There is continually an ongoing debate on arrow weight, FOC, aluminum, carbon vs wood.

I was reading over the kinetic energy, vs ,momentum debate.

so i headed to the yard for some real world scientific experiment. plucked a small pig ear leaf and slipped the stem in a arrow hole to hold it. (pretty scientific huh)... I've done it before , but figured what the heck i'll do it again, just for the anyhow, and whatever of it all.

So i grabbed 2 28 3/4" sitka spruce that weigh 470ish, both sporting 125 gr points. 3 5" shield cut

2 aluminum weighing a tad over 530ish with 175 gr points. 3 5" shield cut

Now granted its not a huge difference, but hey 60 gr ought to be enough to tell something right?

(sorry no carbons tuned for that bow.)

i took a piece of paper and a pen to record accuracy, penetration ect..ect

i shot the 1st round shooting all arrows. at a range of 20 yds.

walked up to the target, well what do you know ! all in a neat 6" cluster. well what do you know ! one of the sitka spruce penetrated the most and one the least, but they were all within an inch and a half.

soooo i skipped writing anything down must have been a fluke huh?

shot 4 more...well what do you know, all in a neat cluster, but no cut and dry difference (maybe an inch0...skipped writing again.

After shooting probably 100 shots into the bag which has a piece of cardboard propped in front i came to the conclusion that penetration was close , and any variation had way more to do with where it hit the bag than anything else. even as little as an inch made a difference, and there was just as much variation among arrow type as between them.

so what i found was

accuracy?....not a nickles worth of difference.

Speed? very hard to distinguish, but the sitka's are a tad faster.

penetration? not a nickles worth of difference.

effect of FOC heavy point vs light ? not a nickles worth of difference.

trajectory? sitka's were flatter shooting

what's it all prove? that science looks good on paper, But science is a controlled environment, real world is not.

shot angle, did it hit a rib or go between? from a treestand? or on the ground? how much did the deer flinch? was he moving at the shot, or standing perfectly still?

How sharp was the broadhead? how wide of a broadhead?

All those things can be added or subtracted to reveal different results, even with the same arrow.

If there is one thing i learned for sure. Each of those arrows is capable of blowing right through a deer.....

And it's hard to concentate with black gnats crawling in your ears.

I have one word for you...Thermacell

DDave

The general thinking is that up until about 650gr. or so, overall arrow weight is the most important factor. Above this threshhold, high-FOC benefits become more evident.

Peraonally, I'm not that concerned with what will "blow through a deer." People have obviously taken deer with all manner of lightweight, flimsy arrows (though you don't tend to hear all the stories about the deer that weren't recovered...). I'm concerned with what will "blow through a bull elk." But I see no reason not to use that same EFOC arrow for everything else, either.

You inadvertently bring up a good point. While there ARE measurable performance differences, many fall into the trap that if X outperforms Y, Y is no longer effective.

No one can dispute that a hi-performance tuned sports car does better in extreme driving than a mini-van. But the mini gets us to the grocery store just fine thanks.

I agree, put an arrow where it needs to go & you'll be fie. I would like a nickel for every - This VS That thread though. I think I could pay for new bow with them :)

Yorktown5

While in a controlled environment it might be possible to measure the difference. In real world hunting it would not, aside from comparing the two extremes of very light and very heavy.

i'd be willing to bet my next weeks paycheck that on game, choose your species deer, bear or elk, and using a 500 gr arrow and a 650 gr arrow...after taking 100 animals with each, you could draw no clear conclusion as to which one is more effective.

and the difference's in penetration would be as great among each arrow type as between them...simply because it's not a controlled setting.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect to see much penetration difference with only 60 gr separation while shot from the same bow.

I think many guys get enamored with something because it worked for them well, so they quickly want to inform everyone else how that it's the only thing that will work in all circumstances. It gets to be a cult-like exuberance and frankly very tiresome to most folks to listen to. Lots of empirical evidence from decades of real life archery/bowhunting to show the effectiveness of archery weaponry, and it covers a wide parameter.

There are few archers here who could approach the accuracy of guys like Erwin Pletcher, who shot field round scores..mid to late 1940's)... that are enviable with even today's equipment. Remember he had to use wood arrows at the time, from a Yew selfbow, at unmarked distances...from 20 ft to 80 yards. Add to that one of those rounds was a broadhead round that is no longer used in competition. Howard Hill also showed that cedar arrows were both durable and accurate...and definitely deadly.

Of course that's all history that most people don't know about or care to learn. We have such a plethora of goods to choose from nowadays that it probably takes away from really learning the sport well. We fiddle too damn much.

your right jeff...not enough difference maybe. i never really got caught up in the heavyweight arrow craze, but i'm game to glue some up simply so i can see for myself.

I did shoot someone else's custom hybrid last summer. He uses heavyweight arrows.

I'll hold my opinion for now, but lets just say i wasn't impressed enough by either speed or penetration, to switch from using mid weight 470 to 540 gr.

I would also just add that I really don't see the point in debating all this over and over, nor do I have any interest in putting effort into changing anyone's mind anymore. People who see no merit to high-FOC setups, and then set up experiments to "prove" that there is no merit to it, are people who's minds are already made up anyway.

The info is out there - use it or don't - that's entirely your choice. Personally, I have found no downside whatsoever to a 650+ gr. arrow with EFOC when used within typical trad bow hunting ranges. And since elk are one of the primary animals I chase, and they are big, tough animals, I want the deck stacked in my favor as much as possible. The last thing I want is a wounded and unrecovered animal.

As for those who say that the only important thing is "putting the arrow where it needs to go" I have to say that I applaud your optimism. But even the most accurate archer cannot control all of the variables of a real-world shot on a live animal, as not all those variables are necessarily within the archer's control. Things happen, and not every shot is perfect, no matter how good you are. For these reasons, I strive to be the most accurate shooter that I can be, AND I build a heavy, high-FOC arrow for what may happen once that arrow leaves my string regardless.

But if you see no merit to that thinking, then do as you will and good luck out there.

Sorry, forgot where I was for a minute. I was referring to shade getting similar results with from a 60 grain spread in weight. I'm not saying arrow weight isn't important. My arrows now are around 600gr. If I make up a set that weighs closer to 540ish? I won't sweat it much. Thanks for the well wish's tho. :)

Smithhammer, you have a point in not debating this over and over but, as humans, we do that to every subject. Look at politics, religion and EFOC. :)

Frankly though there is something we could all learn if we come into the conversation with an open mind.

For example Larry Hatfield, on another thread, mentioned he killed 45 elk and a truckload of bears and never worried about FOC. That expereince should be helpful to those that want to hunt elk can't sort through all the internet noise.

"For example Larry Hatfield, on another thread, mentioned he killed 45 elk and a truckload of bears and never worried about FOC. That expereince should be helpful to those that want to hunt elk can't sort through all the internet noise....."

Yep, and if I were actually going elk hunting this year then he'd be the guy I'd ask for advice on equipment, not some dude on the internet that claims the world of penetration doesn't exist until you reach 650 gr.

Phil and Roger...lol..funny i was thinking of Larry's comment myself. I tend to pay a lot of attention to guy's like that.

"...not some dude on the internet that claims the world of penetration doesn't exist until you reach 650 gr...."

Who ever claimed that? Not I, my friend.

And I have a world of respect for Larry's extensive experience. I really do. But that doesn't mean that everyone needs to do everything the way that Mr. Hatfield does, any more than Mr. Hatfield is obligated to do everything the way Howard Hill or Saxton Pope did before him. Did Pope do everything the way that Ishi did? Hardly, but Ishi was by far the more epxerienced hunter of the two, wasn't he? We learn from our forefathers and also forge our own paths.

Best of luck to you all, and most importantly, have fun.

And no one needs to do everything the way Fred Ashby does it, anymore than Mr. Hatfield is obligated to do everything the way Howard Hill or Saxton Pope did before him.

You see, Smithhammer, it works both ways.

"""People who see no merit to high-FOC setups, and then set up experiments to "prove" that there is no merit to it, are people who's minds are already made up anyway.""""

That statement tells me you are part of that equation. You have your mind made up one way as well. You are not interested in information that may challenge your own mindset. Glass houses.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, George. Nor I am not saying (and I've NEVER said) that anyone "needs to do everything the way the Ed Ashby does." That would be ridiculous, imo. Which is precisley why I previously said that I'm not trying to convert anyone here, just sharing information. People are free to take it for what it is, and how they feel it might apply to them. If people want to try it out, and they like what they find, then great. If they don't, that's fine with me too.

That said, if these ideas apparently have no merit, I find it fascinating that folks continue to find it irresistable to chime in to the contrary whenever the topic comes up.

"You have your mind made up one way as well. You are not interested in information that may challenge your own mindset."

Actually, George, I'm always interested in information that challenges my mindset. I like to learn, I like to experiment, and I like to reach conclusions based on actual firsthand experience. I don't see how anything I've said previously in this thread contradicts that.

I got three 50 pound bows, my Assenheimer loves 2114 aluminum arrows, my old Bear loves the heavy Cedars, My Samick Stingray loves them carbons. Dont know why there all different but really don't care.lol Point is the arrows that are shooting and tuned will penetrate better even with weight differences.

Just because Mr. Hatfield said he didn't worry about FOC doesn't mean he wasn't using that principle inadvertantly. Maybe he was using a big honkin' broadhead? I don't believe he claims he was using what some would consider a light arrow, either. His arrows were obviously sufficiently heavy to do the job, and that could have also masked any effect of FOC, if there was any.

And I'm a little confused as to whether Shade Mt is claiming he was using "science" when he conducted his experiment in penetration by different arrows, weights, FOC, etc. Sounds like there were too many variables to draw any real conclusions. Real science would involve controlling the variables so that only one variable was being tested at a time. Even though any differences may have appeared small, they may still have existed but just weren't observed due to the variability inherent in this approach.

Maybe what he is saying is that with the variability he saw, any differences that may have existed wouldn't make any real difference in the outcome. Maybe not, but that's not science!

actually it would be kind of silly not to be open minded about things like FOC...i just haven't noticed much difference in real world shooting. Had the 175 gr points out penetrated the 125 gr points in my little shooting session this morning i would have been the 1st to say. Eureka! i'm on to something, but twas not to be.

possibly with more than a 50gr difference? don't know? I do however know that Easton in their frequently asked questions states..

"WHAT IS F.O.C.?

The term F.O.C. stands for "front-of-center." FOC describes the percentage of the arrow's total weight that is located in the front half of the arrow. The more weight that is located in the front half of the arrow, the more forward is the arrow's center- of-balance. An arrow's F.O.C. is critical to optimal accuracy, especially at long-range distances. Easton recommends 10-15% FOC for hunting set ups. To determine FOC for your current set up, see FAQ "How do I determine FOC?"

And gold tip states... FAQs Question: Is FOC (front of center balance) really important? Answer: FOC is important, but really begins to take effect at longer shot distances (40 yards plus). For a hunting arrow chose an FOC in the range of 8-12%. Some target applications will require more than that, but there are not any written rules as to how much is best. Trial and error is the best method to be employed here and the use of Gold Tip’s weight system makes tinkering with FOC a very simple prospect. Check out the weight system.

Hey who am i to argue with the arrow maker's themselves? seems we been saying that all along. nothing biased at all just simple facts.

i'm sticking to my not a "nickles worth of difference" theory. Till i can see otherwise with my own two eyes.

what i see happening is somebody comes along gets poor penetration with a 500 gr arrow and suddenly he thinks a 650 gr arrow is the answer

But in reality his problem was his broadhead was not shaving sharp, because he hasn't touched it up since the evening before the opener, and it's been jostled around in his quiver for a month. And in all the excitement he snap shot and only got 25" of draw length instead of his usual 27". Which changed the spine requirement of his bow , and lowered his bows performance,and reeked havoc with arrow flight, plus he hit the shoulder blade of a quartered animal....

i'd say that is an all to common scenerio.

"... what i see happening is somebody comes along gets poor penetration with a 500 gr arrow and suddenly he thinks a 650 gr arrow is the answer

But in reality his problem was his broadhead was not shaving sharp, because he hasn't touched it up since the evening before the opener, and it's been jostled around in his quiver for a month. And in all the excitement he snap shot and only got 25" of draw length instead of his usual 27". Which changed the spine requirement of his bow , and lowered his bows performance,and reeked havoc with arrow flight, plus he hit the shoulder blade of a quartered animal...."

I suppose that theory could apply to someone who has absolutely no idea what they are doing, and who doesn't have the slightest understanding of tuning, etc.

But high-FOC or not, proper tuning, good form and a sharp broadhead are, of course, always essential. With all due respect, I don't think that theory explains much beyond a tiny percentage of people new to the sport who don't understand that. Just sayin'.

Don't know about penetration, but one thing you apparently did prove Shade is that most folks probably can't shoot a 50-60 grain difference in arrow weight. i.e., your accuracy level, whatever it was, apparently didn't vary shooting one weight arrow vis-a- vis the other.

I read on here all the time people fretting about whether 5 grains additional point weight, or 8-10 grains additional weight from a wrap ,etc. is going to affect their accuracy. In short, it won't, nor will 50 grains, because most of us just aren't that good.

toehead.

lol..i know that if i throw all my nickles in a big can they turn in to dollars at the bank...lol

truthfully i respect those of you that use heavyweights.

Actually for a number of years i shot a 74# recurve, naturally those arrows were heavy....and yea they sure penetrated. Anymore i use 54# as my go to, with 500+ish arrows. they work great.

I used some lighter two seasons ago, all behind the shoulder shots so no problems. but this year i'm done experimenting and i'm a bit over 500gr. just bear and deer this year.

Backcountry, Larry Hatfield wasn't inadvertently doing anything. He has an extensive history in not only making bows but in flight shooting and in killing game. If you follow his other posts you'll get a glimpse of that.

He said he has used Ace Express heads for a long time.

"Who ever claimed that? Not I, my friend."

"And I have a world of respect for Larry's extensive experience. I really do. But any more than Mr. Hatfield is obligated to do everything the way Howard Hill or Saxton Pope did before him. Did Pope do everything the way that Ishi did? Hardly, but Ishi was by far the more epxerienced hunter of the two, wasn't he? We learn from our forefathers and also forge our own paths."

Actually a few here often do claim just that, but I wasn't referencing any of your comments. Additionally, I never stated "that doesn't mean that everyone needs to do everything the way that Mr. Hatfield does,". I said if I want advice I'm going to ask Larry Hatfield, as he actually has the answers......not theory, conjecture, innuendo, but real life elk killing experience. To me that speaks volumes above lame brained internet conspiracy theorists who have a man crush on a bow hunting optometrist.

I didn't at all mean to infer that Larry Hatfield was doing anything haphazardly. Just that whatever combination of arrow weight and broadhead he used MAY have resulted in pronounced FOC...

As it turns out, in Dan Bertalan's "Traditional Bowyer's Encyclopedia," he mentions that Larry shot a 75# recurve at first, and used heavy Forgewood shafts and, yes, Ace Express broadheads. Those were150 grains, as listed in an old Kitteredge Bowhut catalog.

Just goes to show that Larry was aware of the effectiveness of a heavy arrow and good broadhead. He didn't need no stinkin' FOC!

East guys...just do the math. As you trade mass for speed (within reason) kinetic energy changes little. READ THE WORDS CAREFULLY.

Within the variables of arrow effectiveness, the change in impact energy between a lighter-faster arrow and a heavier-slower one is not very much.

Trying again: The relative terminal performance of a hunting arrow has almost NOTHING to do with mass versus speed OR FoC. To perform best, it must arrive and deposit that energy in a straight line. By and of itself any reasonable weight and FoC that allows the arrow to fly true is as effective as another.

Same trajectory? No.

Is that all there is to it? Without picking-nits, just about.

Some arrow combinations beyond the perfect broadhead arriving perfectly in the perfect place, might, maybe, could do better than another (I'm thinking small diameter shafts for example). But it is more theory than provable.

Once more: It ain't how fast or how heavy. As you trade off speed for arrow weight, the total energy in the arrow remains similar. It ain't overly important how the weight is balanced so long as the arrow flies true and to the trajectory you personally prefer.

Greater FoC may help if all else isn't perfect, and certainly with carbons is an easier arrow to assemble anyway, but it is only one smaller part of the whole.

R.

Good to see you sharing your observations with us. Unfortunatly you are preaching to the converted at least with me Proof is in the pudding, so to speak.Just enjoy what your doing and if it ain't broke don't fix it OSR

George,

History is exactly why I choose to use the equipment I do and NOT what was used in history. Currently, mine is better being heavy, high FOC and single bevel. And I am still looking to improve but haven't found anything yet.

Some just prefer to choose otherwise and stay with "history" equipment. No problemo...

For me, at this point, I do have my mind made up. I have been in "history" and my mind is made up that I ain't going back. Been there, done that.

Man, I need to get out more. Its Saturday night and I'm actually enjoying this thread.....

I'm going to agree with you completely, black gnats in the ear can be a real pain in the, well you know.

people are quoting me, but not the thing i wrote that is pertinent to this discussion, so i will post what i wrote.

"i use forgewoods with ace express heads on everything but small game. just building the arrows that have always worked for me seem to produce a foc of 11% to 14%. never ever measured that until a year or so ago after all the discussions on the internet. so, to answer phils question, i thing overall weight is more important than foc because i have never made an broadhead arrow that did not have at least a 11% foc. it takes care of itself."

By using the term "inadvertently," I was suggesting that Mr. Hatfield might have achieved something without necessarily intending to do so. So when he went back and measured the FOC of the arrows that worked well for him, he discovered that the FOC was in the range of 11-14%.

Maybe Easton secretly acquired some of Larry's arrows to come up with their recommendations!

There are a number of similar threads on here right now, all discussing arrow weight, FOC, KE ect....the point of this one is to call attention to how much difference are we really talking?

Many hold fast to Ashby study's and the heavier is better. that's fine nothing wrong with that, but before we argue about it. Again allow me to remind you under what circumstance were most of the failures?

Good lethal behind the shoulder shots? Or heavy bone?

let us not forget we are talking trad bows here and the difference between my 500gr wood arrow with a 12% FOC traveling at 177.5 fps and yielding 35.2 ft lbs of KE

and a 5575 gt 29" with a 200 gr head and a 100gr insert weighing slightly less than 600gr with a FOC of 23.4% traveling approx 165fps out of the same bow now has approx 35.6 ft lbs of KE

A heavy wood shaft 29" long a 250gr head weighing 694 gr and a GPP of just under 14 and a FOC of 16.4% traveling 154 fps out of my same bow yields 36.4 lbs of KE

those figures are off of 3rivers spine calculator...

we are talking petty differences in KE , but fairly substantial differences in trajectory.

Let the figures sink in...35.2 and 36.4 folks that's 1.2 ft lbs of difference with a big loss of trajectory.

Also let this sink in...arrows, not even heavy arrows are reliable when hitting heavy bone, knuckle joints ect....heck even the rifle hunters with 2500ft lbs of energy don't want to be hitting heavy bone.

you guy's are nit picking over nickles and that is the reality of it all.

I agree with Dave...Thermacell.

KE isn't a very good indicator of penetration.

If you check the momentum of Shade Mt's three arrow setups:

1.500 gr @ 177.5=.394 momentum (slug feet) 2.600 gr @ 165=.439 3.694 gr @ 154=.475

That's a 20% difference from lightest to heaviest.

Guys will try anything to cheat a badly made shot. Huge broadheads to try n turn a bad shot into a good one, super heavy and super high foc arrows to try n turn a bad shot into a good one, and heck even target shooters today sometimes use super fat shafts to hopefully cut a line on a badly placed shot. Us old guys aren't settling, we're using whats worked for us for lots of years just as ur using what works for you. I've hunted almost 48 years with a stickbow and have yet to lose an animal that more penetration would have gotten. Use what you want but stop trying to make the guys who don't play follow the leader look like they somehow don't care. If ya really want insurance against bad hit, practice more and stop making those bad hits. Ok , guess that's it, now the string jumping guys can respond,lol. Oh n shade... yep a nickels worth.

Yep. What Jim B says.

truthfully i wouldn't know that. Wouldn't even know how to calculate it. So i'll say , well you don't say? really?? imagine that. nice info.

i suppose this stuff has been hashed over for decades at hunting camps all over the world.

i'm not going to argue, your thoughts seem valid enough. noted and accepted

will it cause me to throw out my 500 gr arrows and switch to 600+ lol..of course not.

i did manage to sneak out of the house between post this morning for a quick hike. Saw a very nice buck, stood behind a tree and left him come into range. Had it been hunting season i would have killed him at 20 yds. Just like i have numerous times before.

You see i have my own calculations....It is really, really hard to argue with success...and there's not a nickles worth of difference between 650 gr dead ...and 500gr dead.

i think that it is pretty simple, really. arrows do not have enough impact on a large game animal to knock it down. thats a fact. most of the animals i shoot don't even seem to notice that they have just been shot. thats why i do not calculate slug force. simple common sense tells me that if i put even a 125 gr. head on an arrow with a feather and nock weight on the other end of around 40-45 grains that my arrow will be front loaded and fly well. thats why i do not fret about foc. it's just there in all arrows i shoot with the exception of flight contest arrows. kind of agree with glf about shot placement. with a bow. on an elk, i shoot for both lungs to be fully cut open with the confidence that it will die quickly. with a rifle i would shoot for the middle of the shoulder i can not see because that will plant them at impact. i do not try to emulate a rifle with a bow and arrow.

Thanks to Larry Hatfield for stepping in to keep the record straight on what he has stated on various other threads.

Most of us will never have the opportunity to acquire the level of experience he has in terms of arrows shot and game taken. But even he admits to trying out new ideas to see if they are worth incorporating.

Bluesman, it definitely comes down to personal choices regardless of which arrow will stop penetrating at the same point of resistance that another arrow continues to keep going.

i see your pont bluesman. However i almost alway's wait for a broadside shot anymore. Actually i've come to prefer it over quartering away, if possible (i'll take either one though).

Problem is i have trouble keeping my arrows in deer, with my current set up. right behind the shoulder ya know.

Although i will admit one arrow out of the last 6 or so did actually stay in for maybe 20 yds? but it fell out as soon as it hit some mt laurel, possibly a better set up would have given me another inch and ended up on the ground right where i shot em heh?

Been kicking it around to start videoing, Just curious how many deer will it take,? how many pass through's ? till somebody say's huh you know them arrows do go the whole way through!!...lol... huh imagine that.

Here watch this video...This has been my experience with a 55#ish bow give or take a pound or two depending on what bow i shoot. And i shoot around 9-11Gpp usually. And i don't worry about FOC.

This guy is using aluminum, notice the broadhead, i can't say for sure what he's using but i do know this.

I have the same results, actually i normally find my arrow laying in the dirt.

If some of you guys are having penetration issues, or your not getting this kind of penetration. I'd get with somebody that does, and make some changes, or i'd start choosing your shots more carefully.

Complete passthrough is complete passthrough whether it is 500gr or 650gr or 470gr or whatever. Once that arrow is through there really is no difference.

But yes this is the way it's done men.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97CnDwpC4AI

start hunting and stop wondering.

Regardless of weight if the shot placement is not right the results most times is a wounded animal. I need decent trajectory to make killing shots. Give me a 500-550 gr. arrow out of a 50 lb. bow and I'm good to hunt with confidence that if I make the right shot I'm going to get positive results.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here