cow femur bone.

https://youtu.be/KgTreHaFr0U


----------



## nontypical225 (Jan 4, 2009)

bhutso said:


> Yeah guess I read it wrong
> 
> I have seen the video before and doubted it but after talking to the guy I believed
> That’s just me





TAIL~~CHASER said:


> 335 gr. Fresher bone, 100 gr. broadhead. Cow femur bone.
> 
> https://youtu.be/KgTreHaFr0U


 Sounds like I have some testing to do. Should fun.


----------



## tmead (May 10, 2010)

Norma S Racks said:


> Trust me kid a heavy arrow is going to lose speed faster than a light Arrow.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Throw a ping pong ball and a golf ball and tell me which one loses speed faster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> Trust me kid a heavy arrow is going to lose speed faster than a light Arrow.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## bstring (Jan 24, 2013)

tmead said:


> Throw a ping pong ball and a golf ball and tell me which one loses speed faster.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What about a .22 bullet versus a 30.06. Which one loses speed and drops first??


----------



## bhutso (Jan 4, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> He was shooting a BowTech probably had a broken limb they're testing only at 20 yards. why can't they test that 40? Not a good test. 20 yards come on. The guys math is all goofed up that's like if your arrow drops a half an inch at 20 that means it's only going to drop one inch at 40 yeah right
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


It showed 3 arrows, the heavier the arrow the less speed loss out of the same Bow 
It’s only going to magnify the farther you shoot 
Search it out 
Test it all you want 
These results will never deviate 

Their is no one (even here) dumb enough to buy what you are saying


----------



## tmead (May 10, 2010)

bstring said:


> What about a .22 bullet versus a 30.06. Which one loses speed and drops first??


Gravity is constant, they both “drop” at the same rate. 
“Losing speed” is related to drag and the mass of the object 
Also, like a heavy arrow vs light arrow, initial velocities are different.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

nontypical225 said:


> was that bone a dry bone? it sure looks like dry meat on it. if so that makes sense you would see that. when bones dry out it becomes more brittle and easier to blow through. I have shot a ton of big bones testing broadheads with a really good setup and not very many would do what that did! most of my tests were with a 470ish or heavier arrow going around 295fps for reference


That same bone folded up this montec blade.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Hidden Danger said:


> That same bone folded up this montec blade.


Oops


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Dry? Notice that soft gooey stuff? That's marrow. It's on the shaft and broadhead. The bone was not exactly fresh but it wasn't dried out either.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Hidden Danger said:


> Dry? Notice that soft gooey stuff? That's marrow. It's on the shaft and broadhead. The bone was not exactly fresh but it wasn't dried out either.


It took a hammer , a masonry chisel and a tire iron to spilt it open to retrieve the montec after trying to shoot through both knuckles end to end.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

TAIL~~CHASER said:


> 335 gr. Fresher bone, 100 gr. broadhead. Cow femur bone.
> 
> https://youtu.be/KgTreHaFr0U


Irrelevant seeing how the block stopped the shaft and not the bone. That's why I placed my bag 4 ft behind the bone. I was trying for a complete pass through.


----------



## TAIL~~CHASER (Dec 14, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> Irrelevant seeing how the block stopped the shaft and not the bone. That's why I placed my bag 4 ft behind the bone. I was trying for a complete pass through.


True. I'd think he had put distance from bone to block it would have been a complete pass.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

TAIL~~CHASER said:


> True. I'd think he had put distance from bone to block it would have been a complete pass.


I agree


----------



## bowhunt r die (Dec 9, 2017)

You know ballistics gel has been proven to be less effective at measuring penetration. Slower moving and more friction as well as surface increased surface area are reasons why it works better for bullets than arrows. If they are traveling at the same speed with the same amount of friction while in the ballistics gel then yes they should scientifically penetrate equally. The reason higher foc is “preferred”(notice I didn’t say better) is because it goes through bone and other harder to penetrate pieces better and retains more energy after the fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Why can't I find the original ballistic gel test thread? (the one done outside with the foam behind the gel block)


----------



## GRIMWALD (Sep 28, 2012)

nestly said:


> Why can't I find the original ballistic gel test thread? (the one done outside with the foam behind the gel block)


How are you looking for it. It is still on his channel.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbRXdnVH_SXp6hg2bE_0XeQ/videos

Odd link isn't working.

Lets try it again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_WkcUzIMZM


GRIM


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

GRIMWALD said:


> How are you looking for it. It is still on his channel.


I'm looking for the AT thread. I was interested in reviewing the comments of those who claimed the foam behind the gel is why there was no difference in penetration between the various FOC arrows.


----------



## dsdhunts (Aug 26, 2015)

Iirc if your bow follows the standard calculator like just about all of them. (Another myth worth testing) 

A 100g difference in weight. Is around 100 yards for velocity to match. Lite arrows do drop velocity faster, but not so much it happens in 30 yards. 

Velocity ke and m all contribute to penetration. Ke and l inertia are irrational extrapolation to express motion from rational measures. 

The only way to change the penetration of these arrows is to shoot them faster/slows or adjust their weight. 

Josh once stated he felt the myth cane from weight added to get foc. Vs same weight. He also has a tune vid with the bow and arrows and it’s more in tune then most would do in their own setup. 

Now back to McCoy v Louisiana can you believe the guys lawyer plead him guilty against his consent. And the scotus has the hear this to see if his rights were violated????


----------



## nontypical225 (Jan 4, 2009)

Hidden Danger said:


> That same bone folded up this montec blade.


Can you tell me more about the arrow build? Spine, length?


----------



## Doc89 (Oct 5, 2017)

Good to know!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


----------



## pa.hunter (Jan 3, 2008)

mass is mass. :wink:


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

nontypical225 said:


> Can you tell me more about the arrow build? Spine, length?


Standard Easton FMJ in lost camo. 400 spine. 27 3/4 . 100 gr montec. 426 gr total weight. No insert or footing. Shot from 30 yards @338 fps. 78 lbs , 28 inch draw 362 ibo. I know the shaft was underspined according to the charts but the FMJ tends to tune a little stiff.
I was attempting to shoot through both knuckles end to end. It didn't quite make it. Lol


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

You can see in this pic where the blade folded. The side wall of the bone was about 5/8 thick in that particular spot.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Hidden Danger said:


> Standard Easton FMJ in lost camo. 400 spine. 27 3/4 . 100 gr montec. 426 gr total weight. No insert or footing. Shot from 30 yards @338 fps. 78 lbs , 28 inch draw 362 ibo. I know the shaft was underspined according to the charts but the FMJ tends to tune a little stiff.
> I was attempting to shoot through both knuckles end to end. It didn't quite make it. Lol


I’d highly recommend you go to a much stiffer spine for your safety. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

https://youtu.be/2_SjpWp9LZo
Here's the actual shot. I wish I had my phone positioned a little better.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

bhutso said:


> It showed 3 arrows, the heavier the arrow the less speed loss out of the same Bow
> It’s only going to magnify the farther you shoot
> Search it out
> Test it all you want
> ...


I'm confident there are a couple...


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

henro said:


> I’d highly recommend you go to a much stiffer spine for your safety.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They may have been 340's. I don't quite remember. However , they were the only shafts I was willing to destroy at the time.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Here I shot a hog skull from a huge boar with the same setup. I should have had the bag a bit further back.

https://youtu.be/f3JW200gp_M


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Bobmuley said:


> I'm confident there are a couple...


More than a couple. If anybody bothers to map out their draw force curve and has a Chrono you can find the efficiency of the bow. In doing so you quickly realize that the majority of today's bows only reach high levels (90%+) way over 1000gr.

Some cams/systems are better at it than others. I got proof of how efficient a lever bow system is. It shows the difference of velocity retained using a 1025gr arrow compared to a few other wheel cam bows. If you do the math, you quickly realized that if it were possible the estimated ibo would be north of 400fps.

Adding mass retains velocity. It's been proven in many ways.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

plecavalier said:


> More than a couple. If anybody bothers to map out their draw force curve and has a Chrono you can find the efficiency of the bow. In doing so you quickly realize that the majority of today's bows only reach high levels (90%+) way over 1000gr.
> 
> Some cams/systems are better at it than others. I got proof of how efficient a lever bow system is. It shows the difference of velocity retained using a 1025gr arrow compared to a few other wheel cam bows. If you do the math, you quickly realized that if it were possible the estimated ibo would be north of 400fps.
> 
> Adding mass retains velocity. It's been proven in many ways.


All known proven facts...right up until physics changed with the advent of the online calculator.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Bobmuley said:


> All known proven facts...right up until physics changed with the advent of the online calculator.


Hehe. Well said.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> Here I shot a hog skull from a huge boar with the same setup. I should have had the bag a bit further back.
> 
> https://youtu.be/f3JW200gp_M


This is awesome but it looks like the arrow broke


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

GuntherChaconne said:


> This is awesome but it looks like the arrow broke


Look at how much the tail whipped up and to the left on impact. Not sure if the tail whip broke it, or it broke because the arrow entered the bag while the skull was twisting, or some combination thereof... either way I'd say it was more than effective enough.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

nestly said:


> Look at how much the tail whipped up and to the left on impact. Not sure if the tail whip broke it, or it broke because the arrow entered the bag while the skull was twisting, or some combination thereof... either way I'd say it was more than effective enough.


Definitely a dead hog. I don't think the arrow would have broke if the bag wasn't so close.


----------



## enkriss (Apr 10, 2009)

Interesting....


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> Here I shot a hog skull from a huge boar with the same setup. I should have had the bag a bit further back.
> 
> https://youtu.be/f3JW200gp_M


You need to throw some commentary into these videos Hidden Danger. I recommend wearing a studly hat. Seems to boost commentary effectiveness.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> Here I shot a hog skull from a huge boar with the same setup. I should have had the bag a bit further back.
> 
> https://youtu.be/f3JW200gp_M


Also, Why can't I leave a comment on your videos? Is it just my computer?


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

plecavalier said:


> It's not simple when you talk about FoC and penetration. I clearly said we have to understand certain things before that. If we could possibly get to impact flex(we chose not to call it impact paradox anymore) we could get to that part of the equation because yes, it absolutely is part of it. But you have to get through time of impulse. Something which I doubt we will get to on here.[/QUOTE
> 
> Well damn, you wasted time typing all that info on flex and time impulse like nobody knows all that. Now since you know all the answers, post the answer that’s going to make a fair comparison with your foc theory. No one that I know deputes foc helps with penetration. Arrows are “simple” regardless of the words used to try and look smarter than someone else. A small diameter arrow will out penetrate a larger diameter, all else being equal. All equal a stiffer arrow penetrates better than weaker, all else equal 5% foc out penetrates no foc, all being equal 450 grains with 15% foc out penetrates 500 grains with no foc. And on and on and on, see people do know the hell works. But here’s the problem, NOONE nope not even you hot-rod has posted a test of different arrows with different focs but have the same weight and the SAME dynamic spine. That’s the first thing that throws out any test done here. But yet I don’t see anyone of you guys with all the answers do it either. Now since you know everything post how to build 3 arrows of 5% 15% and 25% foc that all weight exactly the same, and maintain the exact same dynamic spine. Every post is the same. “You can call it a conclusive test because by adding weight thruout the shafts you are changing the dynamic spine and it’s changing the lever arm position and not getting the correct impact flex after the time of impulse” yes those quotes are you physics engineering scientific arrow builders. Just stop picking on everybody else’s test and build those arrows and show us something. Damn put up or shut up, that simple. I get sick of hearing Ashby quoted damn word for word on every other thread but NEVER EVERRRRRR see anything productive to prove it. At least he did something, so instead of just talking it wrong , PROVE it wrong. No one that I know of thinks foc does nothing, because it plays a part, but it is not the final end all answer to an arrow like you guys talk it is. I kill the same animals with arrow builds without 28% foc, and the damn things blow through and BUST bone to, so what’s the damn big deal? Damn childish grap. Build them and they will penetrate lmao lol smfh rolling heads and all that.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

bowshootn70 said:


> plecavalier said:
> 
> 
> > It's not simple when you talk about FoC and penetration. I clearly said we have to understand certain things before that. If we could possibly get to impact flex(we chose not to call it impact paradox anymore) we could get to that part of the equation because yes, it absolutely is part of it. But you have to get through time of impulse. Something which I doubt we will get to on here.[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

Ten pages .....:darkbeer:


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

GuntherChaconne said:


> This is awesome but it looks like the arrow broke


It did break. I should have had the bag back a little further.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

GuntherChaconne said:


> Also, Why can't I leave a comment on your videos? Is it just my computer?


I'm not sure. I'll check it out.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Hidden Danger said:


> They may have been 340's. I don't quite remember. However , they were the only shafts I was willing to destroy at the time.


Just checked. They were the 400's. But it's ok , I do my own stunts. Lol


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> Just checked. They were the 400's. But it's ok , I do my own stunts. Lol


But what about commentary??? I want commentary!


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

GuntherChaconne said:


> But what about commentary??? I want commentary!


While I like to let my setup do the talking I think I can accommodate you on my next shoot. I just had a new set of threads installed on my setup and I need to do a little fine tuning. I'll try to post up a video of the milk jug challenge by Sunday with all the specs and some commentary. Lol


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> GuntherChaconne said:
> 
> 
> > But what about commentary??? I want commentary!
> ...


That's the spirit


----------



## ryandut (Jan 30, 2018)

Interesting.


----------



## ryandut (Jan 30, 2018)

Very Interesting.


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

plecavalier said:


> bowshootn70 said:
> 
> 
> > Talk about writing a lot of text for nothing? Right back at ya bud. You keep things "simple" if you need to and I'll keep pushing the envelope. How's that? Simple enough for ya?
> ...


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

GuntherChaconne said:


> This is awesome but it looks like the arrow broke


Wow, I didn’t catch the setup you referring to. No doubt it was a full pass . Damn hog skull about as tough as any.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

bowshootn70 said:


> plecavalier said:
> 
> 
> > That’s what I thought. You know how to talk it, but you just can’t prove anything either. Simple enough?
> ...


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

bowshootn70 said:


> plecavalier said:
> 
> 
> > That’s what I thought. You know how to talk it, but you just can’t prove anything either. Simple enough?
> ...


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

enewman said:


> bowshootn70 said:
> 
> 
> > So since you used the word either. This must mean no one has proved a thing either way. How can this be. It’s because they all will work. So what is next step to prove. Well you draw it out on paper.
> ...


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

plecavalier said:


> bowshootn70 said:
> 
> 
> > I have absolutely nothing to prove to you bud. You're making statements and you have absolutely no idea who I am or what I've done. Pathetic...I get it, you've built high FoC arrows and you can't see the difference. That's unfortunate for you but it doesn't mean the rest of us haven't figured it out.
> ...


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

da glacier really opened up a can of worms on this one.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

bowshootn70 said:


> enewman said:
> 
> 
> > And to begin with you don’t even get the point EITHER. Everyone on this thread knows and understands how to build arrows, that’s not the issue. The issue is every thread posted on foc this group lines up with their data points and physics terminology to try and belittle and disprove every test someone post a video of. It always comes down to the arrows not being spines correctly because of weight being placed here or there. Even your Ashby with his testing said foc does not matter in some of his testing. That’s a fact, but it’s also a fact even after he says that this little group including yourself posts on and on about how foc is the king and nobody’s test has proven anything. But yet you either have not built numerous arrows with exact weight and dynamic spine with different foc to prove it. Foc plays a part in some cases, others it’s zero. And you talk about it being on paper, a 30 year test where he gives two different findings on foc doesn’t show anything but what’s been said. Foc is not the all in an arrow. Now since you disagree with withbthat and everyone else that posts a video, instead of you talking about your findings and tests that proves it wrong, then post the damn prove. It’s that simple. I just hate to see guys spend time and money on doing something and then some want to joke, laugh and all but call a man a dumbass but yet all you do is talk. If you can show different all you gotta do is do it. I agree with SOME of Ashby work, and I agree that foc plays it’s part but it’s not king of the world, and everyone else’s findings are not wrong and you are not the only one that thinks he has all the answers either.
> ...


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

bowshootn70 said:


> enewman said:
> 
> 
> > And to begin with you don’t even get the point EITHER. Everyone on this thread knows and understands how to build arrows, that’s not the issue. The issue is every thread posted on foc this group lines up with their data points and physics terminology to try and belittle and disprove every test someone post a video of. It always comes down to the arrows not being spines correctly because of weight being placed here or there. Even your Ashby with his testing said foc does not matter in some of his testing. That’s a fact, but it’s also a fact even after he says that this little group including yourself posts on and on about how foc is the king and nobody’s test has proven anything. But yet you either have not built numerous arrows with exact weight and dynamic spine with different foc to prove it. Foc plays a part in some cases, others it’s zero. And you talk about it being on paper, a 30 year test where he gives two different findings on foc doesn’t show anything but what’s been said. Foc is not the all in an arrow. Now since you disagree with withbthat and everyone else that posts a video, instead of you talking about your findings and tests that proves it wrong, then post the damn prove. It’s that simple. I just hate to see guys spend time and money on doing something and then some want to joke, laugh and all but call a man a dumbass but yet all you do is talk. If you can show different all you gotta do is do it. I agree with SOME of Ashby work, and I agree that foc plays it’s part but it’s not king of the world, and everyone else’s findings are not wrong and you are not the only one that thinks he has all the answers either.
> ...


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

plecavalier said:


> bowshootn70 said:
> 
> 
> > Someone is upset. Naysayers always yell "PROVE IT". So what exactly would this said proof look like?
> ...


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

I'm tired of all this FOC/penetration debate... I want to start a new thread and conduct some scientific tests to calculate the learning curve of how to properly quote messages.... 

Initial data points suggest it could be greater than 9 years / 4k posts. Its particularly interesting that all the math and physics experts among us know how to use parenthesis to designate order of operation in complex math equations, but haven't figured out forum BB code works very similarly. LOL


----------



## Gamover06 (Aug 20, 2014)

bhutso said:


> Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, Bubba "Spare Tire" Dixon.


Hahahaha classic. You just debunked archerytalk.


----------



## MightyElkHntr (Dec 13, 2006)

Hey GuntherChaconne, wouldn't strapping the ballistic gel down cause a compression at the point of the strap, making the material more dense? I haven't had the privilege of working with ballistic gel, so just asking.


----------



## not on the rug (Oct 31, 2011)

plecavalier said:


> It's not simple when you talk about FoC and penetration. I clearly said we have to understand certain things before that. If we could possibly get to impact flex(we chose not to call it impact paradox anymore) we could get to that part of the equation because yes, it absolutely is part of it. But you have to get through time of impulse. Something which I doubt we will get to on here.


I don't have a horse in this race either way, and I'm not much in to tinkering with arrow builds at this point. I'm curious about the statements about impact flex. It was stated earlier that a higher FOC arrow will penetrate better due to less flex. WHY would a higher FOC arrow have less flex. All things being equal, the arrow still needs to be properly spined, right? A higher FOC arrow would still require a stiff shaft in order to tune. A lower FOC arrow of the same total weight would probably have an equally stiff shaft, right? What else would make the arrow be so heavy? If that is the case, wouldn't the stiff spine of the lower FOC arrow have LESS flex than the higher FOC arrow? Maybe I'm just talking myself in circles. That's why I'm asking. Do you have any good videos or resources about impact paradox?


----------



## rjskee76 (Mar 9, 2014)

You guys really arguing about this crap?! Who cares!! I use my bear agenda at 65lbs with 29” Easton axis at 290gr with 100gr rage and get 30yrd pass threw’s on deer and bear and have killed caribou and a moose at 25yrds. Buried the arrow up to the veins on the moose. I’m not saying it would for all big but for what I use my set up for and just like most of you it works and I don’t care about FOC. You all sound ridiculous arguing about this crap! The only thing u should care about is kinetic energy! So stop trying to act like Sheldon Coopers with all ur physics crap! I’ll put my simple “cheap” set up against any of you!


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

rjskee76 said:


> You guys really arguing about this crap?! Who cares!! I use my bear agenda at 65lbs with 29” Easton axis at 290gr with 100gr rage and get 30yrd pass threw’s on deer and bear and have killed caribou and a moose at 25yrds. Buried the arrow up to the veins on the moose. I’m not saying it would for all big but for what I use my set up for and just like most of you it works and I don’t care about FOC. You all sound ridiculous arguing about this crap! The only thing u should care about is kinetic energy! So stop trying to act like Sheldon Coopers with all ur physics crap! I’ll put my simple “cheap” set up against any of you!


Thanks for letting them know how you really feel.  It's only 11 pages. Another thread has 18. LOL


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

plecavalier said:


> bowshootn70 said:
> 
> 
> > You want theoretical proof? Spine nodes. There's a forward and a rear spine node. When you increase FoC you move the forward spine node ahead. This shortens that level arm. We all know when you shortens something it becomes stiffer. That increased stiffness leads to better penetration. Now you're going to reply that I used fancy terms and didn't PROVE IT because you don't understand the terminology. And that is a big part of the problem. ....
> ...


----------



## kschneider002 (Jul 12, 2016)

Great video!


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

not on the rug said:


> I don't have a horse in this race either way, and I'm not much in to tinkering with arrow builds at this point. I'm curious about the statements about impact flex. It was stated earlier that a higher FOC arrow will penetrate better due to less flex. WHY would a higher FOC arrow have less flex. All things being equal, the arrow still needs to be properly spined, right? A higher FOC arrow would still require a stiff shaft in order to tune. A lower FOC arrow of the same total weight would probably have an equally stiff shaft, right? What else would make the arrow be so heavy? If that is the case, wouldn't the stiff spine of the lower FOC arrow have LESS flex than the higher FOC arrow? Maybe I'm just talking myself in circles. That's why I'm asking. Do you have any good videos or resources about impact paradox?


I'm not on board with the person you quoted, but I will add this regarding flex.

Arrows are accelerated from the nock end. All else being equal, the greater the percentage of weight is toward the front, the more the shaft will flex during acceleration.
Arrows are decelerated from the point end. All else being equal, the greater the percentage of weight is toward the rear, the more the shaft will flex during deceleration.

Higher FOC causes more flex during launch but less flex at the target, Lower FOC causes less flex during launch, but more flex at the target. 

Again, I'm not advocating for high FOC. 
"Normal' FOC and 'normal" spine will result in "normal" flex levels during both acceleration, and deceleration. The manufacturers that make arrow shafts do not consider only what happens during launch, they also realize the shaft must survive the "stop". So my advice to "normal" bowhunters is to pick the correct spine and pay no attention to FOC because if you're not going to extremes when configuring your arrow, you won't have to go to extremes to make everything else work.


----------



## scottieoutwest (Aug 6, 2008)

All these tests prove nothing. They are all using friction as the method of stopping the arrows. When hunting, friction has very little to do with stopping penetration. Animals are filled with lubricant and ballistic gel is not. What stops a proper flying arrow in animals is most often hitting bone. Hitting bone sends a shockwave (it bends the arrow) through the arrow. That's where arrow ballance becomes a factor as it's no longer focusing all it's energy on the point of the broadhead. The further away from the point you go the further from center the mass becomes. This distance reduces efficiency greatly. Having more mass closer to the point reduces efficiency loss. 

Now, if I'm hunting cardboard and ballistic gel animals I'll be sure to put this information to good use.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

I agree tests into ballistic gel, foam, or even bones outside of the live animal, do not represent the results we should expect when shooting live animals, but neither is shooting at a Hippo representitive of te results we should expect when shooting at deer. The problem with the tests is not the test, it's poor interpretation of the results. Shooting into gel absolutely does tell us something about FOC, it just does not tell us EVERYTHING about FOC. There is a difference.

Besides, it's information, and the only time more information is bad is when it's not applied properly. That some may draw bad conclusions from it is no reason for the tests to be halted, and that applies equally to Ashby's tests and Josh's tests. I simply do not buy the argument that these tests are harmful because some may draw incorrect conclusions... that's already happening with the "other" tests. and the whole reason these tests are being conducted. In the end, most of us probably know many people that have conducted numerous "tests" that they'd more likely just refer to as hunting experiences. If you're really interested in knowing what it takes to kill a deer with a bow, go talk to those people that have shot a lot of them. What you're likely to find out it that killing deer has a lot less to do with the bow and arrow than it does with the person holding it.


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

scottieoutwest said:


> All these tests prove nothing. They are all using friction as the method of stopping the arrows. When hunting, friction has very little to do with stopping penetration. Animals are filled with lubricant and ballistic gel is not. What stops a proper flying arrow in animals is most often hitting bone. Hitting bone sends a shockwave (it bends the arrow) through the arrow. That's where arrow ballance becomes a factor as it's no longer focusing all it's energy on the point of the broadhead. The further away from the point you go the further from center the mass becomes. This distance reduces efficiency greatly. Having more mass closer to the point reduces efficiency loss.
> 
> Now, if I'm hunting cardboard and ballistic gel animals I'll be sure to put this information to good use.


Exactly. That was cleanly missed by the guy with the video camera and youtube but hey, he used a single layer of dry cardboard as bone breach and arrived at conclusions based on that. I kid you not. It was funny as hell. 

Even funnier is that they are guys lining up to cheer and applaud and thank him for his proof. :wink:


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

Does a razor sharp blade have anything to do with penetration? :secret:


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

It is based solely on the medium its shot into. In some media its meaningless (bone) and in others it can be an aid.


----------



## TD2821 (Apr 3, 2017)

Ya'll sure have let differing opinions get those panties in a bunch! Reminds me of my daughter when she doesn't get her way.


----------



## PSUHunter89 (Aug 20, 2012)

Inn.Outdoorsman said:


> Exactly. That was cleanly missed by the guy with the video camera and youtube but hey, he used a single layer of dry cardboard as bone breach and arrived at conclusions based on that. I kid you not. It was funny as hell.
> 
> Even funnier is that they are guys lining up to cheer and applaud and thank him for his proof. :wink:


Whats funny is there are hundreds of other tests with various objects and the results always flip flop. Regardless of how good these tests are, the fact that the argument "High FOC doesn't increase penetration" is still fought every day shows you how meaningless the advantage must be if we can still argue something that should be so simple to figure out.


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

:argue::suspiciou:blah::twitch::boink::lalala::moviecorn


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

TD2821 said:


> Ya'll sure have let differing opinions get those panties in a bunch! Reminds me of my daughter when she doesn't get her way.


The people watching is super entertaining in this thread. Some of the comments are fantastic for their entertainment value.


----------



## Don_Go (Oct 9, 2011)

I have seen evidence of better penetration with high FoC through the rib cage of a cape buffalo. In 2006 I killed a cape buffalo with a 416 Rem Mag, rolled it onto it's side then shot it 18 times with a set of "standard FoC" arrow weighing almost 800 grains. Several of the arrows failed to penetrate to killing depth, they all had a visible "slap" event where the arrowhead skidded on the rib bones. There were a couple that wobbled a bit then penetrated at least to the far ribs. Half got the head out the far side, and one was just hanging by the fletching. 

I remember there was more than a 20% failure rate to get to killing depth. Not something I wanted to bet on with a Cape Buffalo involved. So when I got home I designed some custom broadheads had then CNC machined, and put them on the lightest arrows I could get with a stiff spine. Gold Tip Kinetic Big Game Pro 200s. The 400 grain combination of head plus stainless steel insert gave me a 27% FoC if I remember right. Total weight was 760 grains. I tested many of those arrows and heads to destruction on bones, boards, even angle iron. I posted all that development here and on other hunting sites. In 2012 I used those arrows to take a Cape Buffalo in Tanzania, and a grizzly bear in Alaska. Both with no drama. 

The arrow entered the cape buffalo on the nearside back ribs and exited behind the shoulder on the far side. The buff made it 15 yards, stopped, staggered and died.

The grizzly ran about 65 yards after the first shot, and stopped facing away from me. The second arrow entered just to the left of the root of the tail, broke the pelvis and penetrated the full length of the bear, coming to rest against the hide on the chest after penetrating the sternum. The bear ran about another 50 yards and died. There's a really crappy video of this on youtube somewhere.

All of my experience in hunting and testing makes me a firm believer in high FoC arrows when it really matters. Big, nasty critters with ribs the size of whitetail doe leg bones will make a believer out of you all, too. If you live long enough to learn from your mistakes. 

This is my last post on this forum. I am too old to suffer fools gladly. Adios, all, and good hunting.


----------



## PSUHunter89 (Aug 20, 2012)

Someone has to have a crappy above ground pool they hate. Fill the entire pool with jello (very slippery like guts but delicious) and shoot through the side of the pool to simulate the bone breach. You can shoot 1000 arrows and never worry about hitting an open channel.


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

Inn.Outdoorsman said:


> The people watching is super entertaining in this thread. Some of the comments are fantastic for their entertainment value.


Like this one.



PSUHunter89 said:


> Someone has to have a crappy above ground pool they hate. Fill the entire pool with jello (very slippery like guts but delicious)


without this thread we would never gave gotten to enjoy gems like that. While the OP did not intend it, his thread actually did serve as valuable from entertainment alone which is good since his intended reason fell flat.


----------



## Flatwoodshunter (Feb 3, 2013)

This test is just as good or better than any other test. It shows how far arrows with different FOC will penetrate ballistic gel. You have to be smart enough to realize an arrow that penetrates ballistic gel better will also penetrate other things better like live animals and bone.


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

And gems like that. :wink:



Flatwoodshunter said:


> You have to be smart enough to realize an arrow that penetrates ballistic gel better will also penetrate other things better like live animals and bone.


Gel = bone


----------



## GeorgiaCowboy (Nov 26, 2017)

High FOC helps with fixed blade broadheads right? Because the more something weighs the more energy it takes to move it. So the ratio of front weight to back weight... The front won't try to move as much/quickly with high FOC and the fletchings in the back will help keep the arrow on it's course if it does try to move. As to compared to an arrow weighing the same with less FOC


----------



## GeorgiaCowboy (Nov 26, 2017)

I never thought FOC helped with penetration. Weight and mass don't change. Just where the majority of it is located. If it was all in the back I guess it could cause an unstabilized arrow to flex as it was entering it's target, effecting penetration but that's it.


----------



## leterflyagain (Jul 30, 2011)

Why did he secure the gel and ladder?? So it wouldn't move thus stealing energy!

So let's apply this same principle to the arrow. If the majority of the weight is closer to th front of the arrow, then less of the arrow shaft will absorb the energy and more of the target will. 

Think about it... let's just go extreme reverse here and say we have an arrow with 24% b.o.c. (back of center).... upon impact the shaft will surely flex to some degree more robbing impact energy.

In theory if the arrow was a completely solid object that couldn't flex (absorb) then no it wouldn't matter. 

Apologies if this has been covered. And frankly I don't worry much about foc personally.


----------



## leterflyagain (Jul 30, 2011)

Ok so let's look at the ladder posted in the video.
The ladder has a HUGE foc with concrete blocks placed at the front or impact side of the ladder. 

Same deal with arrows. Less wasted imact energy


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

nestly said:


> I'm not on board with the person you quoted, but I will add this regarding flex.
> 
> Arrows are accelerated from the nock end. All else being equal, the greater the percentage of weight is toward the front, the more the shaft will flex during acceleration.
> Arrows are decelerated from the point end. All else being equal, the greater the percentage of weight is toward the rear, the more the shaft will flex during deceleration.
> ...


^ good post....and good points


----------



## bowhunter 28 (Jul 25, 2011)

https://www.goldtip.com/Resources/Calculators/FOC-Calculator.aspx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## whereemout (Mar 25, 2010)

Hidden Danger said:


> A slight increase in mass will out penetrate a slight increase in velocity. An arrow that gains it's momentum from velocity will shed it's momentum value at a higher rate than one that gains it's momentum from mass.


While that is true but it will most likely occur beyond our shooting ( competent shooting) distances. Therefore its a mute point. I view it as a drag race not an endurence indy 500 race. May as well repeat that both arrows shot at same time at an equal plane will hit the ground at the same time, but the faster one will have traveled farther in the same amount of time. Ill take speed over mass any day and keep my 75/85gr heads. I try to keep the rear end of the arrow as light as i can to help out my foc.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

When is penetration an issue? when you hit bone. is penetrating bone the same as penetrating ballistic gel? Hopefully the glacier you can do the same test on something that's a little more solid maybe like plywood and see what happens. I think that's what Tesla would do.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## conquestador (Mar 28, 2010)

I read the first pages of this thread a few days ago. I haven't read any more so if this has been brought up accept my apology. First, thanks for the time and effort put into this and sharing your findings. It got me thinking. In the vid, you stated that you were using balistic jel not real animals. Point taken. Consider these points. Your bow and shooting has to be in the first percentile with regard to being in tune and shooting bullet holes with bare shafts as well as vanes. Therefore, a force vector analysis would verify the results that you got because all of the force is going smack dab down the middle of all of your arrows. There is no varience from one arrow to the next. No wobble, no nonsense.

So what happens when there are variables induced like erratic arrow flight, movement of the target and diffferent densities and obstacles (bones) of the target as well as arrow deflection due to the previously mentioned variables? I think the results would be subtantially different.


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

plecavalier said:


> bowshootn70 said:
> 
> 
> > Someone is upset. Naysayers always yell "PROVE IT". So what exactly would this said proof look like?
> ...


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Beendare said:


> plecavalier said:
> 
> 
> > Paraphrased Erics post....and playing devils advocate here, I've heard the EFFECT of and arrow with the spine moved forward explained differently with the advantage in "whippiness" (scientific term- grin) going to the lower FOC arrows.
> ...


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

im pretty sure something as simple as not strapping the gel down would show benefits of FoC. or a target allowed to freely spin, like an rhinehart 18-1. hang from a single piece of string. allow for it to stop moving completely, then shoot the outside edge so the target can spin.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

jaximus said:


> im pretty sure something as simple as not strapping the gel down would show benefits of FoC. or a target allowed to freely spin, like an rhinehart 18-1. hang from a single piece of string. allow for it to stop moving completely, then shoot the outside edge so the target can spin.


That may be true. Pretty easily tested to.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

gel was not clamped/strapped or otherwise compressed in the first test....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_WkcUzIMZM


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

lots of concepts going on here, which is good. but sometimes that is hard to understand. so, ill play with real numbers. 

my arrows weigh 475gr. 100gr heads, 100gr brass inserts. 27" of carbon, 8.9gpi. gold tip xt hunter 340. the tip of the broadhead to the back end of the insert is 2". there are 1.125" of carbon from the shoulder of the insert to the back end of the insert, weighing 10gr. so, no matter what theory subscribed to, it is 100% fact that when my arrow penetrates 2" into any media, there are 210grs inside that media, 44% of total arrow weight (210/475). 

that same 8.9gpi arrow with the standard aluminum insert(12gr) and a 3gpi weight tube cut at 25.625 (27" carbon -.75(insert) and -.625(nock)) at 2" of penetration with my same 100gr field point would have 1.375" of carbon for 12gr, .625" of weight tube for 1.875gr, for a total of 126gr, 27% (126/464)

now 44% vs 27% may not sound like much difference to some, but lets keep going until we reach 50% of the arrow weight inside the target...
475/2=237.5, subtract the 210 and get 27.5, divide that by gpi, and 3" more penetration gets to 50% of arrow weight. 5" to get 50%
464/2=232-126=106/(8.9+3)=8.9 more inches of penetration to reach 50%, total penetration 10.9" for 50%

now what does that mean, in terms of real world application. lets talk force vectors! say both arrows encounter a bone or anything to redirect the arrow/glances off a rib/muscle flexes/deer spins/doesnt matter. but when the arrow is redirected in any way, the mass is no longer on the same force vector as originally launched from the bow. this redirection robs energy/momentum from the arrow. 

we all know how important tuning a bow is to ensure the bow imparts maximum energy to the arrow. we want the arrow perfectly aligned with the power stroke. that the exact same principle we want on the other end, whne an arrow strikes a target. foam/gel accept the arrow prefectly in its powerstroke, so mass in that test is all that matters. when an arrow flexes or is redirected, where that mass is, matters. noone would intentionally shoot an arrow from a bow that was 1/4" off of centershot. but a 1/4" of deflection from a rib or leg bone is very common.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

more weight in front, means its harder to redirect the front of the arrow. less redirection means it stays closer to the original force vector. less deviation means more retained energy. the actual equations for this with relation to inertia, momemtum, frational force vectors, resistance are waaaaaaay beyond me, but the principle is that more mass takes more energy to move it. so two arrows with the same total mass, but a different mass distribution, would react differently to a outside force application at different points along the arrow. since the tip strikes first and guides the entire arrow system, thats where i want my majority of mass so physics is on my side. 

i think we are also losing sight of some of what ashby was trying to strive toward. he wanted to GUARANTEE lethal penetration on giant animals. 650gr plus arrows and 'small' single bevel heads gave him the most reliable lethal results. he would never say that a light arrow with a big mech couldnt kill something on a prefect shot, but he would say that on a bad shot it may leave you with a non lethal injury. 

prepare for the worst case scenario and shoot for the best one.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

nestly said:


> gel was not clamped/strapped or otherwise compressed in the first test....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_WkcUzIMZM


gel was against a foam block not allowing it to move freely and the foam stopped the arrows. that was already discussed in the other thread


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

arrows are imparted with a finite amount of energy once it leaves the bow in a given direction. a force vector. any devation from that trajectory results in a loss(change) of energy. the more severe the deviation, the more energy lost(changed). some energy can be lost(changed) by vanes needing to correct arrow flight. most of the energy that is sacrificed from the arrow is at impact with a target. since nature loves smooth and round things, you will rarely ever strike a flat target at a plane that is perpendicular to arrow flight. this means that there will likely be an immediate dissipation of some energy due to impulse of impact deflection. 

when an arrow deviates from the initial trajectory, it retains a percentage of the energy it had at the time of deviation. since mass resists change, inertia, more frontal mass assists in energy retention as it suffers less deviation from a given redirectional force.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

jaximus said:


> gel was against a foam block not allowing it to move freely and the foam stopped the arrows. that was already discussed in the other thread


Concerns about the foam behind the gel skewing the results seemed to be unfounded based on the 2nd test where there was nothing behind the gel block. Now the complaint is the strap must have unfaiirly resisted only the higher FOC arrow. A block of gel is never going to be able to move freely.. it's heavy and not particularly slippery. It's unreasonable to expect the gel block to have no resistance to movement, and equally unreasonable to expect either test favored one FOC configuration over the other. I believe the term is "sour grapes"

I just pushed a toothpick through two Gummy bears, one being held loosely and the other squeezed tightly between my fingers.... results were inconclusive.


----------



## COArrow (Nov 24, 2013)

nestly said:


> Concerns about the foam behind the gel skewing the results seemed to be unfounded based on the 2nd test where there was nothing behind the gel block. Now the complaint is the strap must have unfaiirly resisted only the higher FOC arrow. A block of gel is never going to be able to move freely.. it's heavy and not particularly slippery. It's unreasonable to expect the gel block to have no resistance to movement, and equally unreasonable to expect either test favored one FOC configuration over the other. I believe the term is "sour grapes"
> 
> I just pushed a toothpick through two Gummy bears, one being held loosely and the other squeezed tightly between my fingers.... results were inconclusive.


Your gummy bear test has as much or more merit than standard AT testing


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

plecavalier said:


> Beendare said:
> 
> 
> > Now Time of Impulse(ToI) is very abstract and not easily explained, at least for me, in writing. But here goes... I've had it explained as a pole vault but the problem there is although there actually is varying stiffness to a pole the forces are absolutely not the same.
> ...


----------



## Ferro (Sep 25, 2015)

Good stuff


----------



## loujo61 (Apr 29, 2005)

I shoot an Elite bow that bare shaft tunes horrible, I have a 31" draw and the cams lean at full draw so it's not pushing that arrow out of there straight. Blazers in back and 100 gr 1 1/2" expandable BH up front (10% FOC) and this arrow @390grs (350 spine) breaks whitetail ribs and shoulder bones on the way in and on the way out at 280fps. It works so why fix it?


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

MightyElkHntr said:


> Hey GuntherChaconne, wouldn't strapping the ballistic gel down cause a compression at the point of the strap, making the material more dense? I haven't had the privilege of working with ballistic gel, so just asking.


I only strapped it down tight enough so that it wouldn't move. I also sandwiched it with cardboard to distribute the pressure more evenly throughout the block. 

Movement of the block on impact would be detrimental to the test. And it would have moved. Those arrows weigh 600 grains, they hit like a hammer.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Don_Go said:


> I have seen evidence of better penetration with high FoC through the rib cage of a cape buffalo. In 2006 I killed a cape buffalo with a 416 Rem Mag, rolled it onto it's side then shot it 18 times with a set of "standard FoC" arrow weighing almost 800 grains. Several of the arrows failed to penetrate to killing depth, they all had a visible "slap" event where the arrowhead skidded on the rib bones. There were a couple that wobbled a bit then penetrated at least to the far ribs. Half got the head out the far side, and one was just hanging by the fletching.
> 
> I remember there was more than a 20% failure rate to get to killing depth. Not something I wanted to bet on with a Cape Buffalo involved. So when I got home I designed some custom broadheads had then CNC machined, and put them on the lightest arrows I could get with a stiff spine. Gold Tip Kinetic Big Game Pro 200s. The 400 grain combination of head plus stainless steel insert gave me a 27% FoC if I remember right. Total weight was 760 grains. I tested many of those arrows and heads to destruction on bones, boards, even angle iron. I posted all that development here and on other hunting sites. In 2012 I used those arrows to take a Cape Buffalo in Tanzania, and a grizzly bear in Alaska. Both with no drama.
> 
> ...


When this man speaks you should all be listening. Don thanks for your testing back in 2012. I learned a lot from what you did. Bravo! It’s a ****in shame that so many clueless trolls on this forum and in this thread push people like you away from here but I get it and have done the same thing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Norma S Racks said:


> da glacier really opened up a can of worms on this one.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Booyah! Lol


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

plecavalier said:


> bowshootn70 said:
> 
> 
> > enewman said:
> ...


----------



## newbowthunder (Jan 21, 2012)

nestly said:


> Concerns about the foam behind the gel skewing the results seemed to be unfounded based on the 2nd test where there was nothing behind the gel block. Now the complaint is the strap must have unfaiirly resisted only the higher FOC arrow. A block of gel is never going to be able to move freely.. it's heavy and not particularly slippery. It's unreasonable to expect the gel block to have no resistance to movement, and equally unreasonable to expect either test favored one FOC configuration over the other. I believe the term is "sour grapes"
> 
> I just pushed a toothpick through two Gummy bears, one being held loosely and the other squeezed tightly between my fingers.... results were inconclusive.


Lmao

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Beendare said:


> plecavalier said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I think I get what you are saying.....and I will take a look at your link- thx. The physics of a lever arm i get....but does it really indicate more tail end bend on contact? Sure we can take a drastic example of weight backward...which should create more bend but we are talking avg foc vs efoc- is that a measurable factor? Could it possibly be like a big BH vs a small BH in flight where the coefficient of friction difference is too small to measure...and doesn't affect an arrows flight that much anyway? [Woody from Magnus proved this a non factor with a Youtube vid shooting Stingers vs FP's at 100yds]
> ...


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

13 Pages.....

Gettem' Josh


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

loujo61 said:


> I shoot an Elite bow that bare shaft tunes horrible, I have a 31" draw and the cams lean at full draw so it's not pushing that arrow out of there straight. Blazers in back and 100 gr 1 1/2" expandable BH up front (10% FOC) and this arrow @390grs (350 spine) breaks whitetail ribs and shoulder bones on the way in and on the way out at 280fps. It works so why fix it?


Because it will fail you. You say all these things you know are wrong and you don't correct them? So you want to wait until you wound an animal to "make it right".

Cam lean = shim kit
Heavy back = switch to feathers (rayzrs are great)

Those are two really easy changes that will improve your quality of flight. At least fix the cam lean so your arrow leaves the bow straight!


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

GuntherChaconne said:


> plecavalier said:
> 
> 
> > Your tests are crap. Oh... wait a minute, you didn't do any tests.
> ...


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Inn.Outdoorsman said:


> scottieoutwest said:
> 
> 
> > All these tests prove nothing. They are all using friction as the method of stopping the arrows. When hunting, friction has very little to do with stopping penetration. Animals are filled with lubricant and ballistic gel is not. What stops a proper flying arrow in animals is most often hitting bone. Hitting bone sends a shockwave (it bends the arrow) through the arrow. That's where arrow ballance becomes a factor as it's no longer focusing all it's energy on the point of the broadhead. The further away from the point you go the further from center the mass becomes. This distance reduces efficiency greatly. Having more mass closer to the point reduces efficiency loss.
> ...


^^^SOCIALLY AWKWARD COMMENT ALERT!!!

This gentlemen failed to understand my very obvious joke about the cardboard simulating the bone breach.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

scottieoutwest said:


> All these tests prove nothing. They are all using friction as the method of stopping the arrows. When hunting, friction has very little to do with stopping penetration. Animals are filled with lubricant and ballistic gel is not. What stops a proper flying arrow in animals is most often hitting bone. Hitting bone sends a shockwave (it bends the arrow) through the arrow. That's where arrow ballance becomes a factor as it's no longer focusing all it's energy on the point of the broadhead. The further away from the point you go the further from center the mass becomes. This distance reduces efficiency greatly. Having more mass closer to the point reduces efficiency loss.
> 
> Now, if I'm hunting cardboard and ballistic gel animals I'll be sure to put this information to good use.


Ballistic Gel is literally made of the same stuff that animals are. That's why the FBI uses it to test bullet impact and penetration. Obviously there are no bones, but the bone breach simulations will be coming along shortly.


----------



## loujo61 (Apr 29, 2005)

plecavalier said:


> Because it will fail you. You say all these things you know are wrong and you don't correct them? So you want to wait until you wound an animal to "make it right".
> 
> Cam lean = shim kit
> Heavy back = switch to feathers (rayzrs are great)
> ...


I shimmed it and it's as right as I can make it. That arrow works perfectly in the ribs of a whitetail. The Blazers correct the arrow quickly.


----------



## Bwill (Mar 2, 2013)

Great test medium. Ballistics gel is a true trophy! What a disgraceful test. Dr Ashby has spent years giving bowhunters information on building the most efficient equipment. And you believe you have destroyed his results with an elementary test!? Throw some high MA broadheads on both arrows and try again.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

GuntherChaconne said:


> Ballistic Gel is literally made of the same stuff that animals are. That's why the FBI uses it to test bullet impact and penetration. Obviously there are no bones, but the bone breach simulations will be coming along shortly.


So it’s made of meat, blood, guts, cool. Haha. Just kidding 


Gunther. 

I don’t see we need bone or anything. Let’s look at this. If foc truly works. Then it’s all about impact flex. This means you need something that will give a large amount of resistance on impact. Or this is how I see it. It could be cardboard layered up. I don’t know. The card board in front of sand is how I’m drawing it up. But I’m few weeks at least. Working six days a week right now. So Sunday’s are for family and rest.


----------



## OxMan80 (Jan 25, 2015)

Bottom line you cannot test the effects of FOC on penetration on a STATIC target. Please stop trying unless you actually go study and apply some real physics. PS before someone says "You're not supposed to shoot moving deer!" even if the deer is stopped a large majority of the time it will react to the shot, and is in motion when the arrow strikes. Even if it's just mid drop before it jumps. Now whether with the power offered by modern bows the Ashby reports still applies is up for debate. I'd say if you're shooting a stick bow of any kind it does.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

You're going to have to have somebody stand on the roof or get up a tree and drop the ballistic gel and then shoot it on the way down. This whole thing is taking the direction of a Bud Light commercial.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## PSUHunter89 (Aug 20, 2012)

As Ive stated 5 times in this post I am completely confident in saying HIGH FOC arrows will give you an in-measurable advantage over an arrow of the same weight with modern equipment, but if we must continue.. What about a cheap 1/4" -1/2" plastic cutting board about a 1" inside of the ballistic gel? Uniform and would provide enough arrow flex to really get HIGH FOC guys motor runnin. Being that you would be shooting through the cutting board is there a way to tone down the stopping power of the gel for all the guys who's feelings get hurt because the gel isnt like guts?


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

OxMan80 said:


> Bottom line you cannot test the effects of FOC on penetration on a STATIC target. Please stop trying unless you actually go study and apply some real physics. PS before someone says "You're not supposed to shoot moving deer!" even if the deer is stopped a large majority of the time it will react to the shot, and is in motion when the arrow strikes. Even if it's just mid drop before it jumps. Now whether with the power offered by modern bows the Ashby reports still applies is up for debate. I'd say if you're shooting a stick bow of any kind it does.



Foc improves by mass on front. More concentrated to one area. And impact flex. Impact flex can also be done with spine of shaft. So you should be able to build a static target of some sort. You only need resistance to see this. I’m just guessing but the penetration may only be a little not a major difference. At that point people will have to understand that and what the test showed.


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

PSUHunter89 said:


> As Ive stated 5 times in this post I am completely confident in saying HIGH FOC arrows will give you an in-measurable advantage over an arrow of the same weight with modern equipment, but if we must continue.. What about a cheap 1/4" -1/2" plastic cutting board about a 1" inside of the ballistic gel? Uniform and would provide enough arrow flex to really get HIGH FOC guys motor runnin. Being that you would be shooting through the cutting board is there a way to tone down the stopping power of the gel for all the guys who's feelings get hurt because the gel isnt like guts?


A really smart guy suggested this way back before the youtuber ever did his first "test" or video. That really smart guy suggested 1/4" ply or 3/8" drywall and other common things that would result in him performing his first experiment that would actually have some value. (thus far his experiments have not)

The youtuber has his mind made up. He has declared his experiment conclusive so at this point, anything he does will be to prove he is right or to support his conclusions so his further "experiments" will be suspect and not to be trusted as they will be done to achieve an outcome that supports his earlier conclusions meaning he is no longer an honest broker is this matter. He is no longer unbiased. He will no doubt claim otherwise. It will fall on deaf ears.


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

nestly said:


> I'm not on board with the person you quoted, but I will add this regarding flex.
> 
> Arrows are accelerated from the nock end. All else being equal, the greater the percentage of weight is toward the front, the more the shaft will flex during acceleration.
> Arrows are decelerated from the point end. All else being equal, the greater the percentage of weight is toward the rear, the more the shaft will flex during deceleration.
> ...


Correctto,,,and he's talking about everyday average foc. I believe nestly and I on the same like, me just like him has never said foc was meaningless, my only thing with foc is how high you go meaningless or actually helpful lol. Everyone I know runs some percentage of foc, just not 20-30% because it's never been shown that that high of foc is beneficial.


----------



## Swampwise (Sep 2, 2015)

I guess I'm too simple. I tuned first bow to recommended arrows and hunted. Wasn't satisfied with not getting 100% pass thrus so bought more arrows(stiffer and heavier) and heavier inserts and fact weights and hunted. Now getting somewhere but did observe targets still reacting to shot. Continued adding weight to arrows to quieten bow but not happy with trajectory. Bought new bow more arrows stiffer and heavier tuned bow and killed stuff. Much better but continued to tinker. Added cat whiskers and hunted. Ended up with arrows from 500 to 650 grains with foc from 14 - 20% and they work great. Pass throughs a non issue but the deer and hog reactions at the shot was my goal. If deer stop on there on no reactions to shot. Bow makes a quiet puff at the shot and much more comfortable taking longer shots. The heaviest are my go to hog arrows because I don't worry about the perfect slightly quartering away shot with them. Foc is higher with the heaviest of couse but the 14% foc arrows work great also just more picky with shot. My goal was arrow flight of course but target reaction to shot sound and getting a quick kill. I've had a large sow turn and move back toward bait after blowing a Magnus stinger completely through her before falling over. I've seen 2 deer flinch and hop but not run maybe 20 - 30 yards and look around before falling over. Did foc help you bet. Did arrow mass help you bet. Which is better who cares they both work at quietening the shot which I feel is most important as long as target doesn't know you are there. This I learned from this sight and experimenting. I guess if I was hunting grizzly or huge dangerous game I would focus in a different way and my guess I would probably end up close to where I'm at now, but would start with heavier broadheads and foc would work itself out by the results of tuning and killing. In my short time bowhunting and application of what I've learned, which is nowhere near most of you folks, I feel foc would be higher than normal. Don't post a lot on here mostly just troll I think it's called but hey what the hell.


----------



## 3D Pinwheeler (Jan 29, 2007)

Swampwise said:


> I guess I'm too simple. I tuned first bow to recommended arrows and hunted. Wasn't satisfied with not getting 100% pass thrus so bought more arrows(stiffer and heavier) and heavier inserts and fact weights and hunted. Now getting somewhere but did observe targets still reacting to shot. Continued adding weight to arrows to quieten bow but not happy with trajectory. Bought new bow more arrows stiffer and heavier tuned bow and killed stuff. Much better but continued to tinker. Added cat whiskers and hunted. Ended up with arrows from 500 to 650 grains with foc from 14 - 20% and they work great. Pass throughs a non issue but the deer and hog reactions at the shot was my goal. If deer stop on there on no reactions to shot. Bow makes a quiet puff at the shot and much more comfortable taking longer shots. The heaviest are my go to hog arrows because I don't worry about the perfect slightly quartering away shot with them. Foc is higher with the heaviest of couse but the 14% foc arrows work great also just more picky with shot. My goal was arrow flight of course but target reaction to shot sound and getting a quick kill. I've had a large sow turn and move back toward bait after blowing a Magnus stinger completely through her before falling over. I've seen 2 deer flinch and hop but not run maybe 20 - 30 yards and look around before falling over. Did foc help you bet. Did arrow mass help you bet. Which is better who cares they both work at quietening the shot which I feel is most important as long as target doesn't know you are there. This I learned from this sight and experimenting. I guess if I was hunting grizzly or huge dangerous game I would focus in a different way and my guess I would probably end up close to where I'm at now, but would start with heavier broadheads and foc would work itself out by the results of tuning and killing. In my short time bowhunting and application of what I've learned, which is nowhere near most of you folks, I feel foc would be higher than normal. Don't post a lot on here mostly just troll I think it's called but hey what the hell.


Good post....Your a lurker...trolls stir the pot for reaction


----------



## Swampwise (Sep 2, 2015)

AHA lurker it is.


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

GuntherChaconne said:


> ^^^SOCIALLY AWKWARD COMMENT ALERT!!!
> 
> This gentlemen failed to understand my very obvious joke about the cardboard simulating the bone breach.


LOL the pause and the look at the camera for the cardboard(bone)..... I died laughing but came back just to keep reading this Thread....


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

bowshootn70 said:


> Correctto,,,and he's talking about everyday average foc. I believe nestly and I on the same like, me just like him has never said foc was meaningless, my only thing with foc is how high you go meaningless or actually helpful lol. Everyone I know runs some percentage of foc, just not 20-30% because it's never been shown that that high of foc is beneficial.


Right... never suggested that mass and/or FOC can't improve penetration, only that most don't need the amount of penetration needed on the very large test animals that were the basis for most of the FOC/Mass recommendations pushed by Ashby followers.
I would hope that everyone would agree that mass and/or FOC is a complete non-issue in success rate when hunting squirrels with a bow, but realistically what's the difference between killing a squirrel with an arrow and killing a cape buffalo with an arrow other other than body size? So if you need less FOC/Mass on squirrel than a buffalo, then why is it also not true deer require less FOC/Mass than buffalo since the significant difference is again body size? Ashby's testing was on very large animals where bows and arrows (especially recurve bows) are marginally effective under the best conditions and I'm taking nothing away from him for trying to find what provides the highest probability of success in that situation. But that's just not the same situation that most hunting deer are in. A modern compound bow will deliver a wide range of arrow configurations that all have energy to spare on deer sized animals. If the recommendations for water buffalo are 650 grains and 30% FOC with a recurve (or whatever other number they may be) then surely, those numbers have to less as the relative body size of the animal becomes smaller. This is the same reason gun hunters do not use the same calibers and bullet configurations for hunting deer as they use for dangerous African game, that amount of energy/penetrations is simply not necessary, and in most cases, those very large calibers and heavy bullets would be less effective on deer sized game than smaller/lighter bullets with higher velocity. 

For those who want/need maximum penetration, build your arrows accordingly, but there is no water buffalo season in Pennsylvania and I don't hunt with a recurve, so I'm going to continue to build an arrow that's appropriate for the type of hunting I do and the type of game I hunt. Others would be wise to do the same, and fortunately most do.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

nestly said:


> Right... never suggested that mass and/or FOC can't improve penetration, only that most don't need the amount of penetration needed on the very large test animals that were the basis for most of the FOC/Mass recommendations pushed by Ashby followers.
> I would hope that everyone would agree that mass and/or FOC is a complete non-issue in success rate when hunting squirrels with a bow, but realistically what's the difference between killing a squirrel with an arrow and killing a cape buffalo with an arrow other other than body size? So if you need less FOC/Mass on squirrel than a buffalo, then why is it also not true deer require less FOC/Mass than buffalo since the significant difference is again body size? Ashby's testing was on very large animals where bows and arrows (especially recurve bows) are marginally effective under the best conditions. That's just not the case for hunting deer. A modern compound bow will deliver a wide range of arrow configurations that all have energy to spare on deer sized animals. If the recommendations for water buffalo are 650 grains and 30% FOC with a recurve (or whatever other number they may be) then surely, those numbers have to less as the relative body size of the animal becomes smaller. This is the same reason gun hunters do not use the same calibers and bullet configurations for hunting deer as they use for dangerous African game, that amount of energy/penetrations is simply not necessary, and in most cases, those very large calibers and heavy bullets would be less effective on deer sized game than smaller/lighter bullets with higher velocity.
> 
> For those who want/need maximum penetration, build your arrows accordingly, but there is no water buffalo season in Pennsylvania and I don't hunt with a recurve, so I'm going to continue to build an arrow that's appropriate for the type of hunting I do, and the type of game I hunt. Others would be wise to do the same, and fortunately they do.


10-4 but how do you explain the amount of animals wounded and not tecover to a severe lack of penetration?

I keep saying this over and over; Ashby's report is not just about FOC and mass. #1 is structural integrity and #2 is quality of flight. If you're 400gr arrow doesn't break and flies good(straight) then you won't be the one wounding the deer because you only have 7% FoC. Nobody on Ashby's side ever claimed that.

However, there is a benefit to FoC. Whether it's subtle or not that imo is yet to be properly proven but it ain't easy hunting with a bow so to me, logically, why not put every benefit to your advantage? So whether you want to take the time to truly understand all this or simply take it for granted and do due diligence to ensure you can place a check mark on that list of 12 factors doesn't matter. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that either. But again, if you think you're going to put a simple video together shooting a couple arrows in some gel and say "there to go, I proved it" that's plain ridiculous. For one, it's not nearly that simple and two, all these jokes and sarcastic looks and comments, how is one to take it seriously? I certainly don't. Yeah time was spent but imo it was in vein because it's simply not serious and all you did was come across as a troll looking to have a good time.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

plecavalier said:


> 10-4 but how do you explain the amount of animals wounded and not tecover to a severe lack of penetration?


Pretty much the same way I would explain the amount of wounded animals not recovered due to being gut shot. 
I don't have any reason to believe hunters miss "front" more often than "back" therefore for every argument that can be made in favor of heavier arrows with greater FOC in the event of hit that hits something hard enough to stop a "normal" arrow from reaching the vitals, there is an offsetting argument in favor of large expandable broadheads in the event the arrow hits the guts (or most anywhere other than a leg/shoulder)


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

plecavalier said:


> if you think you're going to put a simple video together shooting a couple arrows in some gel and say "there to go, I proved it" that's plain ridiculous. For one, it's not nearly that simple and two, all these jokes and sarcastic looks and comments, how is one to take it seriously? I certainly don't. Yeah time was spent but imo it was in vein because it's simply not serious and all you did was come across as a troll looking to have a good time.


Correct. The youtuber is now a running joke, not to be taken seriously. He was looking for attention. He begged folks to like him and to subscribe to him. sadly some are falling for it. As it relates to substantive value regarding arrow penetration, his videos are as useful as the "ay" on "okay". Actually they have now been exposed to serve as a bad example or a way NOT to conduct experiments or arrive at a conclusion of substance. (or how NOT to release your "findings")


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

plecavalier said:


> ......But again, if you think you're going to put a simple video together shooting a couple arrows in some gel and say "there to go, I proved it" that's plain ridiculous. For one, it's not nearly that simple and two, all these jokes and sarcastic looks and comments, how is one to take it seriously? I certainly don't. Yeah time was spent but imo it was in vein because it's simply not serious and all you did was come across as a troll looking to have a good time.


With regard to your grievance with Josh/the video. How long has that person been testing? How accurate do you think Ashby's tests were in that same amount of time? Josh may have gotten a bit presumptive about the results as he observed them live, but IMO he's certainly tempered them appropriately in the time afterward. IMO, he's been very accommodating with regards to reasonable suggestions about how to improve the tests, and he's said he has more tests planned to make the test medium more representative of shooting animals. 

Yes, he's an entertainer, yes he's jabbed back at those who have jabbed at him, but that does not invalidate his tests, which do IMO "debunk" a lot of what's been said about FOC, even if it's not a direct rebuttal of Ashby.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Inn.Outdoorsman said:


> Correct. The youtuber is now a running joke, not to be taken seriously. He was looking for attention.


That's certainly one way to look at it... another way to look at it is that you've made yourself into a running joke and are desperate for attention. I'm satisfied to let the viewers decide, you apparently are not so confident, thus the constant personal attacks in hopes of discrediting those with whom you do not agree.


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

I disagree. No personal attacks have been made. You can try to invent or manufacture that if you wish. Im cool with you living in a fantasy world. :wink:

I think this thread will serve as an education to the youtuber to slow his roll and to try and actually produce videos with substance and merit rather than the content he is producing thus far. I think he stands to learn the most in all this based on the comments made trying to educate him.


----------



## Bullhound (Feb 5, 2004)

nestly said:


> That's certainly one way to look at it... another way to look at it is that you've made yourself into a running joke and are desperate for attention.... I'm satisfied to let the viewers decide, you apparently are not and have dedicates much time to telling others how they should think about all of this.


nestly, you could not possibly have said it better here.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

nestly said:


> Right... never suggested that mass and/or FOC can't improve penetration, only that most don't need the amount of penetration needed on the very large test animals that were the basis for most of the FOC/Mass recommendations pushed by Ashby followers.
> I would hope that everyone would agree that mass and/or FOC is a complete non-issue in success rate when hunting squirrels with a bow, but realistically what's the difference between killing a squirrel with an arrow and killing a cape buffalo with an arrow other other than body size? So if you need less FOC/Mass on squirrel than a buffalo, then why is it also not true deer require less FOC/Mass than buffalo since the significant difference is again body size? Ashby's testing was on very large animals where bows and arrows (especially recurve bows) are marginally effective under the best conditions and I'm taking nothing away from him for trying to find what provides the highest probability of success in that situation. But that's just not the same situation that most hunting deer are in. A modern compound bow will deliver a wide range of arrow configurations that all have energy to spare on deer sized animals. If the recommendations for water buffalo are 650 grains and 30% FOC with a recurve (or whatever other number they may be) then surely, those numbers have to less as the relative body size of the animal becomes smaller. This is the same reason gun hunters do not use the same calibers and bullet configurations for hunting deer as they use for dangerous African game, that amount of energy/penetrations is simply not necessary, and in most cases, those very large calibers and heavy bullets would be less effective on deer sized game than smaller/lighter bullets with higher velocity.
> 
> For those who want/need maximum penetration, build your arrows accordingly, but there is no water buffalo season in Pennsylvania and I don't hunt with a recurve, so I'm going to continue to build an arrow that's appropriate for the type of hunting I do and the type of game I hunt. Others would be wise to do the same, and fortunately most do.


So your complaint is Where you hunt you only get to shoot deer and this is why you have a problem with ashby hahahahaha. I know I have and several others on this post and the other ones have told you 

YOU DO NOT NEED A VERY HEAVY OR EFOC ARROWS TO KILL DEER. 

what I have seen in all of these post. Everyone wants to debunk ashby. They have yet to do it. So because ya cannot. All you want to say is we don’t need it for deer hahahahahahaahhhaa

Tail chaser started another post and posted he could prove it all wrong with physics. That post is another very long post. He never came out and posted a single thing in physics to prove it wrong. 


Us ashby followers as you call us ALL KNOW THIS. It seems to me atleast, you are the one with the problem not us. As all you can do is repeat the same damn thing. Again WE ASHBY FOLLOWERS ALL KNOW YOU DONT NEED A 650 19% FOC ARROW TO KILL DEER. 

Ashby follows know that a person with a 30 in draw vs a 26 in draw cannot get the same outcome. 

Ashby followers know that there is a differents in a recurve and a compound. But once the arrow has left what ever bow your shooting that arrow physics are about the same. Please don’t come in and try to explain all the flex and paradox and all of that crap and that’s why there’s a difference. We know this to. 

Ashby followers try to help people get to the most potential they can have and help if things go bad. That is is. And I don’t care as most others do not care if that is a 400 gr arrow a 500 gr arrow or what ever. 

But your arguments are horrible. You keep repeating I don’t need this all I hunt is whitetail. Hahahahaha I’m sure you watch tv. Maybe you need to go help them so that there 400 gr arrow that you claim is all we need for whitetail with the crappy penetration they get. 

You keep coming on and saying we need to prove it. NO WE DONT WE ALL READY HAVE. again watch the tv shows. They all prove everyday that light arrows do not work. 

nestly. I have always looked at your post and the testing you have done and followed it. I think you do very well. But this crap here. HAs showed me you still have the lack of understanding what ashby was about and what us ashby kool aid drinkers are about. 

We are all about building a good arrow for the animal We are hunting. Nothing more nothing less.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

enewman said:


> So your complaint is Where you hunt you only get to shoot deer and this is why you have a problem with ashby


I read no further into your message because your understanding of my position on these matters is apparently still incorrect.

I don't have a problem with Ashby... I have a problem with those who try to convince others that Ashby's findings are more relevant than the findings of others that have far more experience than Ashby shooting at medium sized non-african game using compound bows.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

nestly said:


> Pretty much the same way I would explain the amount of wounded animals not recovered due to being gut shot.
> I don't have any reason to believe hunters miss "front" more often than "back" therefore for every argument that can be made in favor of heavier arrows with greater FOC in the event of hit that hits something hard enough to stop a "normal" arrow from reaching the vitals, there is an offsetting argument in favor of large expandable broadheads in the event the arrow hits the guts (or most anywhere other than a leg/shoulder)


When you aim for lung it's not the middle of the body it's the front third. So looking at odds you're closer to the shoulder than the gut.

Furthermore, with today's tendencies of heart shooting as opposed to double lung, the point of aim is even closer towards the shoulder.

Call me old school but I prefer a double lung. But I like knowing my arrow will go through just about anything if it has to. ...Some people wear seatbelts, helmets and pay for insurance, others don't.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

plecavalier said:


> When you aim for lung it's not the middle of the body it's the front third. So looking at odds you're closer to the shoulder than the gut.
> 
> Furthermore, with today's tendencies of heart shooting as opposed to double lung, the point of aim is even closer towards the shoulder.


Even still, I would wager more deer are shot in the "guts" annually than have arrows fail to reach the vitals because of being shot in the "shoulder", so my previous comments stand as written.

I would not recommend someone choose a large expandable solely based on the possibility that it may help with a gut shot. I would apply that same logic to selecting an arrow based solely on the possibility the arrow may up in the "shoulder"


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

nestly said:


> Even still, I would wager more deer are shot in the "guts" annually than have arrows fail to reach the vitals because of being shot in the "shoulder", so my previous comments stand as written.


And you would lose said wager. Spine and shoulder are the most common wounds. Third to that would be what most refer to as the dead zone between the aortic artery and the top of the lungs(but the latter is just a guess). Most archery gut shot animals are recovered. Gut is more common for gun because they're shot at while moving.


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

enewman said:


> So it’s made of meat, blood, guts, cool. Haha. Just kidding
> 
> 
> Gunther.
> ...


Can I ask you a serious question? Now you and the other guys laugh and make jokes about the ballistic gel being tied down so it can't move with a piece of cardboard in front of it. You guys stated reason after reason why that test is no good for and foc test. But yet you are going to perform a test shooting into a box of sand with cardboard being the front. Box of sand is not going to move, cardboard is cardboard. You laugh and talk about testing material not being equal to insides of animals. Now look at these two. Of a gel block and sand, if one would have the closer resemblance to animal insides it would be gel. The gel block didn't move, it was stated that makes the test inconsistent, your litter box is not going to move either. There were jokes about the cardboard, yet you are going to shoot cardboard, so I'm just confused how your test is going to be any better. Can you explain please?


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

plecavalier said:


> And you would lose said wager. Spine and shoulder are the most common wounds. Third to that would be what most refer to as the dead zone between the aortic artery and the top of the lungs(but the latter is just a guess). Most archery gut shot animals are recovered. Gut is more common for gun because they're shot at while moving.


I'd wager that more misses happen to the guts by inexperienced and lesser-skilled bowhunters than the other three ordinate directions...a lot of them just aim center mass. 

I think for more experienced and more skilled you'd be correct.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

bowshootn70 said:


> Can I ask you a serious question? Now you and the other guys laugh and make jokes about the ballistic gel being tied down so it can't move with a piece of cardboard in front of it. You guys stated reason after reason why that test is no good for and foc test. But yet you are going to perform a test shooting into a box of sand with cardboard being the front. Box of sand is not going to move, cardboard is cardboard. You laugh and talk about testing material not being equal to insides of animals. Now look at these two. Of a gel block and sand, if one would have the closer resemblance to animal insides it would be gel. The gel block didn't move, it was stated that makes the test inconsistent, your litter box is not going to move either. There were jokes about the cardboard, yet you are going to shoot cardboard, so I'm just confused how your test is going to be any better. Can you explain please?


The sand will move and at the same time is incredibly consistent. To me, the sand isn't about creating/using a medium that resembles an animal. It's about creating using a medium that provides the least amount of variables to allow measuring and quantifying the results. But FWIW, I feel it does come much closer to an animal than gel does. Gel stops with friction mostly and a bit of resistance. Sand stops entirely with resistance. The cardboard, meh. I'd jsut as soon use a 1/4" plywood in the 1/3 front section of the box and have the cardboard there just to stop the same from falling out.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Bobmuley said:


> I'd wager that more misses happen to the guts by inexperienced and lesser-skilled bowhunters than the other three ordinate directions...a lot of them just aim center mass.
> 
> I think for more experienced and more skilled you'd be correct.


Okay. I don't think I disagree with that but that's any form of hunting then. And it's also short lived. Do that once, lose the deer. The result is likely "look at that guy on TV, he shot at the heart" right? Then next season its a leg bone or a spine.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

plecavalier said:


> And you would lose said wager. Spine and shoulder are the most common wounds. Third to that would be what most refer to as the dead zone between the aortic artery and the top of the lungs(but the latter is just a guess). Most archery gut shot animals are recovered. Gut is more common for gun because they're shot at while moving.


With all due respect, I have not seen any statistics to support the claim that shoulder shots are more common than gut shots, so I'm inclined to go with what I've seen and heard of real life bowhunting (primarily in PA) Perhaps the likelihood of shoulder shots varies from state to state / region to region?


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

nestly said:


> With all due respect, I have not seen any statistics to support the claim that shoulder shots are more common than gut shots, so I'm inclined to go with what I've seen and heard of real life bowhunting (primarily in PA) Perhaps the likelihood of shoulder shots varies from state to state / region to region?


I would imagine it does. I'm basing my statement on feedback from people. There was a time when I spent an inordinate amount of my spare time helping guys that have had bad experiences. Not exaggerating by saying 90% of the guys I've helped were poor penetration on bone (even rib!). Since the people I helped came to me from the web by various means it's not region specific. I've helped guys from Hawaii to the Netherlands, Europe, Australia and obviously Canada/US. I've been taking people under my wing since about 2005. And that is my take on wounds.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

bowshootn70 said:


> Can I ask you a serious question? Now you and the other guys laugh and make jokes about the ballistic gel being tied down so it can't move with a piece of cardboard in front of it. You guys stated reason after reason why that test is no good for and foc test. But yet you are going to perform a test shooting into a box of sand with cardboard being the front. Box of sand is not going to move, cardboard is cardboard. You laugh and talk about testing material not being equal to insides of animals. Now look at these two. Of a gel block and sand, if one would have the closer resemblance to animal insides it would be gel. The gel block didn't move, it was stated that makes the test inconsistent, your litter box is not going to move either. There were jokes about the cardboard, yet you are going to shoot cardboard, so I'm just confused how your test is going to be any better. Can you explain please?


I’m looking for something we can all agree on. At this point we are looking for something with a lot of resistance. That is it. Just trying to find a common ground And I didn’t talk about what he shot into others did. My only comments where tuning

Test like this are not to look an animal. It is strictly a penetration test. The media at that point dosent matter. It’s a comparison test. You pick an arrow as data base line. And everything works from there.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Bobmuley said:


> I'd wager that more misses happen to the guts by inexperienced and lesser-skilled bowhunters than the other three ordinate directions...a lot of them just aim center mass.
> 
> I think for more experienced and more skilled you'd be correct.


OK, going with that then, consider the following scenario for a misplaced shot.

High: - arrow chosen primarily for it's penetration potential, or arrow chosen primarily for it's cut radius?
Low: - arrow chosen primarily for it's penetration potential, or arrow chosen primarily for it's cut radius?
Back: - arrow chosen primarily for it's penetration potential, or arrow chosen primarily for it's cut radius?
Front: - arrow chosen primarily for it's penetration potential, or arrow chosen primarily for it's cut radius?

As I consider the scenarios above I do not conclude that penetration is the greatest consideration when selecting an arrow to maximize success on poorly placed shots on typical north american game, regardless of the experience level of the archer.

And before this gets twisted, Im not suggesting that arrows should be chosen based only on what happens in the event of a "bad shot", It should be a consideration, but not the only consideration.


----------



## 3D Pinwheeler (Jan 29, 2007)

nestly said:


> OK, going with that then, consider the following scenario for a misplaced shot.
> 
> High. arrow chosen primarily for it's penetration potential, or arrow chosen primarily for it's cut radius?
> Low. arrow chosen primarily for it's penetration potential, or arrow chosen primarily for it's cut radius?
> ...


The only issue with worrying about cut radius is what you see on TV now. Hit the deer from a stand arrow goes in 6" and deer runs off. No exit hole no blood trail.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

nestly said:


> OK, going with that then, consider the following scenario for a misplaced shot.
> 
> High. arrow chosen primarily for it's penetration potential, or arrow chosen primarily for it's cut radius?
> Low. arrow chosen primarily for it's penetration potential, or arrow chosen primarily for it's cut radius?
> ...


I am suggesting they should be chosen based on "what if". The what if factor is a steering factor in all my decisions.

And that's exactly why there are 12 factors. Not to mention the lengthy report, many amendments and updates. The reports are about lethality. And yes, obviously the 12 factors are about penetration but not there's more to it. If you do a perfect shot let's say you're point of aim is lungs but you don't have good flight so on impact of the rib cage your arrow well, it's one of 4 directions right? Guts, leg, spine, sternum...Whatever. Good shot turned bad. Those penetration potentials as you call them are now key factors. And so is cut radius for that matter. I shoot just about solely single bevel heads. The single bevel action (twisting) causes a cut up to twice the length of its physical width. But at the same time, unlike an expandable(since we're talking about 1-1/2") it's a single piece of high quality steel. It's not going to bend or break on bone. Furthermore, the single bevel is largely proven that it's splitting capabilities on bone is unmatched to that of any other head. I could go on and on but it always comes back to the fact that you must consider all aspects and weigh them against the odds and yes, imo plan for the worst and hope for the best.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

nestly said:


> OK, going with that then, consider the following scenario for a misplaced shot.
> 
> High: - arrow chosen primarily for it's penetration potential, or arrow chosen primarily for it's cut radius?
> Low: - arrow chosen primarily for it's penetration potential, or arrow chosen primarily for it's cut radius?
> ...


I'm probably the wrong person for you to ask because I insist on a passthrough (I figured I cut just as much, but I also get two holes for air/blood). Never had a problem getting it with moderate sized heads, tough arrows/broadheads, and good mass. I never considered FOC for arrow construction. I build "elk arrows" and any deer or anything that I have a tag for just receives them.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Bobmuley said:


> I build "elk arrows" and any deer or anything that I have a tag for just receives them.


Now that is my kind of thinking!


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

For treestand hunters a single lung is going to be up there on the list of bad places to hit a deer. For most Bowhunters most of the time they're not going to bust through heavy bone consistently and humanely kill. If they do the Broadhead that would be most suitable is also the absolute worst Broadhead on a single lung liver or gut shot .it's way more doable to get set up to NOT penetrate heavy bone but put a huge gash through the rest of their body. There's many stories of big bucks hit in the shoulder and there they are two weeks later chasing does around like nothing happened.
Some research needs to be done on exactly what kind of setup is going to actually bust through heavy bone and humanely kill animals. what kind of setup is going to do nothing more than leave a bruise on their shoulder.
For most Bowhunters most of the time if you need to bust through heavy bone then man up and wait for gun season to get here. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## 3D Pinwheeler (Jan 29, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> Some research needs to be done on exactly what kind of setup is going to actually bust through heavy bone and humanely kill animals. what kind of setup is going to do nothing more than leave a bruise on their shoulder.


I wish someone would do some research on bone penetration already....:awkward:


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Norma S Racks said:


> For treestand hunters a single lung is going to be up there on the list of bad places to hit a deer. For most Bowhunters most of the time they're not going to bust through heavy bone consistently and humanely kill. If they do the Broadhead that would be most suitable is also the absolute worst Broadhead on a single lung liver or gut shot .it's way more doable to get set up to NOT penetrate heavy bone but put a huge gash through the rest of their body. There's many stories of big bucks hit in the shoulder and there they are two weeks later chasing does around like nothing happened.
> Some research needs to be done on exactly what kind of setup is going to actually bust through heavy bone and humanely kill animals. what kind of setup is going to do nothing more than leave a bruise on their shoulder.
> For most Bowhunters most of the time if you need to bust through heavy bone then man up and wait for gun season to get here.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Two words: single bevel.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

In my opinion there's three kinds of archery setups
#1 it will actually bust through bone and humanely kill the animal

#2 if you hit him in the shoulder he'll be uncomfortable for a little while but he'll be okay

#3 got enough penetration with the fixed head. animal Suffered. yotes ate him. 

Just be honest. if you ain't got number one then get set up for number two. 



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## 3D Pinwheeler (Jan 29, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> In my opinion there's three kinds of archery setups
> #1 it will actually bust through bone and humanely kill the animal
> 
> #2 if you hit him in the shoulder he'll be uncomfortable for a little while but he'll be okay
> ...


WOW??? Really thanks for the tip. When I release an arrow my intent is to harvest...that's it


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> In my opinion there's three kinds of archery setups
> #1 it will actually bust through bone and humanely kill the animal
> 
> #2 if you hit him in the shoulder he'll be uncomfortable for a little while but he'll be okay
> ...













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Norma S Racks said:


> In my opinion there's three kinds of archery setups
> #1 it will actually bust through bone and humanely kill the animal
> 
> #2 if you hit him in the shoulder he'll be uncomfortable for a little while but he'll be okay
> ...


Yeah... Hm. I build for #1 but everybody else that doesn't you just insulted. Gonna be lonely in that corner.


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

enewman said:


> I’m looking for something we can all agree on. At this point we are looking for something with a lot of resistance. That is it. Just trying to find a common ground And I didn’t talk about what he shot into others did. My only comments where tuning
> 
> Test like this are not to look an animal. It is strictly a penetration test. The media at that point dosent matter. It’s a comparison test. You pick an arrow as data base line. And everything works from there.


Ok, I'll buy that , but how are the arrows going to be built is my biggest thing with any comparison test. How can we get say 3 arrows of everything equal except foc without changing or having 3 different dynamic spines. If you add say 300 grains in front , can you add 150 grains in back ? See that's my thing. Even by doing that the 150 grains it leaves in the front is going to change dynamic spine more than the other with just say 50 grains. I get foc contributes , but without three exact weighted arrows with three exact dynamic spines and ONLY difference is foc is where it stops a complete 100% test to prove how much more 30% foc helps rather than say the 10% and 20% foc arrows. I don't denie foc , just haven't seen the reality of how much the benefit is over just mass or mass with X amount compared to mass with this X amount of foc. So how can we build the arrows correctly. I'm really interested in seeing the results, just don't know how to fairly compare.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

bowshootn70 said:


> Ok, I'll buy that , but how are the arrows going to be built is my biggest thing with any comparison test. How can we get say 3 arrows of everything equal except foc without changing or having 3 different dynamic spines. If you add say 300 grains in front , can you add 150 grains in back ? See that's my thing. Even by doing that the 150 grains it leaves in the front is going to change dynamic spine more than the other with just say 50 grains. I get foc contributes , but without three exact weighted arrows with three exact dynamic spines and ONLY difference is foc is where it stops a complete 100% test to prove how much more 30% foc helps rather than say the 10% and 20% foc arrows. I don't denie foc , just haven't seen the reality of how much the benefit is over just mass or mass with X amount compared to mass with this X amount of foc. So how can we build the arrows correctly. I'm really interested in seeing the results, just don't know how to fairly compare.


Here is my thought. We figure on target. Then we are going to have to build three arrows. I’m thinking us ontarget program. Then tune one arrow do all the testing. Then tune second arrow then test. So I’m seeing several days. Worth of tuning and testing. I don’t see around this. But I’m not sure. But I would love to talk on phone about it. Get ideas from you


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Big buck walks out into a field. Lee hits him right in the shoulder . Very little penetration .two weeks later here comes the very same buck not even limping. Lakosky 10 Rings him. blood everywhere. dead deer. That right there is the perfect Whitetail setup. I realize most Bowhunters don't build for number #2 .it's unheard of. If you don't have enough horsepower to bust through heavy bone which most Bowhunters don't, the ethical thing to do is build for number 2.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> Big buck walks out into a field. Lee hits him right in the shoulder . Very little penetration .two weeks later here comes the very same buck not even limping. Lakosky 10 Rings him. blood everywhere. dead deer. That right there is the perfect Whitetail setup. I realize most Bowhunters don't build for number #2 .it's unheard of. If you don't have enough horsepower to bust through heavy bone which most Bowhunters don't, the ethical thing to do is build for number 2.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I understand your comment. But that is not how you should ever build an arrow. And you never ever teach someone this. If your in doubt you building to bust things


----------



## clif109 (Feb 22, 2008)

All of you need to go back and read those reports again. He never said anything about FOC having anything to do with breaching bone better. Only soft tissue. Mass and single bevel broadheads are what he talked about when it came to breaching heavy bone. He said that it took right at 650 grains of mass to increase the frequency of bone breaching on Asian buffalo ribs. He also said that neither EFOC nor UEFOC would increase the bone breaching capability of any arrow.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

I got to disagree with that .I build for flat trajectories and big exit holes .if I hit heavy bone hopefully I don't get any penetration. He will likely evade the coyotes and there's some chance I'll get a another shot at him. Maybe this year maybe next year who knows. Mathematically heavy bone is only a small percentage of a whitetails Anatomy. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## yardjockey007 (Nov 23, 2015)

Ok

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

clif109 said:


> All of you need to go back and read those reports again. He never said anything about FOC having anything to do with breaching bone better. Only soft tissue.


100% incorrect. Read the first page. 

http://www.tuffhead.com/ashby_pdfs/ashby ours/2008 Update, Part 6.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Flatwoodshunter (Feb 3, 2013)

Dr. Ashby's opinion of Ballistic Gel. 

Momentum, Kinetic Energy, and Arrow Penetration
(And What They Mean for the Bowhunter)
By
Dr. Ed Ashby

For many years I tried to find a test medium that would give results which correlated to the observed incidents which occurred under field conditions, as a hunting arrow penetrated real tissues. Such a test medium would make the investigation of terminal ballistics of hunting arrows very much simpler, and far less time consuming and expensive.

Ballistic gel, covered with a suitable elastic outer covering, gives a reasonable correlation to tissue hits in which no hard tissues are encountered, but I have found no combination of materials that will correlate with the multiplicity of resistance forces encountered in penetrating real tissues. This past year, a European forensics team also tried to find a synthetic testing medium that would give results comparable to that seen in real arrow wounds. They also found none.


----------



## TAIL~~CHASER (Dec 14, 2015)

Flatwoodshunter said:


> Dr. Ashby's opinion of Ballistic Gel.
> 
> Momentum, Kinetic Energy, and Arrow Penetration
> (And What They Mean for the Bowhunter)
> ...


I know where to get synthetic medium.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

now that weve moved to talking about broadheads, take the same exact test, same arrows, everything, except strap a rage to both and see which is better. make it a 2" plus one, or a nap killzone, those eat energy like crazy. 

use cardboard and gel. those 2" wings will give a but more "pop" to flex your arrow


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

we all know a small fixed head will out penetrate a large mech when attached to the same arrow. i would go so far as to say that FoC is even better when using a big mech. there is more of a chance of deflection as well as more immediate large resistance when the blades deploy, resulting in more potential for arrow flex and energy lost. put more weight right up behind that big mech and punch through things.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

jaximus said:


> we all know a small fixed head will out penetrate a large mech when attached to the same arrow. i would go so far as to say that FoC is even better when using a big mech. there is more of a chance of deflection as well as more immediate large resistance when the blades deploy, resulting in more potential for arrow flex and energy lost. put more weight right up behind that big mech and punch through things.


I will be testing this exact scenario soon.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Beendare said:


> OK, I think I get what you are saying.....and I will take a look at your link- thx. The physics of a lever arm i get....but does it really indicate more tail end bend on contact? Sure we can take a drastic example of weight backward...which should create more bend but we are talking avg foc vs efoc- is that a measurable factor? Could it possibly be like a big BH vs a small BH in flight where the coefficient of friction difference is too small to measure...and doesn't affect an arrows flight that much anyway? [Woody from Magnus proved this a non factor with a Youtube vid shooting Stingers vs FP's at 100yds]
> 
> Then, if the EFOC arrow has less arrow bend on hard impacts, it would stand to reason it has more bend on the launch[ Physics- no free lunch] I think it was Henro experimented and cautioned guys not to go too light in spine possibly for this reason. *This begs the question, is an EFOC arrow absorbing less energy from the bow with that addl lever arm flex on the launch? *This could be a reason for the OP's test result.
> 
> I have to tell you....a lot of this is above my pay grade. I do think folks use a lot of specious comparisons as an arrow shot from a bow is unique and unlike many other forms of projectiles. Appreciate the civilized discussion though....


Don’t bs people and misconstrue anything I’ve ever said. If the spine is correct it will absorb the launch energy from the bow the same regardless of foc. Adding tip weight to any shaft will weaken it so you have to lower draw weight, shorten the shaft or go to a stiffer spine to achieve proper arrow flight and broadhead tuning. This common sense is what so many people here don’t understand including the OP. To do testing for penetration or accuracy each arrow has to have the right dynamic spine to tune to the same bow. This isn’t possible by using the same arrow shaft and length and moving the weight all around especially with such drastic changes in FOC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

henro said:


> Don’t bs people and misconstrue anything I’ve ever said. If the spine is correct it will absorb the launch energy from the bow the same regardless of foc. Adding tip weight to any shaft will weaken it so you have to lower draw weight, shorten the shaft or go to a stiffer spine to achieve proper arrow flight and broadhead tuning. This common sense is what so many people here don’t understand including the OP. To do testing for penetration or accuracy each arrow has to have the right dynamic spine to tune to the same bow. This isn’t possible by using the same arrow shaft and length and moving the weight all around especially with such drastic changes in FOC.


If all arrows are "over-spined" to begin with, it cannot be claimed that lack of penetration is caused by the shaft being underspined. If calculations call for a 400 spine, and the test arrows range from 300 spine to 150 spine, you can not claim the 300 is too weak just because it's less than the 150, it's still 100 greater than recommended. OP's arrows are all over-spined for the bow he's using.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

henro said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So you're saying even if you don't have enough horsepower to bust through heavy bone stick a CoC in their shoulder anyway it'll mess them up good enough for the coyotes to get them it's unethical it's just a low IQ dummy thing to do quit being a dummy you moron. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> So you're saying even if you don't have enough horsepower to bust through heavy bone stick a CoC in their shoulder anyway it'll mess them up good enough for the coyotes to get them it's unethical it's just a low IQ dummy thing to do quit being a dummy you moron.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


No build an arrow with enough horsepower.

If you shoot this deer and get no penetration. But yet you have drawn blood. Do you check your tag. Ethical hunters do. So I’m guessing your not one one them. Many ways to look at this. Just seem strange how Your justifying to your self it’s ok to build an arrow that if you hit the shoulder it stops your arrow. Funny thing a shoulder is not hard to get through. 

If you happen to hunt go on a guided hunt. Where if you draw blood you would be done. So this means you go on an $5000 hunt somewhere. Your going to trust your arrow designed for soft tissue only, and the animal to not move to hunt and kill this $5000 animal. Knowing the complete time you could be throughing away $5000. I mean it’s always a gamble, but atleast put the odds in your favor.


----------



## Drjoe (Aug 8, 2005)

F=MxA proven nicely with the same e (coefficient of friction). Awesome experiment


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

enewman said:


> No build an arrow with enough horsepower.
> 
> If you shoot this deer and get no penetration. But yet you have drawn blood. Do you check your tag. Ethical hunters do. So I’m guessing your not one one them. Many ways to look at this. Just seem strange how Your justifying to your self it’s ok to build an arrow that if you hit the shoulder it stops your arrow. Funny thing a shoulder is not hard to get through.
> 
> If you happen to hunt go on a guided hunt. Where if you draw blood you would be done. So this means you go on an $5000 hunt somewhere. Your going to trust your arrow designed for soft tissue only, and the animal to not move to hunt and kill this $5000 animal. Knowing the complete time you could be throughing away $5000. I mean it’s always a gamble, but atleast put the odds in your favor.


Well I gotta say that's a damn jem to think about right there. You got that one for sure enewman lol.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

I agree put the odds in your favor the majority of a big game animal is soft tissue. big hole=filled tag
61#elite 28" draw coc in shoulder = dinner4yotes.
If you could watch that video that I'm talking about with Lee Lakosky he's got it right he's got it figured out he's not a dummy


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Norma S Racks said:


> 61#elite 28" draw coc in shoulder = dinner4yotes


What? Please explain @norma


----------



## 3D Pinwheeler (Jan 29, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> I agree put the odds in your favor the majority of a big game animal is soft tissue. big hole=filled tag
> 61#elite 28" draw coc in shoulder = dinner4yotes.
> If you could watch that video that I'm talking about with Lee Lakosky he's got it right he's got it figured out he's not a dummy
> 
> ...


Lee has to use what his sponsor wants him to use...that's it


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

bowshootn70 said:


> Well I gotta say that's a damn jem to think about right there. You got that one for sure enewman lol.


Thanks. Lol

I’m not trying to really bash on Norma. That’s just a funny way to look at things. But we all do it. Few years back. I was shooting 100 yards. All just for fun. But I started building arrows so no matter what I could shoot that 100 yards. Wasn’t really looking at wether or not I had enough arrow to kill or not. I don’t look at it that way anymore. 

But I do see what Norma is saying. I hate feeding yotes.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

plecavalier said:


> What? Please explain @norma


wounded animals have a potential of succumbing to predators.you can penetrate enough to humanely and quickly kill or just enough to mess them up and not kill.predators will then get them. You either have enough horsepower to bust through bone or you don't. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Norma S Racks said:


> wounded animals have a potential of succumbing to predators.you can penetrate enough to humanely and quickly kill or just enough to mess them up and not kill.predators will then get them. You either have enough horsepower to bust through bone or you don't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I meant explain how a CoC from an elite at 61 pounds 28" would make dinner4yotes.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?ur...hare_tid=5129201&share_fid=16462&share_type=t

broadhead test finally done. hahaha.This thread should be named feedindayotes

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

nestly said:


> If all arrows are "over-spined" to begin with, it cannot be claimed that lack of penetration is caused by the shaft being underspined. If calculations call for a 400 spine, and the test arrows range from 300 spine to 150 spine, you can not claim the 300 is too weak just because it's less than the 150, it's still 100 greater than recommended. OP's arrows are all over-spined for the bow he's using.


Go sit back down in the corner and be quiet. What you just said is incorrect and makes 0 sense. You have no clue what you’re talking about. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Flatwoodshunter (Feb 3, 2013)

Norma S Racks said:


> I agree put the odds in your favor the majority of a big game animal is soft tissue. big hole=filled tag
> 61#elite 28" draw coc in shoulder = dinner4yotes.
> If you could watch that video that I'm talking about with Lee Lakosky he's got it right he's got it figured out he's not a dummy
> 
> ...


Everyone cannot shoot Big expandable broadheads, like the Rage X-Treme 2.3" cut (that Lee Lakosky advertises in the Rage Commercial). As far as..... "61#elite 28" draw coc in shoulder = dinner4yotes".....I think it is more about the Indian than the Bow.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Flatwoodshunter said:


> Everyone cannot shoot Big expandable broadheads, like the Rage X-Treme 2.3" cut (that Lee Lakosky advertises in the Rage Commercial). As far as..... "61#elite 28" draw coc in shoulder = dinner4yotes".....I think it is more about the Indian than the Bow.


The question was for @norma but since you weighed in ...

Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're emphasize cut width as a primary focus for your arrow build?

I'll say this, which would have been for Norma, what happens if a blade breaks on entry? Now you've got half the width you planned for. I mean, thin blades, both could break. Then what?


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

henro said:


> Go sit back down in the corner and be quiet. What you just said is incorrect and makes 0 sense. You have no clue what you’re talking about.


Resorting to ridicule absent a valid rebuttal seems a common theme for those who would rather not address information that does not work in their favor. Typical, but not particularly effective.


----------



## fearedbydeer (Dec 1, 2010)

henro said:


> Go sit back down in the corner and be quiet. What you just said is incorrect and makes 0 sense. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hey you be nice this is archerytalk not dick head talk

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

nestly said:


> Resorting to ridicule absent a valid rebuttal seems a common theme for those who would rather not address information that does not work in their favor. Typical, but not particularly effective.


All of a sudden you’re a scholar? You’ve been a giant dbag the whole time in this thread and the one that was deleted and none of your posts have show any shred of knowledge on these topics. Go back and answer all my posts earlier in the thread. I’m sure we’ll all be amazed by your profound knowledge even more. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Flatwoodshunter (Feb 3, 2013)

plecavalier said:


> The question was for @norma but since you weighed in ...
> 
> Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're emphasize cut width as a primary focus for your arrow build?
> 
> I'll say this, which would have been for Norma, what happens if a blade breaks on entry? Now you've got half the width you planned for. I mean, thin blades, both could break. Then what?


My comment was for Norma S Racks but since you weighed in...
I did not see your question, I was just letting Norma S Racks know that some of us Low Poundage shooters do not have enough KE/Momentum to use a Big expandable broadhead. I match my broadhead to my setup to maximize it's performance. The broadhead I use is in my signature.


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

enewman said:


> Thanks. Lol
> 
> I’m not trying to really bash on Norma. That’s just a funny way to look at things. But we all do it. Few years back. I was shooting 100 yards. All just for fun. But I started building arrows so no matter what I could shoot that 100 yards. Wasn’t really looking at wether or not I had enough arrow to kill or not. I don’t look at it that way anymore.
> 
> But I do see what Norma is saying. I hate feeding yotes.


A little off topic but do you shoot indoor spots and what foc you running? I'm using x-cutters with 190 grains up front and 16% foc


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

bowshootn70 said:


> A little off topic but do you shoot indoor spots and what foc you running? I'm using x-cutters with 190 grains up front and 16% foc


No sir. I’m a hunter only.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Flatwoodshunter said:


> My comment was for Norma S Racks but since you weighed in...
> I did not see your question, I was just letting Norma S Racks know that some of us Low Poundage shooters do not have enough KE/Momentum to use a Big expandable broadhead. I match my broadhead to my setup to maximize it's performance. The broadhead I use is in my signature.


1-4 I misunderstood.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

henro said:


> All of a sudden you’re a scholar? You’ve been a giant dbag the whole time in this thread and all the others and none of your posts have show any shred of knowledge on these topics. Go back and answer all my posts earlier in the thread. I’m sure we’ll all be amazed by your profound knowledge even more.


Again with the ridicule... 
My comments throughout have been primarily basic common sense rebuttals of those who would prefer this topic be decided on paper rather than real world performance. There's a lot of smoke blowing occurring in these topics. Most bow hunters probably could not care less because all the formulas, mathematical equations, and complicated explanations don't change what happens in the real world when an arrow comes in contact with an animal. That does not mean the discussion should not take place for those who do have an interest in the science behind the result, but the feet stomping and name calling that commonly occurs when a self proclaimed expert is challenged by common sense logic does not make the "experts" argument more valid, or the common sense logic any less valid. 

Someone asked earlier how many people in this topic are formally trained in mathematics and/or physics.... I don't recall any positive responses, so as best I can tell we're all on pretty level ground relying primarily our own application of common sense, logic, and first hand experience.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

nestly said:


> Again with the ridicule...
> My comments throughout have been primarily basic common sense rebuttals of those who would prefer this topic be decided on paper rather than real world performance. There's a lot of smoke blowing occurring in these topics. Most simply don't care because all the formulas, mathematical equations, complicated explainations don't change what happens in the real world when an arrow comes in contact with an animal. That does not mean the discussion should not take place for those who do have an interest in the science behind the result, but the feet stomping and name calling that commonly occurs when a self proclaimed expert is challenged by common sense logic does not make the "experts" argument more valid, or the common sense logic any less valid.
> 
> Some asked earlier how many people in this topic are formally trained in mathematics and/or physics.... I don't recall any positive responses, so as best I can tell we're all on pretty level ground relying primarily our own application of common sense, logic, and first hand experience. That some think they are better qualified and others should submit to them without question is perhaps an indication of that persons reasoning abilities.


No surprise. A whole lot more of nothing from you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

henro said:


> No surprise. A whole lot more of nothing from you.


Well, nothing except common sense... something I'm sure you would like to see excluded from these topics so you can assert purely theoretical explanations without challenge.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

Flatwoodshunter said:


> I match my broadhead to my setup to maximize it's performance


we all should try to do this, well said.


----------



## Inn.Outdoorsman (Feb 4, 2016)

16 pages and I haven't kept up but I'm betting there had been no debunking and nothing has actually been destroyed in terms of proof of anything related to FOC?


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

nestly said:


> Well, nothing except common sense... something I'm sure you would like to see excluded from these topics so you can assert purely theoretical explanations without challenge.


Common sense huh? Like how you and the OP can’t understand the arrows he used don’t have the same dynamic spine?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jewalker7842 (Aug 15, 2011)

Mass is mass. Nothing will change the amount of momentum. Whether it be up front, back, or the middle.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

henro said:


> Common sense huh? Like how you and the OP can’t understand the arrows he used don’t have the same dynamic spine?


I understand they aren't the same dynamic spine, and I'm reasonably sure he does as well, so once again you're basing your argument on false pretense. The spine on all of his test arrows is above what's commonly regarded as sufficient for his setup, so the mere fact that they are all going to have a "stiffer than ideal" reaction is not a concern for me in the same way it would if some were too weak and some were too stiff. It's not practical, (and likely not possible) to maintain exactly the same dynamic spine for arrows with different FOC while also keeping the all the other physical properties of the arrow identical. If you don't like his test, you should do your own test, but Josh's test is specific to FOC, and he built his arrows to resemble each other in as many ways as possible.... except for FOC.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

henro said:


> arrows don’t have the same dynamic spine?


honestly i dont think it matters as long as the FoC arrow isnt severly underspined. after the initial few inches, a 340 spine that is 20ish inches long will act the same as any other 20ish inch spine in 340.


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

enewman said:


> No sir. I’m a hunter only.


I used to hate spots but I shot a few it's actually pretty fun and you can actually learn alot about your shot and setups. I write down everything I do and results and have learned alot from it. But it's not like being in the woods and turn your head and that deer be there.


----------



## fearedbydeer (Dec 1, 2010)

plecavalier said:


> The question was for @norma but since you weighed in ...
> 
> Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're emphasize cut width as a primary focus for your arrow build?
> 
> I'll say this, which would have been for Norma, what happens if a blade breaks on entry? Now you've got half the width you planned for. I mean, thin blades, both could break. Then what?


heres an example. The blade should bend instead of break. You do have a point though.









Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

17 pages...... Yes!


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

nestly said:


> I understand they aren't the same dynamic spine, and I'm reasonably sure he does as well, so once again you're basing your argument on false pretense. The spine on all of his test arrows is above what's commonly regarded as sufficient for his setup, so the mere fact that they are all going to have a "stiffer than ideal" reaction is not a concern for me in the same way it would if some were too weak and some were too stiff. It's not practical, (and likely not possible) to maintain exactly the same dynamic spine for arrows with different FOC while also keeping the all the other physical properties of the arrow identical. If you don't like his test, you should do your own test, but Josh's test is specific to FOC, and he built his arrows to resemble each other in as many ways as possible.... except for FOC.


Says who besides you and the OP? Where’s the proof they’re spined sufficiently? They all bareshafted at different angles and they didn’t all group together accurately. These are signs they’re not the same or even spined correctly. All the OP has to do is shoot each with field points and fixed heads to verify and he won’t. It’s either because that’s above his tuning ability or he knows there’s an issue. Common sense would just do the test if he knew he was shooting all properly spined arrows. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TTG (Aug 1, 2003)

Is that scare? or a wound?


----------



## fearedbydeer (Dec 1, 2010)

SHAKE N BAKE!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

henro said:


> Says who besides you and the OP? Where’s the proof they’re spined sufficiently? They all bareshafted at different angles and they didn’t all group together accurately. These are signs they’re not the same or even spined correctly. All the OP has to do is shoot each with field points and fixed heads to verify and he won’t. It’s either because that’s above his tuning ability or he knows there’s an issue. Common sense would just do the test if he knew he was shooting all properly spined arrows.


I made the same argument that all of the arrows cannot be perfectly tuned simultaneously. My concerns were primarly related to the group size tests rather than the penetration tests. 
Having said that, OP shot them through paper and the holes were all "reasonable". I have little doubt they are all flying straight and true at ~20 yards (at least as well as a typical arrow shot at an animal in actual hunting conditions). ~ 20 yards is the distance for the gel tests, so once again, I'm not concerned if the arrows did not have exactly the same dynamic spine reaction as long as they were flying straight before they entered the gel.
Any test can be picked apart. Josh's test are more than reasonable with regard to spine and tune control IMO, expecially considering the Ashby tests were conducted primarily with recurves and finger release. If we're going to get into the minutia of flight, impact flex, and precisely matched spine, there's no doubt a lot more to be critical about in Ashby's tests than Josh's.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

i would say there is too much discussion on spine in this thread. after a few feet, the arrow is stabilized by the vanes even if it comes out crooked. and the test is done with field points so there is not broadhead steerage. 

what we can agree upon, is that FoC is more spine particular, which i guess could be seen as a negative.

i would go on to postulate, that the efficiency of bow energy transferred to the arrow is mostly arrow mass dependent, with some small consideration going to FoC, but mostly that its not underspined. meaning FoC may be a negative there?


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

nestly said:


> I made the same argument that all of the arrows cannot be perfectly tuned simultaneously. Having said that, OP shot them through paper and the holes were all "reasonable". I have no doubt they are all flying straight and true at ~20 yards, which is the distance the minimum distance for all the tests he's conducted, including the gel penetration test(s).
> Any test can be picked apart. Josh's test are more than reasonable with regard to spine and tune control IMO, expecially considering the Ashby tests were conducted primarily with recurves and finger release. If we're going to get into the minutia of flight, impact flex, and precisely matched spine, there's no doubt a lot more to be critical about in Ashby's tests than Josh's.


Again you don’t get it. What you just said is worthless. The arrows have to be correctly tuned to show any validity, not just oh this shoots ok to twenty yards just send it! They can be tuned correctly if they were cut shorter or the spine stiffness was increased. Just because this is above your tuning knowledge doesn’t mean it’s right. Again you’ve wasted my time arguing about something you know nothing about. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

henro said:


> Again you don’t get it. What you just said is worthless. The arrows have to be correctly tuned to show any validity, not just oh this shoots ok to twenty yards just send it! They can be tuned correctly if they were cut shorter or the spine stiffness was increased. Just because this is above your tuning knowledge doesn’t mean it’s right. Again you’ve wasted my time arguing about something you know nothing about.


I have faith that others can comprehend that micro tuning is irrelevant to penetration tests as long as the arrow has had time to recover and is flying straight and true when it makes contact with the target. If you disagree and think that point is completely invalid and choose not to respond to any of my future comments, I'm 100% OK with that. If you need assistance adding me to your ignore list, I'll be happy to help... however choosing to ignore common sense concepts because they are detrimental to your argument does not make those concepts any less valid.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

nestly said:


> I have faith that others can comprehend that tuning is irrelevant to penetration tests as long as the arrow has had time to recover and is flying straight when it makes contact with the target. If you disagree and think that point is invalid and choose not to respond to any of my future comments, I'm 100% OK with that. If you need assistance adding me to your ignore list... all the better.


LOL thanks for showing how little you know right there. Funniest part is you don't even know it.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

jaximus said:


> i would say there is too much discussion on spine in this thread. after a few feet, the arrow is stabilized by the vanes even if it comes out crooked. and the test is done with field points so there is not broadhead steerage.
> 
> what we can agree upon, is that FoC is more spine particular, which i guess could be seen as a negative.
> 
> i would go on to postulate, that the efficiency of bow energy transferred to the arrow is mostly arrow mass dependent, with some small consideration going to FoC, but mostly that its not underspined. meaning FoC may be a negative there?


No this is wrong. Weak underspined arrows cannot absorb all of the energy imposed on them by the bow at the shot and also cannot transfer all of this energy on impact with a target due to overflexing from being too weak. This is what causes them to be inaccurate and have insufficient penetration. And regarding spine, it's not that FOC is more spine particular, it's that most people have never tried building and tuning arrows with anything other than a 100gr tip and don't understand more tip weight needs stiffer spine requirements. Transfering energy from the bow to the arrow is mass related as it becomes more efficient as mass increases. FOC has nothing to do with this. Spine must be correct for any of this.

These are the fundamental issues of this testing that most here can't understand. To test for penetration and accuracy the arrow spine has to be correct above all else. This has nothing to do with Ashby, this is arrow tuning 101.


----------



## 3D Pinwheeler (Jan 29, 2007)

Oh boy ...The ignore list is out. I've been following these threads the last few weeks. 
Does anyone besides Nestly actually put anyone on the IGNORE list? Henro is like the 3rd or 4th to be threatened with it. Just too funny.

I've learned a lot from these threads...too bad this arguing has to be read through for 3 pages until you hit a few interesting comments


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

jaximus said:


> i would say there is too much discussion on spine in this thread. after a few feet, the arrow is stabilized by the vanes even if it comes out crooked. and the test is done with field points so there is not broadhead steerage.


Agree. The fact that the arrow(s) may not be tuned to the n'th degree does not matter after the arrow has stabilized.
I'll also reiterate that those complaining about arrow tuning and precise spine matching in Josh's test surely would not want that consideration applied to Ashby's recurve tests.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

3D Pinwheeler said:


> Oh boy ...The ignore list is out. I've been following these threads the last few weeks.
> Does anyone besides Nestly actually put anyone on the IGNORE list? Henro is like the 3rd or 4th to be threatened with it. Just too funny.


Might want to go re-read that post. I was not "threatening" to put him on my ignore list, I was suggesting he might want to put me on his because he's said repeatedly that he doesn't care to be bothered my posts... but apparently lacks the self discipline to follow through.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

There’s an ignore list. Hahahahaha. Crap I’m sure I’m on it. You know all this bickering back and forth. Beendare and I have sonewhat become friends. So either way I got something from it.


----------



## fearedbydeer (Dec 1, 2010)

ignore list?? You might end up with a stalker list boy oh boy the glacier really open up a can of worms on this one oh boy

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Bullhound (Feb 5, 2004)

henro said:


> Again you don’t get it. What you just said is worthless. *The arrows have to be correctly tuned to show any validity,* not just oh this shoots ok to twenty yards just send it! They can be tuned correctly if they were cut shorter or the spine stiffness was increased. Just because this is above your tuning knowledge doesn’t mean it’s right. Again you’ve wasted my time arguing about something you know nothing about.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


OK, just reading this for kicks and came across this henro. Are you suggesting that the arrows, longbows, and recurves were "correctly tuned" to even close to the degree that Josh's bow and arrows are tuned?


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

henro said:


> nestly said:
> 
> 
> > If all arrows are "over-spined" to begin with, it cannot be claimed that lack of penetration is caused by the shaft being underspined. If calculations call for a 400 spine, and the test arrows range from 300 spine to 150 spine, you can not claim the 300 is too weak just because it's less than the 150, it's still 100 greater than recommended. OP's arrows are all over-spined for the bow he's using.
> ...


You just landed yourself on the naughty list pal. You have an extremely overinflated sense of your own importance.


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

GuntherChaconne said:


> You just landed yourself on the naughty list pal. You have an extremely overinflated sense of your own importance.


Pot meet kettle.


----------



## Bullhound (Feb 5, 2004)

henro said:


> Pot meet kettle.


please answer my question henro


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Bullhound said:


> please answer my question henro


No I didn't suggest anything about Ashby's setups.


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

Josh is going to get a 65lber..... Oh the horror..... What will the test be like with this new setup???


----------



## Bullhound (Feb 5, 2004)

henro said:


> No I didn't suggest anything about Ashby's setups.


forgive me if I misunderstood. 

you stated nothing of value (paraphrasing) comes from Josh's tests because of the level of tuning is not specific enough or done to perfection

it seems you have been suggesting that Ashby's findings are more valuable than Josh's, or anyone else for that matter. 

That is why I wondered if you felt Ashby's tuning level, be it arrows, longbows, or recurves, in combination, is anywhere close to the tuning level of Josh's bow and arrows, and resulting combination.

Just trying to figure this out. Not sure how precise one is going to be with their arrow flight and overall tuning with the gear Ashby utilized. I shot, and love, longbows for years.


----------



## kschneider002 (Jul 12, 2016)

Great video!!!


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Bullhound said:


> forgive me if I misunderstood.
> 
> you stated nothing of value (paraphrasing) comes from Josh's tests because of the level of tuning is not specific enough or done to perfection
> 
> ...


What I've been talking about the whole time is the tuning issue in the OP's testing that needs to be addressed to give penetration or accuracy test results any validity. Also this thread was titled as debunking something the OP thinks Ashby said which wasn't even true and in retrospect gives this whole thread no point.


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

henro said:


> No this is wrong. Weak underspined arrows cannot absorb all of the energy imposed on them by the bow at the shot and also cannot transfer all of this energy on impact with a target due to overflexing from being too weak. This is what causes them to be inaccurate and have insufficient penetration. And regarding spine, it's not that FOC is more spine particular, it's that most people have never tried building and tuning arrows with anything other than a 100gr tip and don't understand more tip weight needs stiffer spine requirements. Transfering energy from the bow to the arrow is mass related as it becomes more efficient as mass increases. FOC has nothing to do with this. Spine must be correct for any of this.
> 
> These are the fundamental issues of this testing that most here can't understand. To test for penetration and accuracy the arrow spine has to be correct above all else. This has nothing to do with Ashby, this is arrow tuning 101.


That was my argument as well. The arrows would all have to be same weight and same dynamic spine but different foc in order to be an accurate test, and arrow building is what is most difficult here to accomplish. Even adding rest weight would help hold spine but I still don’t see how to have 3 or 4 different foc arrows with exact dynamic spine. The impact flex is where the test becomes valid, and incorrect spine causes the issue with the impact flex, so it’s just going round and round until we figure out and agree on arrows to hold same spine


----------



## Flatwoodshunter (Feb 3, 2013)

Since Archer's Advantage showed "Optimum Spine" on all four arrows (in the first test) it would be interesting to see what OnTarget2 would show for all four arrows. Seems to me Archer's Advantage is definitely useless.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

Flatwoodshunter said:


> Since Archer's Advantage showed "Optimum Spine" on all four arrows (in the first test) it would be interesting to see what OnTarget2 would show for all four arrows. Seems to me Archer's Advantage is definitely useless.


I also have questioned whether Archers Advantage is correctly calculation the spine. I believe all the necessary details have been provided to plug the info into OT2, so maybe someone should.
I will point out however that I believe the bow setup originally used to calculate the spine is not the same setup used for the gel tests. As I recall, the ballistic gel tests have been performed with a setup that has less energy than the original setup, meaning the arrows have a dynamic spine reaction that's stiffer than AA estimates to be "optimal"


----------



## henro (Oct 9, 2007)

Flatwoodshunter said:


> Since Archer's Advantage showed "Optimum Spine" on all four arrows (in the first test) it would be interesting to see what OnTarget2 would show for all four arrows. Seems to me Archer's Advantage is definitely useless.


I've owned both and AA is junk/grossly inaccurate. OT2 has been much better and very accurate for me but neither of them is the end all to verify, they are just estimators to get you close. You still need to shoot fp's and fixed heads grouped to verify.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

ill say it again, too much consideration of spine and tune going on. this thread is about equal total mass, comparing if where that mass is located matters. 

no real world super science needed. take the two most common heavy gpi arrows, FMJ and piledriver vs black eagles and gold tip hunter/velocity with brass. 

what we are trying to determine is if the average guy wants a 450+ gr arrow, a definitive enough test to say either high gpi with standard components or low gpi and a brass insert.


----------



## Bullhound (Feb 5, 2004)

henro said:


> What I've been talking about the whole time is *the tuning issue in the OP's testing that needs to be addressed to give penetration or accuracy test results any validity*. Also this thread was titled as debunking something the OP thinks Ashby said which wasn't even true and in retrospect gives this whole thread no point.



There you go. You complain about the OP's test equipment not being tuned to your satisfaction, but yet you tout the opinions of Ashby as if they are gospel. I suspect you didn't really answer my question because you could never suggest, without laughing at yourself, that the equipment used in Ashby's TESTS, being the bows, arrows, and the resulting combination were "tuned" to a degree that even comes close to the tune of the OP's Bow, arrows used, and the resulting combination used in his test.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

henro said:


> I've owned both and AA is junk/grossly inaccurate. OT2 has been much better and very accurate for me but neither of them is the end all to verify, they are just estimators to get you close. You still need to shoot fp's and fixed heads grouped to verify.


What does grouping broadheads with field tips have to do with arrow spine if they are both the same weight? I thought broadhead tuning was for the addition of "wings" added to the front of the shaft. Apparently both shafts paper tuned pretty good and were completely adequate for this test. Am I missing something?


----------



## buckbane (Jan 24, 2014)

Bullhound said:


> There you go. You complain about the OP's test equipment not being tuned to your satisfaction, but yet you tout the opinions of Ashby as if they are gospel. I suspect you didn't really answer my question because you could never suggest, without laughing at yourself, that the equipment used in Ashby's TESTS, being the bows, arrows, and the resulting combination were "tuned" to a degree that even comes close to the tune of the OP's Bow, arrows used, and the resulting combination used in his test.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Hidden Danger said:


> What does grouping broadheads with field tips have to do with arrow spine if they are both the same weight? I thought broadhead tuning was for the addition of "wings" added to the front of the shaft. Apparently both shafts paper tuned pretty good and were completely adequate for this test. Am I missing something?


I'm just asking because I do not shoot fixed blade broadheads any longer (not since 2010). I paper tune then walk back tune and then make sure my bare shafts fly with my field tips. Is broadhead tuning a result of a spine issue?


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

buckbane said:


> View attachment 6388331
> 
> 
> View attachment 6388333


yeah...hahahaha.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

I don't want to rain all over everybody's parade but I tested FOC.. I took the same shaft put a 75 grain 100 grain 125 grain shot them at 60 yards saw no difference in group size with a 75 grain clearly there's a difference in trajectory that's the one I'm going with for deer hunting that's where the advantage is that's the FOC Advantage right there. As far as Penetrating bone.... that's why they have gun season. That's all rant over .....more testing needs to be done on FOC.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Norma S Racks said:


> I don't want to rain all over everybody's parade but I tested FOC.. I took the same shaft put a 75 grain 100 grain 125 grain shot them at 60 yards saw no difference in group size with a 75 grain clearly there's a difference in trajectory that's the one I'm going with for deer hunting that's where the advantage is that's the FOC Advantage right there. As far as Penetrating bone.... that's why they have gun season. That's all rant over .....more testing needs to be done on FOC.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Way way too subtle. Maybe from the 75 to 125. Make a 500, 600 and 700. Just too many variables to see 25gr jumps. And once you jump by 50gr you have spine and tune differences coming into play.


----------



## Flatwoodshunter (Feb 3, 2013)

This site is always good for a laugh or two when you need it. LOL


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

I'm just a Deer Hunter. I'm assuming if penetration is an issue you're trying to penetrate heavy bone? 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

Hidden Danger said:


> I'm just asking because I do not shoot fixed blade broadheads any longer (not since 2010). I paper tune then walk back tune and then make sure my bare shafts fly with my field tips. Is broadhead tuning a result of a spine issue?


So , will any of you super arrow builders answer my question?


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Hidden Danger said:


> So , will any of you super arrow builders answer my question?


Yes sir I believe so. If you tune your set up and Your fixed heads don’t hit with field points I believe it’s a spine issue. I’ve never really talked about this. Why? Because we can tune it out. Plus we are getting even deeper into reaction tuning. Most people are not very responsive to reaction tuning. It takes time. It’s an OCD tuning. Hahahaha. 

Watch Tim gillingham on the video picking a spine. He tells you if shooting a fixed head to move over one draw length longer on the chart and use that spine. Ontarget program. You have a target or hunting you choose when picking spine on that program. When choosing hunting it puts you in a stiffer arrow. Why? Because they are wanting to eleminate tuning issues when shooting fixed heads.

Disclaimer. We have to assume the person setting up the bow has done this correctly. We also have to assume there is no manufactures defect


----------



## Flatwoodshunter (Feb 3, 2013)

Norma S Racks said:


> I'm just a Deer Hunter. I'm assuming if penetration is an issue you're trying to penetrate heavy bone?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I'm also just a Deer Hunter. For me penetration is about getting a pass through. I really never think about trying to penetrate a heavy bone. All this is interesting but the information will not affect the arrow I choose.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Seems like a pretty emotionally charged up subject I'm sure Gunther will come up with the perfect shaft and Broadhead combination to penetrate

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Flatwoodshunter said:


> I'm also just a Deer Hunter. For me penetration is about getting a pass through. I really never think about trying to penetrate a heavy bone. All this is interesting but the information will not affect the arrow I choose.


There are better reasons to choose an arrow


----------



## Flatwoodshunter (Feb 3, 2013)

I'm mostly just watching the show. We need a little entertainment on here. Some take it serious, but I already have my arrows made for next season (422 grains and 13.1% FOC).


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Hidden Danger said:


> So , will any of you super arrow builders answer my question?


It can be if the arrow isn't tuned properly or the wrong static is chosen to begin with. All things tuned right there is no need to "broadheads" tune.


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

plecavalier said:


> It can be if the arrow isn't tuned properly or the wrong static is chosen to begin with. All things tuned right there is no need to "broadheads" tune.


That's what I'm trying to figure out. Let's say I enter my setup into the ot2 program and it gives me the correct spine I should be shooting. I then purchase a half dozen of premium arrows in the correct spine. I then proceed to paper tune from 5-15 yards until I get a clean tear. I then proceed to walk back tune to make sure I'm grouping vertically from 10-40 yards. Then I make sure that my fletched arrows fly with my bare shafts.
So I've done all this tuning with a 100 gr tip and everything is perfect. 
Now I screw on a fixed blade broadhead and they hit 2.5" to the left of my bare shafts and fletched arrows tipped with a field tip. Can anyone suggest to me that it's a spine issue and not the fact that you just added wings to the front of the shaft?


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Hidden Danger said:


> That's what I'm trying to figure out. Let's say I enter my setup into the ot2 program and it gives me the correct spine I should be shooting. I then purchase a half dozen of premium arrows in the correct spine. I then proceed to paper tune from 5-15 yards until I get a clean tear. I then proceed to walk back tune to make sure I'm grouping vertically from 10-40 yards. Then I make sure that my fletched arrows fly with my bare shafts.
> So I've done all this tuning with a 100 gr tip and everything is perfect.
> Now I screw on a fixed blade broadhead and they hit 2.5" to the left of my bare shafts and fletched arrows tipped with a field tip. Can anyone suggest to me that it's a spine issue and not the fact that you just added wings to the front of the shaft?


With a premium shaft and the tuning steps you mentioned that will not happen.

Reasons it would happen:

Improper tune(arrow or bow or both)
Weak spine
Inconsistent spine
Poorly lined up broadhead.

So from what you said (great tuning process btw) the symptoms of heads not shooting with field points would only exist if the head isn't lined up aka spin test fail.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

plecavalier said:


> With a premium shaft and the tuning steps you mentioned that will not happen.
> 
> Reasons it would happen:
> 
> ...


That's also why anyone with the aforementioned tuning and proper choices can shoot a huge 1-1/2" fixed blade with zero changes right with field points.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Hidden Danger said:


> That's what I'm trying to figure out. Let's say I enter my setup into the ot2 program and it gives me the correct spine I should be shooting. I then purchase a half dozen of premium arrows in the correct spine. I then proceed to paper tune from 5-15 yards until I get a clean tear. I then proceed to walk back tune to make sure I'm grouping vertically from 10-40 yards. Then I make sure that my fletched arrows fly with my bare shafts.
> So I've done all this tuning with a 100 gr tip and everything is perfect.
> Now I screw on a fixed blade broadhead and they hit 2.5" to the left of my bare shafts and fletched arrows tipped with a field tip. Can anyone suggest to me that it's a spine issue and not the fact that you just added wings to the front of the shaft?



There is an order in which building great hunting arrows. 

1 picking an arrow. Yes premium arrows is the best. But that dosent always happen. 
2 ram testing. This is a must. Now I said a must because we are talking about building a great hunting arrow. With out this we are at the mercy of the manufacture
3 setting up the bow
4 knowing how to tune that arrow
5 when done tuning you will not have a broadhead problem. If you do you missed one of the above steps. 

Now this is a fast run down. But that is the jest of if.


----------



## Swampwise (Sep 2, 2015)

Maybe I'm doing it wrong but I french tune in the garage then walk back tune to 50 yards then broadhead tune at 20, 30, & 50. I can shoot any of my broadheads and different weighted arrows and they fly great. Just bought some 250 gold tips built arrows and they fly dead nuts with broadheads out to 40 yards. All my arrows are stiff hunter xt 300 cut 28.5 velocity 300 are 27.75 and 250 hunter xt are cut 29". Alot of foc requires stiffer arrows either by increasing spine or cutting arrows short to increase spine. Anything used to penetrate will need to be stiff enough to drive in behind point or head without flexing very much. I believe that why a range of foc works. Higher foc May work better as long as the arrow is stiff enough to handle both launch and impact.


----------



## skynight (Nov 5, 2003)

enewman said:


> There is an order in which building great hunting arrows.
> 
> 1 picking an arrow. Yes premium arrows is the best. But that dosent always happen.
> 2 ram testing. This is a must. Now I said a must because we are talking about building a great hunting arrow. With out this we are at the mercy of the manufacture
> ...


Just to make this run to 40 pages, what are you testing with your RAM?


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

skynight said:


> Just to make this run to 40 pages, what are you testing with your RAM?


The actual spine and not the manufacturer stated spine would be my guess.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Hidden Danger said:


> The actual spine and not the manufacturer stated spine would be my guess.


This.


----------



## dsdhunts (Aug 26, 2015)

Ohh drat, you have to watch Josh’s other videos, he shows the paper tears. 

All the arrows shoot straight in tune. 

I have never seen Ashby paper tears though to prove he was in tune. We assume he said it so it’s true. 

I guess after Ashby josh can move debunking tuning myths ( do broad head have to hit with field points? )


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> Now I screw on a fixed blade broadhead and they hit 2.5" to the left of my bare shafts and fletched arrows tipped with a field tip. Can anyone suggest to me that it's a spine issue and not the fact that you just added wings to the front of the shaft?


how far are these shots where you are 2.5" left? field tips are quite forgiving. bareshafts even a tiny bit. if its 2.5 at 20yds, somethings off, but if its 2.5 at 40, you are within what i call the forgiveness zone. field points, paper and to a lesser extent, bareshafts can give 'perfect readings' but then broadheads can still be slightly off because they are more finicky. im mainly a hunter, so i eyeball it all close and dial in with broadheads, then backtrack to check and usually get perfect readings. this is because the forgiveness zone of broadheads lies entirely within the bareshaft and field point zones, where the opposite is not true.

also, i know youre setups crank some monster numbers, so speed and which broadhead you are using comes into play.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

so i just discussed speed relating to a different portion of this thread, but speed must play an important role with FoC as well. faster arrows slow down more quickly. so there is a higher rate of decelleration, meaning more potential flex of the shaft. FoC would be more advantageous to a faster arrow. 

a slower arrow would experience less impact compression and therefore less advantage from FoC? help me noodle this through...

if i had more money and desire to break things, i would shoot 2 equal arrow weights with different FoC into a brick wall. i would bet that the FoC arrow would crumple more inline, insert piling up into the shaft, where a low FoC arrow would snap into sections


----------



## bowshootn70 (Oct 15, 2017)

plecavalier said:


> With a premium shaft and the tuning steps you mentioned that will not happen.
> 
> Reasons it would happen:
> 
> ...


I do think there are heads that will not hit with bareshafts and fletched. If you get the point of a bareshaft hitting behind the pin at 30-40 yards or more I would think that’s about as perfect of tune you will get. I have heard Dudley say he’s tried certain broadheads that regardless of how and what he did to tuning they would not hit closer than 3-4” from fletched out to 50 yards. From watching him tune and shots I’ve seen him make I’m certain his equipment and tuning is top notch. I’ve shot bareshaft, fletched and a broadhead together at 30 yards and then put on another 100 grain head and it would about an inch and a half out at closest. Blades act as fletching son the front so I can see some fixed heads just not being able to hit with others at certain distance


----------



## Hidden Danger (Mar 13, 2008)

jaximus said:


> how far are these shots where you are 2.5" left? field tips are quite forgiving. bareshafts even a tiny bit. if its 2.5 at 20yds, somethings off, but if its 2.5 at 40, you are within what i call the forgiveness zone. field points, paper and to a lesser extent, bareshafts can give 'perfect readings' but then broadheads can still be slightly off because they are more finicky. im mainly a hunter, so i eyeball it all close and dial in with broadheads, then backtrack to check and usually get perfect readings. this is because the forgiveness zone of broadheads lies entirely within the bareshaft and field point zones, where the opposite is not true.
> 
> also, i know youre setups crank some monster numbers, so speed and which broadhead you are using comes into play.


I only shoot mechanicals and franken heads. Like I stated earlier , I first spin test all my shafts with a field tip. I then move to paper with bare shafts and fletched arrows. Once I get a clean tear and bullet hole I then walk back tune to 40 yards until I get a perfect vertical group using my 20 yard pin setting. 
I then shoot a bare shaft and two fletched shafts to verify that they are grouping together at 30 yards. 
Next I screw on a mech or franken head and spin test the shafts again. Then I shoot them with a field tip and bare shaft to verify that I'm getting a great group at 20.
Then I shoot the head I will be hunting with at 20, 30 , 40 , 50 and 60 yards to verify that they're dead on.
I then set my HHA single pin to 35 yards. @344 fps that puts me 4" low at 50 yards and 1.5" high at 20 yards. I then lock the slide down. 
From 0-50 yards if I aim for center mass it's a dead deer if I don't have time to use the range finder.
If I do have time I just adjust my aiming point accordingly. I aim slightly low at close range shots and slightly high on the longer shots.
It has worked flawlessly for me so far but to each their own.

I don't even know what my exact FOC is. All I know is that when I squeeze the trigger the arrow passes through even on shoulder hits. Not that I aim for the shoulder but things happen.


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

bowshootn70 said:


> I do think there are heads that will not hit with bareshafts and fletched. If you get the point of a bareshaft hitting behind the pin at 30-40 yards or more I would think that’s about as perfect of tune you will get. I have heard Dudley say he’s tried certain broadheads that regardless of how and what he did to tuning they would not hit closer than 3-4” from fletched out to 50 yards. From watching him tune and shots I’ve seen him make I’m certain his equipment and tuning is top notch. I’ve shot bareshaft, fletched and a broadhead together at 30 yards and then put on another 100 grain head and it would about an inch and a half out at closest. Blades act as fletching son the front so I can see some fixed heads just not being able to hit with others at certain distance


This is were high and extreme FoC shines best. The more FoC you have the more steering power you give to your fletching. I've seen this over and over with guys unwilling to go above 10% and not being able to get fixed heads to fly true beyond 40-50 yards.


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

Can I get to page 20?


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

ShootingABN! said:


> Can I get to page 20?


Choo choo!


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

ShootingABN! said:


> Can I get to page 20?


Close


----------



## dsdhunts (Aug 26, 2015)

Page 47 on my setting


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

I'm setting up a 65# Expedite to be the new broadhead testing bow. I may have to double up on ballistic get to stop the frikken arrows. The new goal will be to get a complete pass through of the gel block lengthwise. 

I'll probably have to drop it down to 55# to continue with the foc tests.


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

dsdhunts said:


> Page 47 on my setting


Me too but I think that's just for the mobile app


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

enewman said:


> ShootingABN! said:
> 
> 
> > Can I get to page 20?
> ...


 how many more posts to get to 20 on the desk top?


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

It has to be close


----------



## frog gigger (May 4, 2007)

6..


----------



## dsdhunts (Aug 26, 2015)

jaximus said:


> so i just discussed speed relating to a different portion of this thread, but speed must play an important role with FoC as well. faster arrows slow down more quickly. so there is a higher rate of decelleration, meaning more potential flex of the shaft. FoC would be more advantageous to a faster arrow.
> 
> a slower arrow would experience less impact compression and therefore less advantage from FoC? help me noodle this through...
> 
> if i had more money and desire to break things, i would shoot 2 equal arrow weights with different FoC into a brick wall. i would bet that the FoC arrow would crumple more inline, insert piling up into the shaft, where a low FoC arrow would snap into sections


Correct but only half the story. A lot of myth causing comes from that. I literally have no one lie when it comes to this some misread, and only stated half. 

So your statement is very true, but even with 200g difference in weight, it takes 100 yards for the fast arrow to slow to heavy arrow speed befor going slower (light arrow) at 110 yards and beyond. 

You can change it with fat and skinny shafts for different drag and have. (Insert forgotten link here). 

That’s what I talk about in my myth. The minimum cutting velocity.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

dsdhunts said:


> Correct but only half the story. A lot of myth causing comes from that. I literally have no one lie when it comes to this some misread, and only stated half.
> 
> So your statement is very true, but even with 200g difference in weight, it takes 100 yards for the fast arrow to slow to heavy arrow speed befor going slower (light arrow) at 110 yards and beyond.
> 
> ...


my discussion of faster arrows slowing more quickly is not about unadulterated flight over distance, but rather when the arrow encounters a large quantity of resistance, meaning once it strikes the target and begins penetration.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

Hidden Danger said:


> I only shoot mechanicals and franken heads. Like I stated earlier , I first spin test all my shafts with a field tip. I then move to paper with bare shafts and fletched arrows. Once I get a clean tear and bullet hole I then walk back tune to 40 yards until I get a perfect vertical group using my 20 yard pin setting.
> I then shoot a bare shaft and two fletched shafts to verify that they are grouping together at 30 yards.
> Next I screw on a mech or franken head and spin test the shafts again. Then I shoot them with a field tip and bare shaft to verify that I'm getting a great group at 20.
> Then I shoot the head I will be hunting with at 20, 30 , 40 , 50 and 60 yards to verify that they're dead on.
> ...


i was interested at what distance you were 2.5" left and with which broadhead that was? unless i misunderstood and it was merely hypothetical to create a scenario where it is difficult to discern between improper tuning or spine deficiency. 

your tuning method sounds rigorous and successful, however, returning to my discussion of sweet spots for tuning, it begs the question of whether there is merit to broadheads having the smallest room for error, then bareshaft, then fletched. much like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. all broadhead tuned bows are bareshaft tuned, but not all bareshaft tunes are broadhead tunes. food for thought, at least...

ive taken much inspiration from your frankenheads and created a few of my own. with your bow specs, however, i believe some of your results are more of the exception than the rule. the average hunter does not have the advantage of your draw weight, speed, KE and MO numbers. i am rather envious.


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

GuntherChaconne said:


> I'm setting up a 65# Expedite to be the new broadhead testing bow. I may have to double up on ballistic get to stop the frikken arrows. The new goal will be to get a complete pass through of the gel block lengthwise.
> 
> I'll probably have to drop it down to 55# to continue with the foc tests.


Saw the video of you going to get it..... Where's the other video of da bow?


----------



## dnv23 (Feb 8, 2011)

20?


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

ShootingABN! said:


> GuntherChaconne said:
> 
> 
> > I'm setting up a 65# Expedite to be the new broadhead testing bow. I may have to double up on ballistic get to stop the frikken arrows. The new goal will be to get a complete pass through of the gel block lengthwise.
> ...


I did a quick unboxing video yesterday when I picked it up. Spent some time today setting it up and eyeballed a quick tune. I'm going to set it up to bareshaft out to 20 yards with my nvx25hd's and shoot them at the Great American Outdoors Show in Harrisburg next week. They set up an awesome indoor 3d shoot there every year. Gonna try to squeak my way into the shootoff. 

Then it's back to rigorous testing.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

what a sweet bow!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## swampcruiser (Mar 27, 2006)

^^^congrats, there’s 20


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

swampcruiser said:


> ^^^congrats, there’s 20


I was really just along for the ride.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

https://youtu.be/bvfHejnhfgg

Video of broadheads vs bone.More work needs to be done on f.o.c. til then ill do what any good woodsman would do use a g.u.n


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

GuntherChaconne said:


> I was really just along for the ride.


Me to. But I’ve had a good time on this post.


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

20 pages...... Keep growing.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

last night i shot 2 equal weight arrows with different FoC at 3/16" ply into my foam target in fresh spots. super unscientific, much different spines. one was my 475gr deer arrow cut at 27" and the other a 30.5" full length arrow i made for magnus bullheads. different spines(340 vs300), different brands, different fletching configurations, different just about everything but mass. the longer stiffer arrow with less FoC noodled a little more on impact and penetrated about 1.5" less both times i tried it. terrible test, the bow is actually tuned to a different 475gr arrow, and shots were at 6yds in my basement. BUT the results were about what i figured.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

jaximus said:


> last night i shot 2 equal weight arrows with different FoC at 3/16" ply into my foam target in fresh spots. super unscientific, much different spines. one was my 475gr deer arrow cut at 27" and the other a 30.5" full length arrow i made for magnus bullheads. different spines(340 vs300), different brands, different fletching configurations, different just about everything but mass. the longer stiffer arrow with less FoC noodled a little more on impact and penetrated about 1.5" less both times i tried it. terrible test, the bow is actually tuned to a different 475gr arrow, and shots were at 6yds in my basement. BUT the results were about what i figured.


So with Your unscientific test. Your conclusion is the shorter arrow with less spine but more foc out penetrated hm.

I would say your test was no good. You have the opposite result of gunner. And yours is not on video


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Thank God I have a 30.5 inch draw length and penetration has never been an issue. the filthy beagles are number one I can feel it. Go go go

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

but again my statement from earlier stands, we are trying to make this too scientific, we should just be looking for given total arrow weight, which is better, gpi or a weighted insert. or maybe its above XXXgrains it doesnt matter. remember, the arrow is a system


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

until it all gets sorted out well have to hit em with the Hein!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## sticknstring007 (Dec 2, 2017)

bstring said:


> What about a .22 bullet versus a 30.06. Which one loses speed and drops first??


Actually, if the .22 bullet, and the 30-06 bullet had the same BC, and were shot at the same muzzle velocity, the trajectory from point of aim to whenever the bullet fell out of the air would be the same. However, this means nothing in regard to penetration or muzzle energy.


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

21 pages on FOC or are we slowing down?


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

I'm wondering how much FOC really matters I'm just a deer hunter I consider 40 yards to be a long shot I'm wondering if FOC even comes into play at all. If it comes into play at all I'm sure it's greatly overshadowed by the fact that I'm usually shaking like a dog trying to crap out some razor blades when I'm shooting at a big Buck I'm amazed that I've ever made a good shot on a big buck. I'd say praying to the deer Gods is way more important than FOC. what do I know I'm just a deer hunter I don't get in 3D tournaments or anything.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## ppkaprince98 (Mar 13, 2008)

Norma S Racks said:


> https://youtu.be/bvfHejnhfgg
> 
> Video of broadheads vs bone.More work needs to be done on f.o.c. til then ill do what any good woodsman would do use a g.u.n
> 
> ...


Sweet test!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tnbn75 (Aug 3, 2015)

enewman said:


> So with Your unscientific test. Your conclusion is the shorter arrow with less spine but more foc out penetrated hm.
> 
> I would say your test was no good. You have the opposite result of gunner. And yours is not on video


Seems to that the same amount of science went into the video that started this thread. The only difference is the he told us that the both arrows didn't spine right for the bow which makes this a better comparison with the info we have.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

tnbn75 said:


> Seems to that the same amount of science went into the video that started this thread. The only difference is the he told us that the both arrows didn't spine right for the bow which makes this a better comparison with the info we have.


Haha. I was giving him a hard time.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

tnbn75 said:


> Seems to that the same amount of science went into the video that started this thread. The only difference is the he told us that the both arrows didn't spine right for the bow which makes this a better comparison with the info we have.


the arrows were actually chosen for my silly test BECAUSE they didnt spine right. theres a lot of 'issues' discussed about the OPs video. i personally like his test, aside from the lack of a harder thin media, be it drywall or plywood. his arrows were more thought out and much more difficult to build. i took a longer higher gpi arrow vs a shorter lighter gpi arrow with a heavy insert. reason being is if we put too many constraints on the test, it actually loses validity because its too hard to actually create it with standard parts. noone would ever shoot a 0% foc arrow, so thats just silly to even build. 

super mega scientific tests are neat and all, but what it boils down to, is how do we build the most efficient arrow given certain constraints. i am able to get .340 gold tips for $3 a shaft, so thats what i build on. with 100gr brass i can get them to 475gr before the spine fizzles out. between brass and shafts im in $4 each, add in helical blazers and im shooting $5 arrows. i could build a heavier arrow, a higher FoC arrow, a fancier arrow, whatever, but when i can have an extremely efficient and lethal set up for that price, its unbeatable(for me).


----------



## ShootingABN! (Nov 1, 2005)

higher FOC is good right?


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

GuntherChaconne said:


> Ballistic Gel is literally made of the same stuff that animals are. That's why the FBI uses it to test bullet impact and penetration. Obviously there are no bones, but the bone breach simulations will be coming along shortly.


Wrong! It is used solely because it is the most consistent medium that can be made for testing bullet penetration and upset. It does not simulate what bullets will do in real world simulations because it cannot account for all the variable thats are encountered when real life shootings occur. Ballistic gel does not act like a human body and it was not used for that reason. It was simply used for the consistency of the test medium. There were some real world tests conducted. They were called the Strausborg tests if my memory serves me correctly and were conducted using live goats that had Electroencephalography and arterial transducers placed in them to measure the effects and time of death from different defensive handgun loads. Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow also studied real life shootings and the effects of the rounds used during the shooting. Their results were published in several books on handgun stopping power. Interesting conclusions from their testing that are counter what we look for in archery or in hunting in general. Their general findings were that lighter faster bullets were the best for shooting humans when not shooting through anything (walls car doors, windshields..etc) to get to the target. Lighter faster bullets tended to stay in the body expending all their energy in the target and causing more internal trauma which tended to stop the target faster.


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

Norma S Racks said:


> I got to disagree with that .I build for flat trajectories and big exit holes .if I hit heavy bone hopefully I don't get any penetration. He will likely evade the coyotes and there's some chance I'll get a another shot at him. Maybe this year maybe next year who knows. Mathematically heavy bone is only a small percentage of a whitetails Anatomy.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Recipe for disaster.


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

nestly said:


> If all arrows are "over-spined" to begin with, it cannot be claimed that lack of penetration is caused by the shaft being underspined. If calculations call for a 400 spine, and the test arrows range from 300 spine to 150 spine, you can not claim the 300 is too weak just because it's less than the 150, it's still 100 greater than recommended. OP's arrows are all over-spined for the bow he's using.


Its all about consistency in everything when conducting repeatable and verified scientifically valid data. If testing is done correctly all variables SHOULD BE the same....and the only thing that should be different is the specific variable being tested for...in this case FOC. Weight should be the same...dynamic spine should be the same...arrow diameter should be the same and arrow weight should be the same. All arrows used should be properly tuned to the bow and the same bow with exact specs should be used.


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

nestly said:


> I understand they aren't the same dynamic spine, and I'm reasonably sure he does as well, so once again you're basing your argument on false pretense. The spine on all of his test arrows is above what's commonly regarded as sufficient for his setup, so the mere fact that they are all going to have a "stiffer than ideal" reaction is not a concern for me in the same way it would if some were too weak and some were too stiff. It's not practical, (and likely not possible) to maintain exactly the same dynamic spine for arrows with different FOC while also keeping the all the other physical properties of the arrow identical. If you don't like his test, you should do your own test, but Josh's test is specific to FOC, and he built his arrows to resemble each other in as many ways as possible.... except for FOC.


Yes it is and that is why Henro has called both of you out on this...several testers here on Archery Talk and various other sites have done exactly what the OP did not do and that was conduct testing using nearly exact testing criteria with the only thing being different is the actual test variable.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

You want to see recipe for disaster ???watch this video the bone Buster's bust through enough bone just enough to really mess him up so the coyotes can catch him.https://youtu.be/bvfHejnhfgg

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

nestly said:


> I have faith that others can comprehend that micro tuning is irrelevant to penetration tests as long as the arrow has had time to recover and is flying straight and true when it makes contact with the target. If you disagree and think that point is completely invalid and choose not to respond to any of my future comments, I'm 100% OK with that. If you need assistance adding me to your ignore list, I'll be happy to help... however choosing to ignore common sense concepts because they are detrimental to your argument does not make those concepts any less valid.


The only thing irrelevant is your understanding of the scientific method. If testing variables are not controlled you have produced inaccurate and unrepeatable data that cannot have anything of value extrapolated from the testing that is actually accurate.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

snoman4 said:


> Its all about consistency in everything when conducting repeatable and verified scientifically valid data. If testing is done correctly all variables SHOULD BE the same....and the only thing that should be different is the specific variable being tested for...in this case FOC. Weight should be the same...dynamic spine should be the same...arrow diameter should be the same and arrow weight should be the same. All arrows used should be properly tuned to the bow and the same bow with exact specs should be used.


That's all well and good.... but it's pretty much impossible to build multiple arrows with various FOC's while keeping all the other physical properties identical, including spine reaction. BTW, how does someone obtain exact dynamic spine values anyway?

The standard for a completely sterile test that's being applied here is wholly unreasonable. As hunters and target archers, we do not go into that level of specificity when selecting arrows, so it's pointless to conduct a test that no one will follow anyway in the real world. This is a good time to point out that Ashby's tests were not sterile either, probably far less well controlled than these tests have been.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

snoman4 said:


> Recipe for disaster.


recipe for disaster?? No way. 4 blades 1.75" cut.80 grains.312 grain arrow.61lb pse decree. That's the entrance hole. ill Admit I did not get an exit all on that one I got shoulder blade I didn't need it though I saw him go down. I've got others .I have it on video. I have video proof. I also have video proof of bone busting arrows not busting through bone at all.









Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

Bullhound said:


> There you go. You complain about the OP's test equipment not being tuned to your satisfaction, but yet you tout the opinions of Ashby as if they are gospel. I suspect you didn't really answer my question because you could never suggest, without laughing at yourself, that the equipment used in Ashby's TESTS, being the bows, arrows, and the resulting combination were "tuned" to a degree that even comes close to the tune of the OP's Bow, arrows used, and the resulting combination used in his test.


Bullhound I will try and answer this as best I can as having shot recurve for many many years. When shooting trad equipment optimal flight is harder to tune and requires much more in the way of tuning to get the optimal spine for correct arrow flight. That is why there is such a large range of spines for trad arrows when compared to Compounds. Ashby is a stickler for proper spine so I would venture to say that his tuning was done correctly.


----------



## 3D Pinwheeler (Jan 29, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> You want to see recipe for disaster ???watch this video the bone Buster's bust through enough bone just enough to really mess him up so the coyotes can catch him.https://youtu.be/bvfHejnhfgg
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


You do realize they are cow bones right?


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

Norma S Racks said:


> recipe for disaster?? No way. 4 blades 1.75" cut.80 grains.312 grain arrow.61lb pse decree. That's the entrance hole. ill Admit I did not get an exit all on that one I got shoulder blade I didn't need it though I saw him go down. I've got others .I have it on video. I have video proof. I also have video proof of bone busting arrows not busting through bone at all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shoulder blades are not tough brother so try again. I have shot through shoulder blades with 45 lb trad bows going 170 FPS with 470 grain arrows using old bear razorcaps and satellite broadheads (inferior to most of todays offerings BTW).


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

Broadhead tuning will show spine or any tuning issues much better than a mech or field point will.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

3D Pinwheeler said:


> You do realize they are cow bones right?


yeah. The heavy part of a big bucks shoulder is triangular shaped approximately the same thickness. I watch this video this is what I see.. if you need to bust through that heavy part of a bucks shoulder wait till gun season. As far as flat shooting arrow with a big mechanical it'll get through the shoulder blade. is it going to get through the heavy part of a big bucks shoulder? nope. it won't.. but then again that , Arrow built for bone busting isn't either. It will bust up enough bone to mess him up so the coyotes can get him that's it

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

nestly said:


> That's all well and good.... but it's pretty much impossible to build multiple arrows with various FOC's while keeping all the other physical properties identical, including spine reaction. BTW, how does someone obtain exact dynamic spine values anyway?
> 
> The standard for a completely sterile test that's being applied here is wholly unreasonable. As hunters and target archers, we do not go into that level of specificity when selecting arrows, so it's pointless to conduct a test that no one will follow anyway in the real world. This is a good time to point out that Ashby's tests were not sterile either, probably far less well controlled than these tests have been.


Do a little searching on AT and you fill find the answers to how these testing variables can be kept the same and have been done so for years. A suggestion is to search for some of the testing done by Whitey375 but there are numerous others as well.


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

Norma S Racks said:


> yeah. The heavy part of a big bucks shoulder is triangular shaped approximately the same thickness. I watch this video this is what I see.. if you need to bust through that heavy part of a bucks shoulder wait till gun season. As far as flat shooting arrow with a big mechanical it'll get through the shoulder blade. is it going to get through the heavy part of a big bucks shoulder? nope. it won't.. but then again that , Arrow built for bone busting isn't either. It will bust up enough bone to mess him up so the coyotes can get him that's it
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Search this site for Single Bevel broad head testing and your eyes will be opened about busting through heavy bone and a Deer Shoulder Blade is not heavy bone.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

But if I get all geared up to bust through bone with a single bevel then I'm going to end up with a heavy arrow that has a bad trajectory and then I'm going to get a single lung hit or liver or gut hit it's like one step forward and five steps backwards. To that other guy lightweight flat shooting big Mechanicals it's not a recipe for disaster maybe if you believe everything you read in the hunting magazines back in the eighties you might believe that

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

Norma S Racks said:


> But if I get all geared up to bust through bone with a single bevel then I'm going to end up with a heavy arrow that has a bad trajectory and then I'm going to get a single lung hit or liver or gut hit it's like one step forward and five steps backwards. To that other guy lightweight flat shooting big Mechanicals it's not a recipe for disaster maybe if you believe everything you read in the hunting magazines back in the eighties you might believe that
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I believe what I have seen work and not work. The trajectory issue with today's bows is a moot point in most cases because in shooting most animals the shots are 40 yards and under. The heavier arrow will have a few inches of trajectory difference in most cases at 40 yards. The bow shooting the heavier arrow will be quieter throughout the process from shot to impact and this is an important factor in hunting as you will illicit less response from the animal at the shot. Most of todays bows at 330 IBO and above with a 500 grain arrow will still shoot 255 to 270 feet per second when shot at 60lbs if the shooter has the average draw length, which I think is around 28". This is why arrows are spine tested at 28" when setting their rating. That 255 to 270FPS is much faster than compounds in the 80's shot.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

That's another one the outdoor writers like to write about. so under 40 yards are going to be two whitetails ears? maybe you will maybe you won't .I take string silencers off my bow 
they will hear my bow
they will jump the string 
I will aim low 
they will end up on my wall. 
nufsaid

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

Norma S Racks said:


> That's another one the outdoor writers like to write about. so under 40 yards are going to be two whitetails ears? maybe you will maybe you won't .I take string silencers off my bow
> they will hear my bow
> they will jump the string
> I will aim low
> ...


Don't read the outdoor writers, again that is years and years of experience speaking. Went the light fast route for a year and had more deer jump the string in that season than I had in the previous 15 combined. A heavier arrow provides a softer sound on the shot and in my years of experience deer are less likely to react from the sound of the shot with the heavier arrow. Sound is vibration and vibration is lost efficiency. I love efficiency as it means my setups are working optimally to give me the best chance of cleanly taking game. I can't recall ever having a deer jump the string on me with trad equipment shooting 470 to 600 grain arrows at 170 FPS and under.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Whitetail deer will jump the string. who cares. aim low. I have a living room full of string jumpers.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

Norma S Racks said:


> Whitetail deer will jump the string. who cares. aim low. I have a living room full of string jumpers.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


You aim where you want to and I will aim where I want to. I prefer center of lungs as that has worked best for me over the years. I prefer to keep deer from reacting to my shot as it another variable that I can't control when it happens.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Ever since I saw the Primo's truth about deer hunting volume number three I aim to take a patch of fur off their chest.past 30 yards anyway. My bow shoots pretty flat. past 30 yards I put the 30-yard pin smack right on there vitals. The arrow goes low they drop right into it. a lot of deer if you bleat to get him to hold still it's likely they're going to hear that bowstring .i think

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## naterb (Apr 7, 2014)

I haven't read all 500 comments but did anyone actually believe that a higher foc with all things equal results in better penetration?
To makes makes no sense logically or mathmatically that ke or momentum would change, meaning no change in penetration. When I increased my foc it was arrow flight and resistance to wind drift. 
The fact that this is a topic makes me feel like I've missed something. Granted I haven't been flinging arrows very long

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Norma S Racks said:


> recipe for disaster?? No way. 4 blades 1.75" cut.80 grains.312 grain arrow.61lb pse decree. That's the entrance hole. ill Admit I did not get an exit all on that one I got shoulder blade I didn't need it


If you can't get through scapula you have a problem imo. I totally agree those numbers are a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

plecavalier said:


> If you can't get through scapula you have a problem imo. I totally agree those numbers are a recipe for disaster.


with an arrow under 325 grains out of a 60lb. pse speed bow...a slow bowtech too
2 blade 2" rage..2 for 2 on passthrus on ribcage
3 blade 2" grim reaper 2 for 2 passthru tibcage shot. These girls right here penetrate like crazy I bet you they would out penetrate a lot of fixed blades out there.
4 blade 1.75" miniblaster 4 for 5 passthrus.
I know for sure it ain't no recipe for disaster unless I'm making miracles happen maybe I've got Supernatural powers or something.


Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Just like those pse speed bows that are under 6 inch brace a lot of guys are skeered of the SPECS. don't be skeered.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

naterb said:


> To me it makes no sense logically or mathmatically that ke or momentum would change, meaning no change in penetration


momentum and KE are numbers. vectors. meaning they have direction. we assign a value to that energy, but it is along the arrows trajectory. any deviation from that initial trajectory comes at the 'loss' of energy. so when an arrow enounters resistence, there is some flex, but also some deflection. this deflection varies from the initial force vector, meaning that the arrow only retains a percentage of its momentum. the closer the mass is to the origin of deflection, the more momentum retained.


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

In this test. It’s obvious the 25% foc out penetrated the 10%.


----------



## nestly (Apr 19, 2015)

2nd deer is obviously larger.. your test is invalid 

(plus, everyone knows that red arrows penetrate better than blue ones.)


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

nestly said:


> 2nd deer is obviously larger.. your test is invalid
> 
> (plus, everyone knows that red arrows penetrate better than blue ones.)


It was camera angle hahaha.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

enewman said:


> In this test. It’s obvious the 25% foc out penetrated the 10%.


Is that one of those Mathews Triax

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## plecavalier (Jan 10, 2008)

Norma S Racks said:


> Is that one of those Mathews Triax
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Pretty sure it's the length of his left arm that caused more penetration.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Yeah if his right arm was as long as his left arm he could pull like 40 in

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## naterb (Apr 7, 2014)

jaximus said:


> momentum and KE are numbers. vectors. meaning they have direction. we assign a value to that energy, but it is along the arrows trajectory. any deviation from that initial trajectory comes at the 'loss' of energy. so when an arrow enounters resistence, there is some flex, but also some deflection. this deflection varies from the initial force vector, meaning that the arrow only retains a percentage of its momentum. the closer the mass is to the origin of deflection, the more momentum retained.


I understand. So if an arrows poi is at a perfect 90degree angle on x and y axis (no deflection) then foc would be irrelevant. 
Since arrows won't hit a dynamic target, like a squirrel, perfectly, then foc plays a role. 
So I was missing something. 
So what does this test prove? That the difference is negligible? Seems like to properly test this, there are too many variables that are too difficult to replicate in a controlled environment to be accurate. 
Looks like I'll be ready this whole thread!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

I think what he proved is that FOC does not play a role in penetration it's either that or it will help you hold steadier. I'm not really sure I hope somebody else can chime in.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Norma S Racks said:


> Just like those pse speed bows that are under 6 inch brace a lot of guys are skeered of the SPECS. don't be skeered.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I'm not skeered anymore Norma


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

Norma S Racks said:


> I think what he proved is that FOC does not play a role in penetration it's either that or it will help you hold steadier. I'm not really sure I hope somebody else can chime in.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Honestly, I believe foc probably does help with penetration, but I suspect that the improvement is probably very marginal if your bow is tuned well. Another example of something that appears to be useful on paper, but doesn't really make much of a difference in real life application.


----------



## jaximus (Feb 23, 2015)

naterb said:


> I understand. So if an arrows poi is at a perfect 90degree angle on x and y axis (no deflection) then foc would be irrelevant.
> Since arrows won't hit a dynamic target, like a squirrel, perfectly, then foc plays a role.
> So I was missing something.
> So what does this test prove? That the difference is negligible? Seems like to properly test this, there are too many variables that are too difficult to replicate in a controlled environment to be accurate.
> ...


your new understanding is correct. his test was shot into a static homogenous target with no deflection. meaning that his FoC test really only tested penetration based on mass. since mass is the same and the arrow didnt encounter anything deflectory, they penetrated similarly. 

to get a better understanding of FoC, the arrow must strike a hard surface to get the arrow to flex on impact, a fracturing media(ice/drywall/plexiglass) or an angled surface to alter the arrows course.


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

ideally wed have static homogieznized deer to test on.ez to make theres plenty of video of arrows going through deer.the arrow went through stuck in mud
a target is built carpet paneling foam to get the same static homogeiznized result.the arrow went through stuck in mud. But what do I know I'm just a deer hunter

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## naterb (Apr 7, 2014)

jaximus said:


> your new understanding is correct. his test was shot into a static homogenous target with no deflection. meaning that his FoC test really only tested penetration based on mass. since mass is the same and the arrow didnt encounter anything deflectory, they penetrated similarly.
> 
> to get a better understanding of FoC, the arrow must strike a hard surface to get the arrow to flex on impact, a fracturing media(ice/drywall/plexiglass) or an angled surface to alter the arrows course.


So to improve this test, put a 1/4" or 3/16" piece of particle board with gel behind it and shoot and different angles. Maybe a pig carcass? Using that you'd need a new one for each shot and need to use a large sample size so it's not really an option. 
Other improvements to the test would be 3 different arrows with same weight, different foc's maybe between 400 and 550 grains. 
I appreciate the guys effort in putting together the test, but drawing a conclusion after 1 shot each is a disservice to the scientific method. 
That's a lot of work and a lot of gel. With these changes a better conclusion could be drawn but hey, I'm just an armchair quarterback. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## GuntherChaconne (Mar 9, 2015)

naterb said:


> jaximus said:
> 
> 
> > your new understanding is correct. his test was shot into a static homogenous target with no deflection. meaning that his FoC test really only tested penetration based on mass. since mass is the same and the arrow didnt encounter anything deflectory, they penetrated similarly.
> ...


None breach simulation gel tests are in my near future. Real life gets in the way sometimes.


----------



## gemart (Mar 29, 2015)

I think Troy and bigmike have done a good bone breach test recently. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

gemart said:


> I think Troy and bigmike have done a good bone breach test recently.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


say what???

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> say what???
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Yep. He proved that josh foc penetration myth destroyed was a josh myth.


----------



## ppkaprince98 (Mar 13, 2008)

Norma S Racks said:


> say what???
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


THis.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=5382595


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

Seems like a legitimate test but his name is the ranch fairy???hahahaha

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Norma S Racks (Jan 21, 2018)

enewman said:


> Yep. He proved that josh foc penetration myth destroyed was a josh myth.


wait a minute....stop the clock... Josh proved out his own myth?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## enewman (Jun 5, 2007)

Norma S Racks said:


> wait a minute....stop the clock... Josh proved out his own myth?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


hahaha I was just making comments to give josh hard time, and posting between jobs hell looks like I left out half of the sentence hahahahah it only took several post to even catch it. oh well. crap happens


----------



## Mr One-9 (Feb 11, 2016)

jaximus said:


> really sad it took halfway through page 2 for someone to say the correct things, well done.
> 
> ballistic gel is a terrible medium for archery. its homogenous(the same all the way through), so it has no density variation.
> 
> ...



I agree with you on the aspect of physics and paradoxes, but by that same logic, any argument for penetration is null and void. If you have ever come across any media or game with similar enough heterogeneity to perfect an accurate test, then I think we could get rich quick. I have never seen two deer with the identical bone and muscle density or internal organ density. If you decide to use block targets for instance, then you run into the same issue as the gel. Since there is no fool proof way to appeal to everyone's personal preferences as far as what is being used, how about we all perform unbiased test of our own, gather here and discuss our findings, and offer options as to how these test can improve for better results everyone can live with. See, no bruised egos.


----------



## clif109 (Feb 22, 2008)

You simply haven't read far enough.


----------

