OK, so in the interest of exploring appropriate draw weights for hunting…

I’ve completely ignored it.

Because JMHO,WHAT MATTERS is the kinetic energy.

So let’s pretend for a minute that #50 really IS the Ultimate All-Rounder, BECAUSE the standard 10 GPP (when traveling at a 180 fps!) generates 36 ft-lbs of KE and THAT is the Magic Number for shooting clean through our very biggest critters. No less will do, and no more is necessary.

So you look at the table here, you can see that you get (roughly!) the same KE whether you’re shooting 450 grs @ 190fps, or 400 @ 200, or 370 @ 210…. or even if you send 630 or 640 grains lumbering down-range at a leisurely 160 fps. Just don’t drop under 150.

Draw weight’s got nuthin’ to do widdit. GPP got nuthin’ to do widdit. Just got to get to 36 FPE or better and you're Golden.

So if your bow will only get to 170 fps with a 500 grain arrow, you’re gonna come up short by around 10%. And if your bow just happens to be exactly #50 at your draw length, that means that #50 is too light to be a Perfect All-Rounder.

So I put boxes around the KE figures that you get from an imaginary bow design which always throws 10 GPP at 180 fps, with the differences being that some folks think #40 will do, and some say #50 is perfect, and others are coming in at #60 as their minimum. If they are all assuming 10 GPP and 180 feeps, then the three camps are worlds apart.

But if the #60 guys are talking about 10 GPP at 165 fps or the #40 guys are using hot-rod bows that will scorch out 10 GPP at 200 fps…

Then they’re all correct because underneath it all, they’re all saying exactly the same thing. They’re just getting there 3 different ways.

First.....where did this come from "36 ft-lbs of KE" why is that magical?

Thin air. And that's my whole point.

I don't know what the right answer is. Hell, I don't even have that strong an opinion on it because there are way too many variables that get left out. I do have my personal hunches and preferences, based on my own experience and what appeals to me, personally. But if I throw out a draw weight number, it's just a number.

So I went the easy route and threw ALL of 'em right out the window.

But to your question: A lot of people seem to think that #50 is the magic number for draw weight, so I took a SWAG at what their assumptions are in re: bow performance on a FPS & GPP basis and came up with 36 FPE.

So NOW, if the light bow advocates and the heavy-bow advocates will share their FPS and total arrow weight and leave the draw weight out of it, we can see how close one opinion really is to the next.

Near as I've been able to measure it, my bows will shoot 430 grains at about 180 or 525 at about 165-170. Either way, that looks like something close to 31 FPE. One data point from probably smack in the middle of the road.

GF, sorry, but I don't see what Kinetic Energy even has to do with penetration. It's a scalar quantity that lacks direction and can only be measured by it's magnitude. On the other hand the only two components of momentum are force and direction being that it actually is a vector,......but whatever. This would explain why most experience enhanced penetration with heavier arrows without increasing draw weight. You can actually increase kinetic energy lightening an arrow with all other variables remaining constant, but that won't necessarily do anything for penetration as most already know.

Interesting chart..Where did it come from, GF?..

My arrow weight doesn't show..735-740 grains..but extrapolating how much KE I have available with bows that shoot 200 FPS or better( stickbows) I should go to Africa..:)

But they have worked fine on large elk..:) as well as blunts to the heads of rabbits and squirrels..:)Jim

Yes, we know this.

Roger - Yep, the KE is just a number, but if we're looking at the same numbers for all different velocities and arrow weights, it's a helluvalot better way to compare a recommendation of #40 or #50 or #60 than letting it go at draw weight... Isn't it?

I don't disagree that you can get enhanced penetration out of any given bow by upping your arrow weight; bows tend to be more efficient under higher load and the momentum formula definitely favors mass over velocity. Besides; you lose a LOT of velocity upon impact, but you don't lose mass. But the table I posted doesn't predict ANYTHING about velocity changes with a given amount of change in mass; it can only tell you what the KE formula spits out when you've measured FPS and grains.

Now... If you've got a better way to show how the potential for penetration varies with the mass and velocity of an arrow (or the draw weight of a bow), then you're already where I was hoping to get to. Seriously...Clue me in. I took a crack at the momentum calculation and ended up with slug-feet. Figured people were more familiar with foot-pounds (pounds-feet?).

Jim - I just used a spreadsheet to set up the range of velocities and arrow weights that I wanted to look at and filled in the in-between with a KE formula I found in a quick search. Added a little formatting.

So I stretched it out, and if I did the numbers right.... 740 grains at 200 fps works out to about 66 FPE, which (magnitudinally ;) ) means that your arrow has more than twice the Oomph going for it that mine does. At least with ME shooting it. You could probably draw it 3-4 more inches and you'd get quite a lot more out of it... But it would STILL be marked #55 @ 28"....

And Skrat - if everybody already knows this, then whyizzit there are still differences of opinion on "what draw weight is best for__________".

Some of these threads are why I stoped shooting a compound bow, too much technical stuff.

I think people forget why they got into shooting a stick bow, simplicity.

Whit - that's the irony... What I was hoping to come up with was just a quick way to compare the potential of two different bows without having to work in the draw weight, draw length, bow design, limb cores, string material and the color of the shooter's undershorts.

But now Roger has me going back to momentum & slug-feet, because I ran a check on the two sets of numbers and the differences in Mo' vs. KE were larger than I would have thought, based on the first go-round...

Most trad. bowhunters perhaps just want to know if their bow has enough umph to handle a big buck. I think 40# is more than enough assuming everything else is in order. Add 10# for bigger stuff like elk, moose, etc. even though plenty have been taken with lower poundage bows.

"Roger - Yep, the KE is just a number, but if we're looking at the same numbers for all different velocities and arrow weights, it's a helluvalot better way to compare a recommendation of #40 or #50 or #60 than letting it go at draw weight... Isn't it?"

No, and that's just because it logically makes no sense to predicate potential penetration on a term/number that we both find useless to penetration. Momentum is the arrow's 'penetrating force'. I quit calculating years ago.

Guys, the ultimate answer to the question, "does my arrow have enough to penetrate______ ______(insert species here)?, is in the anecdotal information history provides us......This is EXACTLY what George Stout has been trying to teach folks for years. Some got the message and others won't.

This is just my opinion , ke works better for compounds and momentum works well for both. In my experience anything over .5 momentum is pretty darn powerful, getting above .6 and it's brutal.

in all my years of killing animals i have never done the math for ke or any other parameter. the first deer i ever shot with a bow died in his tracks upon impact. the broadhead went through both shoulder blades and stuck in a pine tree deep enough i had to cut it out. this was my base line for what worked. 95# self yew bow, sinew backed, ace express head mounted on a forgewood shaft. never used that bow again. had more bloodshot meat than an .06 would have caused. what i used in later years varied widely. kids bow, 44" long, 35#, for bark peeler bear, 45# for deer, and 45-55 for elk. still used the same arrow specs. bear were very close always, deer fairly close, and elk usually 15-45 yards because i only shot cows. never lost an animal, never had one go any meaningful distance. thats my ke and momentum i guess. experience = k=1/2 mv sq. and p=mv. works for me and i don't have to use my hp300s.

I sure don't want to bash George Stout, especially since he isn't even posting on this thread. I think a lot of us tend to speak about things that we have limited experience on, but George certainly has been around a long time and accomplished a lot in traditional archery. That doesn't necessarily make him an expert on what it takes to take down heavy game, but he surely has been around the block enough to know what works in most circumstances.

OK, Roger.... I'm honestly hoping to get to where we can perhaps agree on something....So let's go to momentum, since that's more agreeable.

"... the ultimate answer to the question, "does my arrow have enough to penetrate______ ______(insert species here)?, is in the anecdotal information history provides us....."

Yep. And you know...if we could get everybody on the wall to provide their anecdotal evidence that M grains at V feet per second will do the trick on species X, then we'd be able to assemble a data table... with a whole bunch of arrow weights on one side and a whole bunch of velocities on another.... and we could calculate the momentum or the KE or the metric of anyone's choosing for every single set-up, and then code that value as Green for plenty of penetration, Red for not enough, and Yellow for neither here nor there.. which is basically what I just did, except that I left the color gradient up to the 'puter and I think it came up a little conservative. Personally, I'd give 31-32 FPE the green light for deer, with maybe some reservations as regards Elk.

But how much do you wanna bet that all of that anecdotal data would suggest that there is a borderline level of momentum (or whatever metric) above or below which penetration was generally found to be either adequate or not? And yes, that "line" is apt to be pretty fuzzy, and yes, the slow, heavy arrows may indeed be found to be punching above their weight.... 620 grains at 150 fps has nearly identical momentum to 390 grains at 240, and just based on your last few posts I'd expect you'd put your money on the slower arrow getting the greener light... And I might join you, although I'm fairly certain that OSB would take that bet any day of the week.

Now... Anybody who just doesn't give a damn was welcome to have not started reading this thread and he's welcome to stop now.

But how is a newbie supposed to make sense out of "I think 40# is more than enough assuming everything else is in order."

OK, I'll bite. Is that a #40 cottonwood selfie, or #40 of high-test, carbon/foam static recurve, or does it just not even matter? Just kinda tricky to sort out when you live in a state with a #40 legal MINIMUM for deer hunting, and then you read that blanket statement that "#40 is more than enough" to be an all-around bow that will be used to hunt moose and Elk.... with no apparent regard for arrow velocity or even a suggestion as to a suitable/minimum GPP...

"What makes George stout the expert? I see that smoke gets blown about but no expert evidence ever gets presented. I read about a long yardage ground hog kill. But my search results in only the smoking empty self servicing. Much like a search of yourself. You are a expert as well no?"

Did you hear me say that either of us is an "expert"? Don't remember saying that. What some inexplicably discount is mountain anecdotal proof regarding arrow penetration on animals. Instead, some find it more useful to buy in to inane theories regarding penetration based on conjecture and other sorts of rumors. Call me crazy or "expert", but I don't live my life that way. You do as you please, but I'll take my advice from those who think in a pragmatic way, and likewise give advice to those who ask based on what it is that we know to be real.

What do you know, Larry? LOL.

i know just a little bit. learn something new every year about bows and archery. learned a bit this year about modern asian bows. hope to keep learning for a long time in the future! i was in bow production and design for 52 years and still was learning when i quit doing that! set 2 world flight records this year using the asian bow. that was fun! hope to set a couple next year when i am a full 80 yrs. old. shot my meat bear this fall using one of my flight bows and an old 50's arrow, ace express on forgewood, that has killed more than 50 animals.

While I prefer to keep it simple and rely on the experience of those like Larry Hatfield and George stout, I think we need to recognize and give credit to GF for his perspectve, and what he is trying to communicate. Thought provoking ideas and perspectives are what makes The 'Wall interesting.

LMAO, Larry......

For those who don't know, he's killed more than a few hundred bear. Yes, I would actually say that does make HIM an "expert". Some of you guys are hilarious.

Great job, Larry. Keep it up. I assume that you saw my 'LOL'. I know very well who you are and your resume. I would definitely consider you an expert, and I doubt that you would tell others what they need to shoot, thick shielded hogs or otherwise.

I guess I must go by what the scientists refer to as empirical evidence...I see how my sharp broadhead shot out of a medium weight bow (55 to 65 pounds) goes right through an antelope or a deer or an elk and if I shot that arrow through the proper spot on the side of the arrow, the animal bleeds to death in a relatively short time.

If I miss the proper spot and hit it high, between the spine and the vitals, doesnt matter what bow I am shooting, I am going to have a long trailing job and possibly lose the animal. Same if I hit it too far back.

I never had to figure all these formulas. Nothing wrong with that, but I just never had to do it. And, I shoot the heaviest bow I can accurately shoot. Lately, it hasn't been over 55 pounds.

So basically, Larry IS that mountain of anecdotal evidence, and he's got a great sense of what works for him. Bully!

(And that was in the Teddy Roosevelt sense, not the schoolyard variety)

Here's my problem: I'm not Larry, and I don't shoot Larry's bows, and I seriously doubt that he and I have anywhere close to the same draw length.

So if I take his advice and go with #45, that doesn't mean I'm going to get results like his if I'm using a less efficient bow... at my stubby-guy draw length... and then I run off and pare down the mass of the arrow until it shoots as flat as I want it to.

On the other hand, if he's got actual velocities and arrow weights for all of those combos he's used, I could run the numbers and figure out whether my set-up is in any way comparable to his...

So Harleywriter...

What's your draw length?

How many GPP?

And do you have a chronographed velocity?

Empirical evidence ain't worth a damn if it doesn't allow you to make predictions based on your findings.

GF, I am not being critical of you...it is just way beyond me.

I just get my arrows flying good -- OK, I know that 65-70 pound spine weight in a 29.5 inch cedar shaft flies best out of my hunting bows from experience -- and I shoot until the computer in my head can work without me fooling with it.

That works pretty well from my hunting ranges of less than 30 yards and more likely 15 to 20 yards.

But what is it that I want to predict? I don't need to predict anything if I stick to information developed in my brain from lots of shooting.

And I couldn't pass this one up. About a week ago, some new guy posted this:

"Please report back her results on game. I am very interested in knowing the full potential of such a weight of bow and arrows."

Why settle for the results of ONE hunter... with a 25.5" draw and a 416 grain arrow but no reported velocity... assuming she gets a shot and a recovery so that there's anything to report.... when you could simply plug in a coupla numbers and say "Gee, that KE/Momentum/Whatever looks a little on the light side..."... Or not.

It's just like using P&Y scores to tell somebody else how big a deer you saw the other day. If he knows what a 140" 6-point looks like, that tells him a whole lot more than just "it was a big freakin' six!"

i have absolutely nothing against trying to find a scientific measurement that will work for most people and bow/arrow combinations. it's a very worthwhile task and i wish you luck, sincerely! in my years of shooting a bow i have come to the realization that a standard for hunting is the most difficult problem anyone will encounter. there are so many variables! for instance, you can almost throw an arrow through a bear, yet they are lumped in with other animals that are more difficult to penetrate. jack rabbits are much harder to put down! i know nothing about shooting from treestands since i hunt mostly sagebrush hills, so what is important for the tree stand guy may sound way off base to me. i shoot 525 grains out of every bow, from 45# to 55#. i shoot 400 grains for the 35#. the longbows i shoot are high speed r/d longbows, 66" in length that i made. do i get total passthroughs on every animal? yes on bear, no on deer and elk. but they all die because i shoot them to double lung and cut any main bleeder on the way through. and, i do not need a blood trail to find my animal so i dont need a big hole on both sides. ke may the predictor, or it may be something else. good luck on your task!!!

A .22 long rifle has 112 ft# of kinetic energy. Anybody want to go moose hunting with that?

TBB

OK, GF, I'll actually answer some questions you posed.

First, I agree with you that velocity and arrow weight matter, not the bow's stated draw weight. And most of us know what K.E. measures, and what momentum measures, at least in general terms.

And I also think that everybody knows this, despite the fact that the question is basically posed as "draw weight" of thus and such a bow.

I also think most experienced trad archers know full well that bow design, length, draw length, release, tuning, string weight, and nock type, to name a few, affect arrow velocity. So, I think we get that the little number the manufacturer stamps on the bow is not the be-all-end-all.

So, all those things are a non-argument. So, here is the problem.

I have no idea what my arrow velocity is. None. I own a bunch of bows and zero chronographs. Most of us don't. So, knowing the exact velocity, hence being able to calculate exact K.E. is something most of us don't do. I NEVER step into an archery shop, unless I run out of hot glue two days before opener.

So, bow weight is the fall back position. Most modern bows(as proven to me by Blackie Schwatrz's bow reviews), both recurves and R/D longbows, shoot remarkably closely in velocity. A variation of 10 fps is the difference between an amazing top of the line bow, anbd a decent factory recurve, at the same draw, arrow weight, etc. So #50 tells us SOMETHING.

In trad circles, it can be generally assumed, esp with wood arrows, that a 50 lb bow will shoot heavier arrows than a 40 lb bow, because we all still want a good mix of trajectory and punch, right. And, generally we encourage lighter bow shooters to keep arrow weight up and shots short, to maximize what the arrow delivers out of their equipment. Same for short draws, etc.

If you went into a custom shop and asked how fast a trad bow will shoot, the guy will say, "With what? By whom?" This somewhat confirms your thinking, right? I think that is all that is happening. And I wouldn't mind if manufacturers had to put a velocity measure next to the draw weight on the riser; something like 180 fps @ 10 gpp/28". But then, noobs and others would go around saying their bow shoots 180 fps, when it actually shoots faster or slower because of some other minor variable.

So, the only disagreement I have with you is the K.E./momentum that was old when Fred Bear was writing about it in magazines. I definitely am in the momentum camp. Various bow weight (velocity) and arrow weight combinations that exhibit similar K.E numbers are NOT created equal. Higher arrow weight=higher momentum, and that is the real predictor of penetration potential. Also, heavier arrows by nature take more of the bow's availave stored energy with them. So, I err, if I err, on the side of momentum.

Thank you, Larry!

And now I just HAVE to ask you… Do you happen to have chronograph data on some of those bows in the #45-#55 range? Or the lighter one(s) for that matter…

Because this is exactly what I was hoping to get to… and I gotta say it’s really convenient that you shoot the same arrow (from a mass standpoint) out of all of those bows.

So for the time being, let’s just suppose that your various bows all throw that arrow at between 160 and 180 fps; looking that up on the table I built, that suggests that you’re starting off with between 30 and 37 or 38 FPE, depending on the bow, AND your wealth of experience indicates that for anyone truly desiring a complete pass-through on deer & Elk, that range is still on the bubble, so to speak. Might tip one way or the other, so anyone wanting to be “sure” of a pass-through might do well to consider looking for a set-up which (on paper) will generate more KE. Personally, my experience with the lower end of your range (or what I’m presuming it to be!) is in line with yours…. But since you can multiply my sample size many times over, I’m really delighted to hear what you have to say.

On the other hand, if, like me, someone already owns the bows that he expects to hunt with, and it looks like the KE/momentum/whatever number puts him on the bubble, and if he finds (or expects) a good blood trail to be almost indispensable, then maybe that hunter could find added peace of mind about his set-up by reading up on the Ashby studies and FOC and EFOC just to give his “marginally powerful enough” set-up just a little extra edge.

TBBob -

Any idea what kind of velocity you’d get if you were to launch a 400 grain arrow using the charge from a .22 LR?

If we go back to momentum, a 40-grain bullet at 1100 fps gives you 19.5 slug-ft, which is what you get from a 400- grain arrow clocking 110.

Now, I don't know if that's the velocity you'd actually get, but it sounds reasonably close, and I’m not sure I’d hunt a moose with THAT, either. Though at least I’d have a broadhead working in my favor.

If you are bashing George Stout Then I know your level of intel and Im not impressed!!!! REB

Neither am I REB Yeah this stuff is theoretical at best.Interesting none the less but no need to stir up a hornets nest over it. My class room is using what I find is practical in the field. Crunch all the figures you like .In the end its the soldier with the bayonet at the enemies throat that wins battles .Not theory. We all need a chill pill.Thanks for posting the facts they could proove usfull to some. OSR

"A .22 long rifle has 112 ft# of kinetic energy. Anybody want to go moose hunting with that? " Actually I know a lot of people in Northern Canada who do.

A 22 long side on, taking the same shot as you would with an arrow would be plenty lethal and dare I say more accurate-but not as much fun. Penetration with arrows has more to do with shot placement and sharp BH than KE, or momentum, and real life experience will get the job done, not charts, chronos and calculators.

GF, interesting thread. And, I understand what you are trying to get at.

Before my trip to Africa, I seriously wanted to know if I had what it took to kill a Kudu or Wildebeest. I used Stu Miller's calculator to figure the KE of all my bows. So far, so good.

Here was the part that caused trouble. Someone in South Africa came up with recommended standards for all the species. That was based on KE.

No way I was going to generate the KE even with my 65# bow. But, scrounging around, I got data from others who had come back, ran it thru my Stu Miller Calculator, and realized that my 55# bow was probably what everyone was using. ...

Then I found an article in South Africa that said the recommonded standards in KE were all wrong... Momentum was the issue. He came up with .4 being sufficient for Kudu and Wildebeest (about the same size as Elk).. Anyway, two tables - both interesting, but the one using momentum worked better. (BTW Stu's calculator doesn't report momentum, so I jiggered his spreadsheet to add that as a calculation).

Happy to get you the tables and references if you wish.. But they are for African animals. For North American animals, ~ .4 momentum is enough for Elk and plenty for deer. ... I'm shooting .43 and .47 with a different set up ( ~55# bows).

I'm just putting this out there. But kinetic energy tells us how much damage an object can do to another object bc of the amount of force it has when moving at a certain speed with a certain velocity. So it could give us a clue as to how well the set up will preform.

kinetic energy is usefull with blunt force trama.

Bob- thank you for your response, and Thank God you showed up! LOL

I would LOVE to get my hands on those data tables. Shoot me a PM if you'd like.

And for Springbuck and Flinger and Doug - honestly, I've always believed that momentum is a better metric than kinetic energy, because of the way that the "velocity squared" "part of the equation gives too much credence to the value of high velocity. It's not so glaring across the narrow range of weights and velocities that I put in the original table, but when you stretch things out… Using that .22 LR as something of an extreme example, I plugged in the numbers for a 40 grain bullet at 1100 ft./s, and a 400 grain arrow at 110. Momentum is M x V, so the two come up dead even. But when you square 100, you get 10,000. When you square one thousand you get 1 million. And at that rate, even 10 times the mass is a drop in the bucket. I believe a .223 has higher muzzle energy than my .45/70, but that doesn't make it a superior Buffalo gun.

So I guess part of the hoo-raw here is a question of scope. I don't think I made it clear enough exactly what I was hoping to achieve (my apologies!) and Springbuck's post pointed out to me how I could really go one better.

Because if, in addition to the arrow's velocity and mass for all of these bows, I also had the actual draw weight and draw length for each one, Then I could marry up the numbers in such a way that an archer could look at the table, find his or her draw weight and length, and get a pretty decent approximation of the momentum that that combination can be expected to produce. Yes, there can be lots of complicating variables from one set up to the next, but with sufficient data you can almost aways work around that to a pretty decent extent.

So NOW where are we?

I guess ideally I'd get my hands on enough data to build a table that allows you to predict momentum from draw weight and draw length.

Then you go to the mass and velocity table, and assuming that you now know your momentum figure and the mass of your arrow, you can pretty well approximate your velocity.

And if that second table is color-coded to indicate satisfactory, marginal, or unsatisfactory penetration observed at a specific mass-velocity combinations, then again, a shooter could look at the charts and determine whether he should perhaps bulk up his arrow and sacrifice some speed in the interest of penetrating momentum.

And yes, if you are drawing 28 inches or better, you probably really don't give a rip about all of this, because unless you can barely manage at the state-required minimum, YOU DON'T HAVE TO!!!!

But if you have a short draw length, or a bum shoulder (or two), or a few degenerated discs in your neck (or in my case, all of the above!), then all of this put together might actually prompt a conscientious Hunter to make a few decisions and adjustments that could eventually be the difference between recovering or losing a reasonably well hit deer or Elk or what-have-you.

Hey, it could happen!

Yeah, George and Larry and a few others may have all of this information safely stored in their heads, but it doesn't do me or anybody else very damn much good if it stays locked up in there.

Doing research is not a bad thing if you have the time. The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming, especially from folks that have been at this for decades.

In the 60's, where I grew up in PA, we would go to the archery shop or sporting good store and buy a dozen arrows spined for our bows - either wood or fiberglass. Nobody I knew then weighed them but I'm guessing they probably were mostly in the 500grain range plus or minus. Bowhunters killed animals likely at the same success rates as today. I never heard the term momentum in relation to arrows until many years later. Never shot an arrow through a chronograph until the "rebirth" of traditional in the 80s.

Today the only reason I pay attention to some of this is because the arrows that fly best from some of my bows (carbons) weigh under 400 grains. I'd prefer them to weigh more so, after this season, I'm going back to shooting more aluminums, maybe back to wood and possibly use some of my old Microflites.

This really isn't rocket science. Look at the common theme here - deer are fairly easy to kill, elk are next up the ladder. If someone hits and loses a deer using a 45# bow it surely isn't the bow's fault. Deer ribs are not 2x4s. If you hit the "shoulder" it's a bad shot.

The "common" thinking that 10gpp is a good balance point wasn't pulled out of thin air. I think that tons of research can be done but the answer will still be the same.

"I'm just putting this out there. But kinetic energy tells us how much damage an object can do to another object bc of the amount of force it has when moving at a certain speed with a certain velocity. So it could give us a clue as to how well the set up will preform....."

No, this is incorrect. Kinetic Energy has no "force", whatsoever, and that is because it lacks direction. It has nothing to do with penetration. What little Kinetic Energy any arrow has would likely be absorbed on contact through tissue displacement. That is why it's a useful term in the bullet industry, because if you have a few thousands pounds of KE then it will cause hydrostatic shock, which is impossible to happen with arrows. It's a bunk term in the archery industry.

“Today the only reason I pay attention to some of this is because the arrows that fly best from some of my bows (carbons) weigh under 400 grains. I'd prefer them to weigh more so, after this season, I'm going back to shooting more aluminums, maybe back to wood and possibly use some of my old Microflites.”

Exactly. Once you get away from what “everybody already knows” is more than enough, it’s like a car with sloppy steering and a couple of worn-out ball-joints – you can do it if you’re just toolin’ down the middle of the four-lane, but it doesn’t feel too good going across Independence Pass with on-coming traffic…

So here you are, with all of your years of experience, yet you’ve got a sketchy feeling about those 400-grain arrows. Sure would be nice to be able to look at a data table and get a “90% Accurate” read on how the momentum of your arrow stacks up against combinations that are well-known to work just fine…

Wouldn’t it??

If I can do this right, it won’t have to be “Just for Noobs”…

I agree with you entirely by the way. Easton had old shaft calculator software that would calculate KE and then it would show where that level of KE put you in terms of game. Their calculator would put 36lb of KE right in the middle of the range for medium game though but I get where you are at. You can do a lot with the information. You can use a heavier arrow to get you a lack of gap at shorter hunting range or a lighter arrow to smoke the 3D ranges all from a bow shooting what that is right the same KE. Energy is energy to be honest so long as there is enough arrow to soak it up and not put it toward noise and heat you are just fine.

GF - I wouldn't pay attention to any table. I learned long ago in both guns and bows that KE is meaningless to me. The sub 400grain arrows are sketchy to me because I know that myself and countless others over the years have had good performance with a bit more weight. Looking at a chart that tells me I should be fine won't mean a thing to me.

It's not a "what everybody knows" thing. It's tried and true. Proven.

I have heard more than one engineer say, "Well it looked good on paper"!

I have heard more than one engineer say, "Well it looked good on paper"!

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here