I have read on here and other sites that when using carbons and after reaching a good tune with a rather stiff shaft, that if you continue to add weight to the front end that you will continue to get good arrow flight, in other words, after a certain point, the shaft will continue to fly true and will not act weak.

Has anyone experienced this? Care to explain? Share your numbers?

Uuuuhhh.....no. At some point the shaft is going to be weak.

Yes to apoint. Explain and share not a chance lol

So, the laws of physics should not apply? Must be a miracle.

I don't know if this is possible or not, but have read about it enough to think it is worth exploring. I like to keep an open mind to everything.

Is it possible that the extra weight up front simply pulls the arrow through the dynamic difference? Just asking?

don't work that way.

I use 175 up front,tried adding 50 grain more and drops like a rock in the water. Nope there is a point to stop. Jeff F

Never heard that one before. Might be coming from the compound crowd?

Regardless of point weight, you still have to tune the arrow.

You can't just throw a bunch of weight up front and have it work, regardless of spine. And you can't "reach a good tune" and then continue to change your tuning (by adding weight) without consequence. Proper bareshafting with the desired point weight will tell you.

As everyone suggests, there are pareter variables that preclude a simple approach. I use a 100 gr insert w a head weighing between 200-245 grain head and 340 axis for bows ranging from 50 to 58 lb at 29" wo complaint.

When compared to wood and aluminum, I think you may be correct, because of the quicker recovery of carbon.

So to further explain that statement. Just pulling an example out of the air. You tune with 200 grains and impact points are the same. You may be able to put on another 50 grains and still have the relative same impact points between bare and fletched carbons.

Try that 50 grain difference with wood or aluminum and you probably wouldn't even have good arrow flight much less the same impact points.

Keep in mind I pulled that 50 grains out of the air. There is a point where there's too much weight up front and that bare shaft is going to impact right for a right handed shooter.

Bowmania

Just today I tuned an arrow with 325 grains up front for a total arrow weight of 900 grains...just did some checking and the FOC would be well short of what people call EFOC...to reach that goal I would likely be shooting a 1000 grain arrow out of a 62 pound bow for about 16 gpp...there is a happy medium there somewhere I think

DDave

I just entered the numbers in the Stu Miller calculator and the FOC on that 1000 grain arrow would be 20 per cent...the dynamic spine would be 34 pounds proving yet again that the only way to tell what will work is to shoot that particular arrow out of a particular bow...I am pretty sure that arrow would be a bit weak even though it is an aluminum/carbon Full Metal Jacket...I have yet to shoot a single theoretical arrow

DDave

Though there is theoretically an optimal tune for every bow/arrow combination, most shooters don't have good enough form to find it. So, while they think they maybe dialed in, they really aren't, and adding more weight up front doesn't perceptibly change their results.

Also, most bows will shoot a range of spines well, and they probably handle the widest range of spines in carbon, which recovers faster than wood or aluminum. What that means is that you can probably vary the fronted weight by 50 grains or so without detecting much of a difference. There are points of diminishing return though. If you keep adding weight, the arrows will eventually end up weak.

It is so easy to screw on a different point , shoot the arrow and see just what the effect is.

Ok, makes sense, thanks for satisfying my curiosity.

Smithhammer nailed it. When someone tells me they can throw any weight they want on the front of an arrow and have them fly fine, I know their definition of "fine" and mine are not the same. I also know their definition of "accuracy" and mine are likely not even close.

"Smithhammer nailed it. When someone tells me they can throw any weight they want on the front of an arrow and have them fly fine, I know their definition of "fine" and mine are not the same. I also know their definition of "accuracy" and mine are likely not even close."

I agree!!

Yes I agree at some point the arrow will become weak.

However, my arrows will allow for me to interchange up to 150ish grain difference and still fly straight. The are heavy and 32+% FOC. It seems once you hit 30+% when building arrows, especially with footings, that the spine window drastically widens and that creates something very close to what the OP is asking about.

Sapcut, thanks for sharing, that is similar to what I read before.

I just put a 300 grain point on an arrow that tuned fine with 250...now it is quite a bit weak...overall weight went from 900 to 950 grains

DDave

Which shaft? Apparently you were on the weak side of the spine window to begin with.

If you add 50 grains to the front of a properly tuned arrow (with no other changes) it will fly weak. There's no avoiding that fact.

250 spine Dangerous Game

DDave

You can get false readings also depending on length and weight up front and cut of the riser.I had bought some used carbons that were already cut about 1" longer then my draw.They were showing alittle stiff,so I thought I could add more weight up front to weaken the spine.They got worse and showing stiffer the more weight I added.They were bouncing off the riser in stead of flexing around it.Carbons recover much quicker and gave me a false reading.I did tune the same spine arrows to that bow but they ended up about 2" longer.This was on a longbow that was cut off center.I find the closer the point weight is too the riser on a longbow cut off center can give you a false reading.If that would have been a recurve cut past center I may have had different results.Now with carbons I'll start with full length and let my tuning determine the arrows final length.

Dave, what is your bow weight? I use a lot more weight up front than that with a .250 spine shaft pulling 71#s and it is peefect. However, I use footings.

My bow weight is only in the low sixties at 30 inches...as I have said many times it is all about the string...even with the 75 grain insert and 300 grains up front that arrow is still well below the 20% EFOC threshold...EFOC is not going to be easy to achieve with shafts that are nearly 18 grains per inch nor do I feel the least need to do so...I long ago quit worrying about FOC once it is above 10%, that is for people with a lot more expertise than I will ever have

DDave

My answer hasn't changed...

"When someone tells me they can throw any weight they want on the front of an arrow and have them fly fine, I know their definition of "fine" and mine are not the same. I also know their definition of "accuracy" and mine are likely not even close."

Camodave, been dar, done dat......

You get to piggy back on those who have already spent time & money on developing a more lethal arrow.

When I first started playing around with them I tried using the same arrow I was shooting, it did not work.

I will give you 3 different arrows I have currently worked up. Arrow #1: is a GT 300 ultralight, 29', 800.9 grains with 32.76% UEFOC, broadhead is 402.8 plus 100gr brass insert, so that's 500grains upfront with 4x2" straight feathers 1/2" high, yes I am only using 2" feathers to guide a 400grain broadhead. My upfront weight is 500 grans and only 300 in the rest of the arrow.

Arrow #2: is leopardwood: 29", 1040 grains with 15.52% FOC broadhead is 300gr. with 3x5" feathers 1" tall.

Arrow #3: is a GT 300 ultralight, 30' 677.5 grains with 28.33% EFOC broadhead is 300gr. & 100gr. insert, 4x2" feathers and 23gr. lighted knock.

To get high UEFOC you need to start out with very light yet stiff shaft, I build my front end of my arrow first, start with my broadhead and insert, footing etc.... build it and glue it all up and mount it, then start shooting the bare shaft, cutting from the knock end, until they flying straight down the tube. UEFOC & EFOC, allow the front of the arrow to pull the back end of the arrow, very much like if you tied a string to a brick, the string is going to follow the brick.

As an arrow hits its target there is a revers archers paradox (the shaft flexes) if most of the weight of the arrow is in the first 3"-5" it has very little, if any flex, allowing the arrow to drive it's self-deeper because most of the weight of the arrow does not flex robbing it of energy.

The greatest benefit with UEFOC & EFOC is when the arrow comes in contact with something very hard, like bone. Bone wants to stop the arrow, and that will cause the arrow to start to flex robbing it of its energy.

On soft tissue there is not that much gain, as there is not that much resistance.

Arrow #2 even though it is much heavier, will flex upon impact, robbing it of energy.

Take two arrows both the exact same weight, let’s say 650gr. One has 28.37% UEFOC, the other has 15.52% FOC. The arrow with the 28.37 UEFOC will carry its self-better down range, I don’t do why, but it does.

We all know that an arrow flying straight will have better penetration than an arrow still in paradox, because it is flying in a straighter line, same thing with UEFOC & EFOC.

Another benefit of UEFOC & EFOC is the amount of fletching required to do the same amount of work, as the FOC goes up, the work of the fletching go's up, requiring less.

My arrows are almost silent in flight and that is worth the trouble alone to build a high UEFOC arrow, I like catching game flatfooted......

Public service announcement, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A UEFOC ARROW TO KILL GAME. HOWEVER, IT JUST MIGHT BE WHAT YOU’RE LOOKING FOR.

I do believe your answer has changed.

"JRW: If you add 50 grains to the front of a properly tuned arrow (with no other changes) it will fly weak. There's no avoiding that fact."

"JRW:My answer hasn't changed... "When someone tells me they can throw any weight they want on the front of an arrow and have them fly fine, I know their definition of "fine" and mine are not the same. I also know their definition of "accuracy" and mine are likely not even close."

???so, would it be correct that about 30% EFOC is the point where the front end of the arrow starts guiding the rear.

"I do believe your answer has changed."

I have no doubt you believe that.

Hi Toby,

Be careful of the internet experts, they can be stuck and narrow minded.

"Toby???so, would it be correct that about 30% EFOC is the point where the front end of the arrow starts guiding the rear. "

I would say no, because I don't think it guides, but leads, and it just might be the way your trying to understand it.

Let me see if I can help you understand.

As the foc go's up, it starts to lead more and more. If an arrow was perfectly balance in the middle there would be a tug of war over which end would lead. If you had no foc your arrow might do summersaults through the air.

With the front end loaded the back end just follows right in line. The fulcrum of leverage has increased.

Kind of like if you had 2 crowbars, one was 12 inches the other was 12 feet long, the 12 footer will do more work with less energy. As the foc go's up the work it does go's up because the fulcrum has increased.

So instead of 15" of feathers (3x5) I can use 8" (4x2) to do the same amount of work, which is to steer the arrow ( I know some are only using 6"(3x2).

Guidance come from the rear, steering like a rudder, if you have a lot of fletch on your arrow it acts like a flu-flu or parachute, it also mask a ton of bad arrow flight.

At least your thinking about it, and that my friend is a start.

Toby -

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as that - there are still other variables at play, such as overall weight, rear lever (fletching configuration), etc.

But from my experience, I have started to see front-end steerage benefits at a lower threshold than 30%. More so when in conjunction with other components, such as reduced fletching surface area, abscence of unecessary helical, etc. My arrow setups are generally between 25-28% and I have noticeable stability improvements over lower FOC, lighter arrows.

And JRW - is it truly a matter of "belief" when two direct quotes are being compared? 8^)

Smith hammer

Thanks, that helps me understand a little more.

I have used 3-4" helical fletching for years, i haven't given it much thought until I saw a post by Bowmania using smaller fletching.

I am going to play around with this a little bit.

I have used 3-4" helical fletching for years, i haven't given it much thought until I saw a post by Bowmania using smaller fletching.

You aren't alone, by any means, Toby. I find that lots of people will pay all sorts of attention to point weight, spine, the finer points of bareshafting and paper tuning, the supposed flight characteristics of 2-blade vs. 3-blade, etc. etc.....and then do very little to critically evaluate what they truly need for fletching. Which, on a properly tuned arrow, is often significantly less than what most consider to be "normal."

I currently shoot 4 x 3" and even that is probably more than I truly need. And no, I don't find any difference when shooting with broadheads.

"BLAPHAMY, BLAPHMY I say, burn him."

An arrow with a high UEFOC may allow you to turn a maybe hit into a kill.

The arrow breached the bone and just kept on trucking cutting 2 ribs ( entrants & exit rib )going out the other side, yet did stay in the hog. ( note: to self, must keep working on arrow )

This was a double lung shot

Gensu knife company....has been here....lol

I think Toby's OP was really trying to understand what he read.

Like Ricky said to Lucy: You got some splanning to do ( Cuban accent )

" If you add 50 grains to the front of a properly tuned arrow (with no other changes) it will fly weak. There's no avoiding that fact."

May I ask, Have you tried it with an arrow above 25%+ EFOC, how about one at 30%+ EFOC, you would be amazed if you found out what you just posted was incorrect.

The percentage of adding 50 grains to a 400 grain head, is only 12.25% of the head weight, if we are shooting a 500 grain head, I think it's only abut 10% of the head weight.

On your 13% foc arrow assuming 125 grain head.....you would only be adding 12.25 grains for the same percentage of change.....even in your exalted state, I doubt you could detect 12.25 grains on a hunting arrow at hunting yardages, like under 25 yards.

I bare shaft tune these out to 50&60 yards, I can change 25-50 Grains with ZERO detection of weak. It is at the top of the bell curve and would be like you adding 5-10 grains on your hunting arrow. ( I have not tried 75 or 100 grains )

TEST and PROVE IT, before finger the key board.

King,

That is very impressive.

I started this thread because I want to maximize the performance of my bow/arrow combination. I have shoulder problems, getting old and find that I need to and actually enjoy shooter lighter weight bows, but still love to hunt. So. I have some good information to start experimenting with, thanks to all for sharing.

Toby

I have worked with a couple of guys (coaching them to shoot) who shot EFOC. The first guy had 300 grain points and 100 gr. inserts. I do not recall his arrow or spine but his flight is an example of too much but not enough weight.

When you weaken an arrows spine to a certain point it will get so weak that it will show stiff. The arrow will flex when you shoot it. The point resists the energy so the arrow bows. It comes off the bow and the point comes back left (for a right hand shooter) but because there is so much weigh up front it never comes back right again. It just trails off left. It shows stiff.

The second shooter had like 500 gr. up front. His arrow was much like the one mentioned up front. There is so much weight up front that the arrow just follows the weight. It goes where the point goes.

My question is why? I have seen countless deer, elk, hogs, moose, etc. taken without the extremes and with good flight for a long shot. I don't understand the logic. I agree that a heavy arrow penetrates better. I shot a 600 gr. arrow most of last year, but in years past I killed a truck load of whitetails with 350 grain arrows. I do like the heavy arrows better but you can achieve a 600 grain arrow without the EFOC.

If you're hunting an animal out west and you need to be able to shoot at 30 yards, how well do the 1000 grain arrows fly? I have never shot them so I don't know but I assume they are falling like a rock unless you are shooting 70+ #.

Jimmy,

"I have never shot them so I don't know but I assume they are falling like a rock unless you are shooting 70+ #."

Like a very large rock. :)

Jimmy,

I appreciate your post, I approach all of this with an open mind. I am simply searching for the combination that will give me the biggest bang for the buck, pun intended.

I can't, as some suggest work up to a heavier bow, shoulder problems, so I'm trying to develop the most lethal combination. I hunt whitetails and elk a little. Most of my bows are around 40#'s with my elk bow around 50#'s, my dl is 29"s. I practice mostly with a bow in the mid 30's.

Your post leads me to perhaps the most pertinent question. You stated that you prefer 600 grain arrows and that you can achieve that arrow weight without EFOC. So, my question, does a 600 grain arrow with EFOC have any advantages or disadvantages compared to a 600 grain arrow with EFOC.

Thanks Toby

http://www.tuffhead.com/educat ion/ashby.html

Toby, regarding your question, this is the best information available to date.

Thanks Sapcut

The last sentence in my last post should read, " So, my question, does a 600 grain arrow with EFOC have any advantages or disadvantages compared to a 600 grain arrow "without" EFOC?

Toby

As King already explained, EFOC penetrates better because the shaft doesn't bend as much at impact, robbing the arrow of energy. For some reason, EFOC arrows also tend to not drop off as fast as the same weight standard FOC arrows, but not a great difference. They also require less fletching.

These are all advantages of EFOC. That being said, one doesn't need an EFOC arrow to kill critters, particularly relatively small critters like deer. We've been doing it for thousands of years with standard 7-10% FOC.

I shot wood arrows for 50 years, and killed a pretty nice buck with a wood arrow this year. I used front loaded carbons (about 24% FOC) on my elk though because I could front load them more than woodies. That worked quite well, too.

An EFOC arrow is just more efficient, provides greater performance. Some folks like to drive Corvettes, others Fords. They'll both get you there.

That link has research that deals specifically with surprisingly good penetration results from a 40# bow with EFOC arrows compared to heavier bows and arrows.

King,

I love to see/read your post. I shot a 8 pointer this weekend and hit the same exact spot that you show on your pig. My 200 grain grizzly with a 125 grain adapter and 100 grain insert absolutely busted through his upper shoulder bone split the rib bone in two. You cant go wrong with efoc set up.

Take care

Gilbert

Not trying to start a fight but do not expect to get through a big boars shield with a 40#s. Its like plywood!

Gilbert,

Congrats on your deer. It's nice when things work out well. I did the exact same thing to a WI whitetail buck several years ago -- shatered the ball of the upper leg bone where it connects to the shoulder blade, blew through the deer and stuck in the dirt. The only differences? My heavy bone was on the exit side, and my arrow had a 125-grain Ace Standard on a 20-grain insert. It didn't so much as dub the tip.

JRW,

Congrats on your WI buck several years ago.......

I would love to see a pic or two of that ball joint.

Also because it was several years ago, do you remember what hunting tackles was used? you can try and guessing if you don't remember.

Please post the pic's I would love to see them.

I appreciate this and other EFOC threads (as long as they remain informative) since I am still fiddling with some EFOC setups. Still, as a hunter in Colorado, distances become kind of long for certain game, mule deer in particular. I think EFOC is great when shooting out of a treestand at whitetails or even in heavy wooded cover after elk. Hunting mule deer, often in open sage and pinion country makes getting in close quite a challenge. Getting to 30-35 yards can be pretty tricky.

So i have to ask, what do those who know better than me (King, Jimmy B., others) think about those longer ranges? I know it is easy to say, stick bow distances are short but I'll bet some of you are pretty solid at 35 yards. How do EFOC arrows perform (accuracy) compared to MFOC (modest front of center!) arrows at those distances? Do you think EFOC is a reasonable and responsible set up for those distances?

Shortdraw,

I think Jimmy's a great one to answer your two questions. He has a proven track record of excellent shooting ability. Hopefully he'll offer his opinion, but until then I'll give you my two cents.

"How do EFOC arrows perform (accuracy) compared to MFOC (modest front of center!) arrows at those distances?"

I have shot with and against the best recurve 3D shooters in this country (sans Ben Rogers who I hope makes it out this year), and I have yet see one of them show up with EFOC arrows. As a matter of fact, the setup that won the IBO Traditional World Championship last two years in Recurve Unaided was right at 10% FOC. If I'm not mistaken, the guy who won REC the past two years shoots around that FOC too. A friend of mine has won six IBO world championships with arrows under 10% FOC.

These guys shoot high level events where every point counts. They say bowhunting is a game of inches, but target archery is a game of milimeters. One class was actually decided this year on a tie breaker. If the folks winning these events thought EFOC was more accurate they'd be all over it in a heartbeat. Even the top field archers I know do not shoot EFOC, and these folks are shooting out to 80 yards.

"Do you think EFOC is a reasonable and responsible set up for those distances?"

There is no substitute for accuracy. If you can put your arrows where they belong, that's the most important part. I think if folks spent as much time working on their accuracy as they do worrying about the numbers spit out by their grain scales and calculators, they wouldn't have to constantly worry about making bad shots.

I can't really answer the question because I have not shot EFOC arrows. I think there is a sweet spot for each bow based on poundage. If you're shooting a 45# bow then a 800 grain arrow is going to be tough to handle beyond 15 yards or so. If you are shooting a 60# bow you'll probably keep it fairly flat for a longer distance. If you elect to shoot those 1000 gr. arrows I have no idea how they might fly, but unless you are shooting them out of a cannon they have a pretty good arch in flight. The bigger that arch is the less accurate they become.

Jason is right of course. The key to accuracy on targets is speed. That flat trajectory makes a big difference. Most guys in RU class are shooting over 200 fps. Same with FITA field.

"....I think if folks spent as much time working on their accuracy as they do worrying about the numbers spit out by their grain scales and calculators, they wouldn't have to constantly worry about making bad shots."

Statements like these, and the inherent assumption that anyone who chooses to shoot EFOC doesn't also practice for accuracy as much as possible always crack me up. The notion that people shoot EFOC setups because they are "poor shots" is a tired horse that should have been put to rest long ago. Why not strive to be as accurate as possible, and maximize the penetration capabilities of your arrow as much as possible as well? Is it that hard to imagine that one could actually have both? There may be "no substitute for accuracy," but accuracy and an arrow with devastating penetration, even when a less than ideal shot happens (as it can, to any of us), is even better, imho.

And while we're at it, holding up 3D shooters and the arrows they choose to shoot in tournamanets, as supposed "evidence" that EFOC is pointless for hunting, is also indicative of some pretty simplistic thinking, imo.

As the OP stated, he has, "read about it enough to think it is worth exploring. I like to keep an open mind to everything."

Great job demonstrating exactly the opposite, JRW.

"JRW, Congrats on your WI buck several years ago.......

I would love to see a pic or two of that ball joint.

Also because it was several years ago, do you remember what hunting tackles was used? you can try and guessing if you don't remember.

Please post the pic's I would love to see them. "

X2

tradmt,

"I'm only guessing, I have no experience with what the competitive target archers are shooting for set ups, that an EFOC setup is likely going to be a much heavier arrow than what they want for their 80 yard shots at a target face."

Exactly correct. Shortdraw asked about accuracy past very close range, so that's what I addressed. Jimmy also said it very well when he posted, "The bigger that arch is the less accurate they become."

As far as shooting EFOC arrows goes, a lot of us tried it years ago and found the reality concerning forgiveness and trajectory didn't exactly live up to the internet hype.

JRW, As tradmt mentioned....the guys shooting at targets 80 yards away at 200 fps are also using very light arrows shot from not very heavy bows. They couldn't build an arrow with 25+% FOC if they wanted to.... and it be light enough to shoot it at 80 yard targets. They MUST have a light, fast and flat arrow to satisfy their strong personal preferences. A high to very high FOC arrow is not possible for their objectives in field archery...even if they wanted to.

"I think if folks spent as much time working on their accuracy as they do worrying about the numbers spit out by their grain scales and calculators, they wouldn't have to constantly worry about making bad shots."

I think Smithhammer responded clearly to that statement but to add....that is one of several cop out statements made by those that feel uncomfortable about a better way to build an arrow but yet doesn't want to feel like someone could teach them something.

JRW...how many people do you know that is very detailed in the way they want to build a more lethal arrow (and yes it is more lethal) but at the same time does not put accuracy of said arrow a priority?

Let me answer....probably none but I know not NEAR as many a those that would rather shoot a fast, flat and far arrow but at the same time ignore reality that bads shots happen and NOT worry about the negative penetration affects that factually exist IF a notsoperfect shot occurs.

well, i have killed more than 50 elk, way more deer and a lot of bears and i think the total grains per pound of draw is the only indicator i need worry about, and i actually never worried about that. i measured my hunting arrows and find they are around 15% foc. they are forgewoods with an ace express. never have lost an animal. reason for that is that i can track an individual animal because it has four feet that leave an individual track unlike any other. don't need two gallons of blood to follow one. the fartherest animal i ever had to track was about 3/8ths of a mile. an elk hit through one lung that bled out slowly. i tried eefoc a couple of times or more in the 61 years i have been killing animals with a bow. didn't like it, saw no compelling reason for it, and went back to what worked so well for me. shoot what you want to if it works for you. you don't really need internet experts to tell you whats what if you hunt and shoot animals.

There is some really good information here, but I think we have gotten a little off track. I'm only interested in hunting set ups, wouldn't expect target guys to use similar arrow weights, whether EFOC or not.

Accuracy is important in hunting as well as target shooting, I think we all agree to that.

Help me with this. If you have two hunting arrows of equal weight, 400-500-600 grains, doesn't matter, but two arrows of equal weight and all else being equal except that one is built with EFOC and the other isn't, what advantage/disadvantages exist, either way.

This isn't an arrow weight question or an arrow speed question, it is simply an EFOC a question.

I think Bob Morrison did some testing several years ago with equal weight arrows, one front loaded, the other wasn't and found speed/trajectory to be the same.

So, if a hunter decides that a 550 grain arrow is what he wants for hunting, is he better off with a 550 grain EFOC arrow, or a 550 grain with "normal" FOC, or, doesn't it matter.

The purpose of my questions is to learn as much as possible. I have always been of the mind set that there exists a lot of right ways to do things. I'm just looking for a little advantage.

Remember now, this is Christmas Eve, let's play nice.

Merry Christmas to you all. Toby

Bruce,

It wasn’t my intention to paint with such a broad brush, so please accept my apology for not being more specific in my statement. I’ve just always found it a little perplexing that some people (some, not most or all) who constantly preach about ways to rework their equipment in the hopes of getting away with making bad shots never seem the least bit interested in discussing ways to improve their shooting, thereby reducing the chances of making those bad shots in the first place. It’s that old “ounce of prevention” thing.

When I think of the biggest proponents of these arrows, I remember one who admits he rarely gets to the same draw length twice, has a floating anchor, and has a hard time laying off dropping the string on a bad shot. Another declared that “accuracy is my middle name” because he shot a score on a 900 round which was really nothing to brag about. A friend of mine had the unfortunately experience of hunting whitetails in Texas a few years ago with another who missed over a dozen deer in a row before he finally hit one in the butt and cut the femoral artery.

Those are the people to whom my comment was directed. So again, if you took it wrong, my apologies.

Merry Christmas Larry, but you know, real life experience means little here to a select few.

JRW -

I appreciate the civil discourse.

But seriously, who are these people who "hope to get away with bad shots?" I honestly have never met a single trad shooter, no matter what type of arrow they choose to shoot, who would profess any such thing. The trad hunters I know take lethality - and all the components that contribute to it, including accuracy and penetration - quite seriously and conscientiously. I just don't see who these people are who mistakenly think that an EFOC arrow compensates for other short-comings.

As far as your examples of those individuals who exhibit poor form, I have no idea how that pertains to a choice of what type of arrow one shoots at all. To suggest there is some sort of correlation between poor form and EFOC arrow choice, seems like quite the stretch to put it mildly. One could just as easily point to people who shoot light arrows and still have poor form, and make some sort of connection that would be just as flimsy and invalid.

Larry and George - Merry Christmas to both of you. And much like the question of accuracy, I would say that real-life experience is equally valid to all of us, regardless of what type of bow, or arrow, we choose to shoot.

They don't let me out much........ I'm 62, been hunting since I was a kid, have run the archery gig from sticks to wheels to cams and, many years ago, back to sticks for keeps. I found this site recently, and in the last 15 or so years I have spent no time in clubs, shoots, or any form of "organized archery". Just me, my gear, my son, his gear, the back yard and the woods. Other than Wyoming mulies I'm but a humble Cheesehead whitetailer.

That said, I enjoy these forums immensely and am quite amazed at some of the techno-talk. Quite frankly I had never even heard of foc, efoc prior to my visits here....as I said, they don't let me out much :-)

There is a wealth of knowledge here as well as passionate beliefs and opinions....all of which I respect. This thread caused me to research this issue at length. Which gave rise to the mind numbing information overload I am now pondering.

Soooooo....I think I'll stick with my cedars and recurve, keep em sharp, continue out in that afore-mentioned backyard practising hitting what I'm looking at, and continue enjoying my pursuit of the wily whitetail.

I do envy all of ya who possess the means and opportunities to hunt elk. Magnificent critter I have never had the $$$$$ to go after.

Larry, if you're shooting a 15% FOC arrow, you're on the high end of normal FOC. In fact, Ed Ashby, who did most of the research on this topic, calls 15-19% FOC high FOC. Have to get above 20-25% to be called Exteme FOC.

Toby: Actually you're question's been answered a few times. Read my last statement. Two arrows of equal weight, but one high/extreme FOC will penetrate better than another arrow of the same weight with average FOC. Ed Ashby proved this multiple times on big game. On deer size animals, however, it's rather irrelevant, because either arrow (say 500 grains) will zip through a deer when shot out of a moderate weight bow(say 45-55#). So how does one say that one penetrates better than the other, by how far they stick in the dirt beyond the deer? Folks get their undies in a bundle about this all the time. Not worth it.

Ashby also showed that high EFOC arrows needed less fletching, and actually fly just a little flatter than normal FOC arrows, on the second characteristic, not enough so most shooters would notice.

Arrow diameter also affects penetration, and it's easier to make up up a moderate weight, high FOC arrow in a skinny carbon, which will penetrate better than the same standard foc wood arrow that's 11/32 or23/64 in diameter. But again, none of this makes much difference on deer size critter, except perhaps on bone hits.

I've shot wood arrows for more than 50 years, forge woods when I can get them. They're skinny for their spine and weight, and most that I shoot are tapered on the nock end and compressed more on the point end so they're naturally weight forward. It's the closest wood will ever get to carbon.

I'm running out of them so I've started to shoot carbons. A higher front loaded carbon is an even better performer, IMO. Will either do the job? Sure. I use both depending on what I'm hunting.

Merry Christmas all.

Bruce,

"As far as your examples of those individuals who exhibit poor form, I have no idea how that pertains to a choice of what type of arrow one shoots at all."

They're just simple examples of folks who would probably be better off spending time working on avoiding making bad shots than trying to get away with making them. Nothing more.

JRW and Toby,

BTW...stuctural integrity of arrow and components is more important than anything else regarding penetration. Even with a world champion behind the back over the log dead eye shooter....IF the arrow hit something other than skin and anything bends or breaks, penetration is compromised. Light fast and flat arrows are typically weaker in their build.

How "lethal" is lethal enough? Dead is dead. Again, I agree with weight being more lethal and I like 160 - 200 gr. broad heads, but I think it is reasonable to ask how far you take it and to what end. If you want good penetration I concur that's a good think but isn't there a point where you have enough?

I think there is a sweet spot there somewhere, and I think it's different for different weight bows. I also think the type of game matters. It doesn't take that much to break a whitetail rib, but an elk or moose needs more punch. How much? That's a good question in my opinion.

"...They're just simple examples of folks who would probably be better off spending time working on avoiding making bad shots than trying to get away with making them. Nothing more.

Well, again JRW - I just don't see anyone here who is trying to "get away with bad shots," or looking for excuses for not being as accurate as they can be. And it seems a little odd that paying attention to potential ways to improve penetration would be equated to such, with no real basis.

I have no need to convert anyone's way of thinking, and if you are accomplishing what you want to, consistently, with whatever setup you choose, then that's great. But I do feel a need to comment when I see erroneous assertions and assumptions being made about the supposed intentions of those who are simply looking for ways to potentially improve the lethality of their setup.

'Nuff said and Merry Christmas, all!

Jimmy,

Much agreed. In 30+ years of bowhunting I've never once lost an animal due to lack of penetration, and I shoot through every species I hunt up to and including bull moose. That's why I spend my time working on things I feel need improvement, and my arrows aren't one of them. Other people should obviously feel free to do whatever they like. As alwaysm these discussions are best served when various, and at time conradictory, opinions are allowed.

Bruce,

"Well, again JRW - I just don't see anyone here who is trying to "get away with bad shots," or looking for excuses for not being as accurate as they can be. And it seems a little odd that paying attention to potential ways to improve penetration would be equated to such, with no real basis."

No disrespect, but you've been around enough of these discussions here and elsewhere to know exactly what I'm talking about.

Jimmy -

I couldn't agree more with your last postt. Extremes, on either end of the spectrum, are less than ideal, imo. There is a moderate ground in which arrow trajectory is still acceptable within one's hunting range, and where additional weight is an asset. It doesn't have to be one or the other, except within the simplistic world of internet debates.

JRW - no disrespect taken. But I still stand by what I said. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, been part of a conversation about EFOC concepts in which someone was looking for a way to "cheat" or over-compensate for poor form or a lack of accuracy. Preparing for realistic possibilities (there is always the possibility of a shot going awry, no matter how good of a target shooter one is), and looking for ways to compensate for a lack of practice and skill, are not the same thing.

agree with Larry Hatfield and Jimmy Blackmonds post as from my experience maily hunting deer

"I agree with weight being more lethal and I like 160 - 200 gr. broad heads, but I think it is reasonable to ask how far you take it and to what end. If you want good penetration I concur that's a good think but isn't there a point where you have enough?"

My answer to that is, personally, if my arrow doesn't create two holes thru ANY matter that makes up the animal....then the penetration isn't enough. If arrow A. will not break thru a bone then it is not as lethal as arrow B. that will break thru bone. That is the difference in arrow lethality. If either arrow hits the rib cage....then that is not even a discussion worth having.

"My answer to that is, personally, if my arrow doesn't create two holes thru ANY matter that makes up the animal....then the penetration isn't enough."

why do you need the two holes? lots of the animals i have killed had one hole and died in less than 30 yards. most were pass throughs, but 2 lungs and one hole works for me.

Larry;

I think the same reason some people think they need a .338 mag to hunt deer with

Because I can. And if I can then that is what I expect to do. Anything less is leaving effort on the table and expect more from my weapon than that. And I KNOW that before I ever put my boots and camo on so there is no excuse for lack of effort.

Lack of effort? Are you saying that to Larry Hatfield? I doubt you could carry his hunting boots.

The Internet sure does create experts. Or, rather, it makes people think they are experts.

Aside from terminology there is nothing new in archery. Anyone that thinks EFOC was founded in this generation doesn't know much about the history of archery. And I'm sure there was a following by some small segment of bow hunters long before Ashby shot his first arrow.

I've seen this same thing occur in guns. Someone regurgitates an idea, someone else spends time writing it up and it gains a following. If anyone is looking for clear, proven experience they need read no further than Larry's post. Read the sheer number of animals he's killed without losing one.

Everyone is certainly entitled to shoot whatever bow and arrow combination they choose but please don't fool,newcomers into thinking that EFOC is the only thing that will work.

George Stout...what is so confusing about "I" and "my"? What does Larry Hatfield have to do with "I" or "my".

Phil, again "I" and "my" is what I said. You stretching that into me fooling newcomers into thinking that is the only thing that will work is grossly absurd and not very becoming of you. Also, if you are really so worried about what newcomers should know or do, as you seem to be, why don't you tell them the truth.....that animals they hunt are not 3D targets. Those animals can and WILL move when their arrow is in flight. They WILL have arrows hit unintended spots. And knowing this up front, tell them they just may want to consider not ignoring that fact. Tell them there are ways to build your arrow to likely make that "bad" shot result in a recovered animal where otherwise may not. Tell them that common sense says two holes are better than one. Tell them all of those things as you educate them on general ethics of bowhunting.

"Anyone that thinks EFOC was founded in this generation doesn't know much about the history of archery. And I'm sure there was a following by some small segment of bow hunters long before Ashby shot his first arrow.

Absolutely. I don't even think it was that small of a segment, either. Lots of bow cultures clearly understood the advantages of heavy arrows, and high EFOC arrows, long before the 20th century. Ashby himself is the first to admit that.

Maybe it wasn't a small segment somewhere but in reading magazines and books from the 60s on the only reference I could find was footing arrows with hardwood. In all my 50 years of Bowhunting I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen someone shooting footed arrows.

In modern times the vast majority of bowhunters - not all but almost all - bought or made arrows from readily available components - wood, fiberglass and aluminum. There has always been discussions about total weight but not a whole lot to read about FOC let alone EFOC having advantages in bowhunting. Can you tell me which bowhunters were vocal proponents of high EFOC for bowhunting?

I'm also curious if you could name for me some of the cultures that understood and employed high EFOC and where I could read more about them.

"The Internet sure does create experts. Or, rather, it makes people think they are experts. Aside from terminology there is nothing new in archery. Anyone that thinks EFOC was founded in this generation doesn't know much about the history of archery."

Very well said. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of misinformation I read on these forums. Why, just today I learned that field archers "MUST" have fast, light arrows to shoot targets 80 yards away. I guess all those generations of folks who've shot field and York rounds with longbows and wood arrows didn't get the memo. :)

Who said they thought EFOC was founded in this century? Know anyone that said that?

JRW...just curious. ..do you know anyone who currently uses wood shafts for 80 yard target archery? My guess is not many because they feel they "MUST" use much lighter tackle to compete with much lighter bows....like I said before.

You're grabbing at straws now Richie. Clearly you're happy with your setup and that's good for you. Jut as there are those with a ton more experience that choose something different because it works for them. It's pointless to continue this debate since experience proves that EFOC isn't the magic bullet but just another way of doing things. Of course we all know it won't end here.

Phil, I am not the one grabbing at straws. Jimmy asked the question about how much penetration is "enough". I responded "personally" that if I can't get two holes then penetration isn't enough. Larry asked why do you need two holes...I respond because "I" can and expect myself to.

You say noone needs to look farther than what Larry does but out of the same breath always imply negative connotations regarding an Ashby following. Because I am not a member of the Hatfield following, based on my personal answers you say I am fooling newcomers into thinking what I said is the only way.....you know, kind of like you saying ..."they need read no further than Larry's post. Read the sheer number of animals he's killed without losing one." That's right. You said exactly what you're telling me not to say.

Whose really grasping at straws and really not open to other expectations about their weapons?

News flash!! Regardless of the century EFOC was created, I found out about it by researching in the current century. I have not seen 25 plus years of arrow lethality research by Larry Hatfield so I have read the research I have found. And "I" like it.

As a reminder....please don't forget to tell the newcomers what I mentioned earlier. It just may increase the animal recovery rate....unless there is a good reason not to.

Merry Christmas!

Since he beat me to it I'll echo in my own words more or less what sap just said...

From where I sit the problem is most of us that are trying to formulate whether there are tangible merits for EFOC or UEFOC is, with the exception of kingwouldbe, orion, smithammer and sapcut, none of the people on this thread, presumably with a "ton more experience" have presented even a shred of evidence to make their case that EFOC is now irrelevant.

Nothing, literally nothing but opinion has been offered stating anything that kingwouldbe posted is wrong or misguided, which as Orion pointed out is fairly well steeped in Dr Ashby's findings anyway.

So I guess we're to conclude Dr Ashby's work has now been invalidated too, because a few trad narcissists have declared, without tangible basis, that EFOC is now pointless (pun intended)

And after enduring all that plus a series of childish, schoolyard barbs at kingwouldbe, we're now being lectured that not only is EFOC irrelevant, but it's also been around since the beginning of time. Again without any facts, links or what ever to substantiate these assertions. So who again is grasping at straws?

Sadly a post on this thread was deleted yesterday or the day before, essentially calling out the EFOC detractors to either put or shut up already, which is unfortunate because that post was on point.

deerfly, nobody said Ashby's work was invalidated. Nobody said EFOC is irrelevant. For those hunting large African game, large hogs or dangerous game it is a good reference point. For deer and elk it is not as relevant.

The rest of your post shows you have little knowledge of archery history. I gave an example of folks that dabbled with EFOC by using arrows footed with hardwood. Prior to loading up carbons witt inserts or weight that was the one reasonable way to change FOC. The rest of the "put up or shut up" is clearly evidenced by the sheer number of animals killed by folks that never worried about FOC but shot arrows tuned to their bow with sharp broadheads.

Please remember that nobody said EFOC is pointless. It's just not a required element to cleanly, effectively kill a deer or elk.

Richie, seriously? Larry's lifetime of experience doesn't count because he didn't write it out in a series of articles? That's not only laughable but it's disrespectful.

Basically from what I read you saying, if someone posted a "study" on the internet you'd believe it over someone else giving a lifelong history of accomplishments and results? The internet is truly a double-edged sword.

Merry Christmas to you and your family!

Wow. It's truly unfortunate to see a thread that started as a sincere request for open-minded information ends up the same as any other attempt to discuss the topic on here.

I'm not an EFOC crusader, and as I said above, I'm not interested in trying to convert anyone's way of thinking on this. But to see every single attempt to discuss this topic get shouted down in the same way, over and over, by the same small group of crusty critics, is pretty disappointing.

Toby - there are better places to get the information you're looking for, and far more open minds out there. I hope your path is more productive elsewhere than it has been here, and please feel free to PM myself, and the others on here who support your inquiries if you need more info along the way.

OK...slightly different tact here. As I said in my only post on this thread, even at 62 years, I had never heard of efoc...so I am a curious interested observer...more than willing to listen to advice/observations/experiences of ALL here more knowledgeable than myself...both my elders (gettin' to be less of them every day) and the young guys.

As I said, I'm an old dog, cedar shooting, 2 blade zwickey fan. My cedars are tapered giving me a minor foc factor there. Shaft is 405 gr & broadheads are 135...giving me a dead-nut 10 g.p.p. for my 54lb @ 29" set up. I, last night :-), quite un scientifically balanced an arrow to find to balance point which is only a couple inches forward of center.

Question...IF one was interested in increasing foc on woodies with glue on heads, how would y'all recommend one go about it? I do like to tinker...maybe I would pursue other shaft material if I discerned merit. BLASPHAMY!!!!

OK, I'll punch out here and let ya all tell me how stupid I am...LOL!!! I do, by the way, possess a great sense of humor...so fire away.

Merry Christmas &happy new year brothers

Smithhammer. There are a lot of open minds here and a significant body of experience to support our beliefs. In fact, most of us are very open minded. It seems that the same few keep beating a drum for something else. The original post here was asking for advice on tuning an arrow and if adding weight to the front will weaken the spine. There was nothing about penetration. That all changed with kingwouldbe's post and the discussion took a different path. Not uncommon or bad - discussions usually go on different paths.

I understand you are not an EFOC crusader and aren't trying to convert anyone. The same could be said for the majority of us. Instead of looking at it as this topic getting shouted down it seems to me the same small group of folks keep trying to shout it up despite some very compelling experience to the contrary.

But you made some claims above. Please answer my questions. I'd like to understand which bowhunters and cultures you were referring to.

The benefit to EFOC is that it is merely one way to get a heavy arrow......that's it. It is a myth that EFOC arrows "fly better" than equally weighted non EFOC arrows. It is a myth that EFOC arrows stay in flight longer and/or have a shorter parabolic curve than non EFOC arrows(this one actually defies all laws of physics). It is also a myth that EFOC arrows impact the target with more force than equally weighted arrows with better weight distribution. Those under the spell of EFOC will argue all of this, but can't do one anything to prove those myths in to reality. Nothing.

If for some reason I ever need a 900gr arrow then it will be one with better weight distribution than EFOC. And having said that, it just isn't going to happen. Trajectory is every bit as important to my hunting and shooting as momentum behind the tip of the broadhead. I have zero issues with running 350-500gr arrows through very large deer as if they were made of paper. Having too many friends that have done the same on elk and moose makes me confident as well. Penetration is simply a non issue for me and always has been.

Sapcut, the only two types of threads you participate on are EFOC and Single Bevel Head ones. In every one of these you go the long way around criticizing other's gear and minimizing, if not altogether discounting, decades of real time experience in favor of myth and "well, I know what I saw" type hooey. It should also be noted that on a number of occasions you were challenged by Woody Sanford and others to produce one of your magic arrows to be tested and documented. You refused. You were then asked to at least provide your exact arrow specs and build so that it could be replicated, and again, tested and documented. You refused......every single request. Your excuse is always "it's just not that important to me" and then you go on to contradict those statements by continuing to argue, sans any proof of anything, whatsoever. So you understand, folks who think logically are never going to let you get away with that, not here, not anywhere.

Phil, shouted down is exactly what your small group does every single time regarding EFOC and someone wanting to increase their penetration potential...simply because native Americans and Larry Hatfield has killed a bunch of animals being satisfied with getting only an entrance hole.

Just like I have said about George Stout a time or two....For some reason the improvements in archery tackle made between 1872 and 1976 are acceptable to be in your "following" but improving the weapon after 1972 is frowned upon and shouted down by the crusty critics....and at the same time suggest that said critics are sooo open minded. That is bologna and a means of crawfishing.

What possibly could be wrong with "shouting it up" by efforting toward improving the lethality of an arrow? Don't say nothing because you are well beyond that...as usaul.

And here is the ONLY reason that this topic is shouted down by the crusty crtics....it is simply NOT their personal preference to do so. Just like it IS others personal preferences to do so.....because of a desire to make it better.

Let the crawfishing begin...

A few points and then I'm out of this thread and you can have it to yourself.

There are about five people that are strong, very strong, proponents of EFOC on all these threads - same five. There may be more that like EFOC but only a few of you continue to beat this horse. Many others feel differently but they post once about how they don't see the need and then leave because they get beaten down.

There is little that I frown upon in archery. There are some things I accept and practice and some I don't. I don't use footed arrows, I don't use super heavyweight shafts and I don't use super heavy points. IF I hunted in Africa or hunted large hogs down south I would modify what I use if needed.

I don't know where you picked 1976. I definitely didn't draw a line in the sand there. I use carbons, new ILF risers and limbs, even use broadheads that weren't created until well after 1976.

What is wrong with shouting it up is that it isn't just one post it's volumes. Some of you are as bad as reformed smokers with trying to spread the word and convert people. Like a dog with a bone, you won't give it up to the fact that most could care less and most have no need for EFOC as they will not be hunting large hogs or dangerous game. The equipment they have selected serves them very well for the game they hunt.

I believe you are very happy with what you shoot. I also believe most others here are as well. People that see no need for EFOC aren't crusty critics. We're realists. We try things, practice and make choices. Not necessarily because someone published a set of articles that we read but because we have personal proof. Nobody has said folks shouldn't play with EFOC, experiment and use it if they like to. What I and others have said is that it isn't the magic bullet that will end the wounding and non-recovery of game and that it isn't something that most folks need to concern themselves about as they learn to shoot accurately, tune their bows well and sharpen broadheads.

So now you can answer back with where I'm all wet.

Sometimes it's not the message - it's the delivery. The way efoc is presented by some is there is no reason that one would not use it. Strong implication - intended or not - is choosing not to use it is simply wrong. If one speaks up not appreciating the implication, they are accused of shouting down those doing it. The most vocal advocates are fully aware they are doing this as it has been their pattern for awhile.

Hello mythical roger....

"It is a myth that EFOC arrows "fly better" than equally weighted non EFOC arrows."

Tell that to a spear. Throw a spear that is equally weighted and see if it doesn't hit your neighbors cat. Put some weighted direction on the front and you will hit your own cat.

"I have zero issues with running 350-500gr arrows through very large deer as if they were made of paper. Having too many friends that have done the same on elk and moose makes me confident as well. Penetration is simply a non issue for me and always has been."

That is absolutely peachy. Continue on as you wish.

"Sapcut, the only two types of threads you participate on are EFOC and Single Bevel Head ones."

Mythical roger....that is very close to absolutely correct. The reason is most all other threads are about bowmantic interests....like the latest vintage bow in the collection, building strings, making cane arrows, footing woodys, where to find cheap flannel camo, etc.

Nothing at all wrong with those threads. I just personally am not interested in that so I don't chime in on them....unlike you do with threads involving EFOC, single bevels, ways to increase your chances of blowing thru big bones, etc.

And I still and always will think it is not important to me or worth my time to show or video or prove anything to the minds of you, Woody Sanford or several other crusty critics. I'll just continue to "shout up" ways to improve my arrows at the same time you and the Hatfield following continue to shout down progress beyond 1972.

I put my thinking cap on , and I thunk it over

I decided that those EFOC arrows definately aid in better penetration, but also would have to go REALLY light to not kill a deer (Jack Howard did extreamly well with what I would consider on the light side-arrows)

then I decided I think the flater trajectory and sufichient results of some where middle ground (9-10gpp) is about the best trade off ,unless hunting dinosaur size stuff

Phil,

"What is wrong with shouting it up is that it isn't just one post it's volumes."

It may seem like volumes ONLY because it is responding to people like yourself that personally prefers another way of doing it (nothing wrong with that) and absolutely does not want EFOC, heavy arrows, etc. discussed.

You and others simply don't want it discussed by anyone other than a few posts so you begin shouting it down.

Do you do that with other topics that you don't agree with or prefer to be interested in?

Wow....should be a cover charge on some of these...uh...discussions. This is beginning to look like the most severely beaten dead horse since the practice started.

I have actually read EVERY post here (man...I gotta get a life!!!) and we seem to presently be in the summer re-run season. Ignorance is bliss and I'm a happy guy!

At the risk of being flogged and banished, Roger...your post pretty much stated my position here.

That said, I'll keep dropping by for entertainment value at the least.

Let the beating begin :-)

Sapcut, you can cut, copy and paste anything you like, but at the end of the day your song remains the same and people aren't buying in. That you don't comprehend the value of fact in proof is very telling. That you don't ever rise to the challenge is equally telling. That you claim "it isn't important enough", but perpetuate the/your argument belies an incomprehensibly flawed mindset. By all means keep arguing it, as that has always been what you've done, therefore, all that you will ever do. I'm joining Phil; you have to have the last word and now you'll get it.

Phil -

I find it funny that you would make this ststement -

"Anyone that thinks EFOC was founded in this generation doesn't know much about the history of archery.

And then, when I clearly say that I agree with you, and suggest that this understanding may have been more widespread then we think in earlier generations, you turn around and ask me for "proof."

Well, here is one example of an existing culture that didn't have access to the Ashby report, or the internet, in it's arrow choice:

I don't have access to specific FOC calculations of many historic arrows, for obvious reasons, but it's a well-established fact that many cultures prior to the 20th century shot heavy arrows, with heavy heads, for both warfare and hunting. The English, the Turks, the Japanese, all shot arrows that were often at least 12-15 gpp, even considering the typically heavy draw weights of their bows.

And it's the bow draw weight that is the real indicator here - why shoot a 100lb. war bow, if it isn't to propel a heavy arrow? After all, if the only concern is distance, then a lighter draw weight, and a lighter corresponding arrow, would accomplish the same thing. I'd say that the obvious explanation is probably the correct one - that many historic cultures shot heavy bows so that they could shoot heavy arrows, which experience had taught them time and time again offered superior penetration - both in war, and in hunting.

Now, I'm not talking about, or trying to dig up examples of, "UEFOC." But let's remember that even just "high-FOC" is typically considered to start in the high-teens, as a percentage. Given the arrow weights, and the large, heavy heads that they propelled, it isn't a stretch to imagine that many historic, heavy arrows were at least in the 15-18% FOC range, if not more (which again, would be considered high-FOC).

The term "FOC" may be relatively new, but it doesn't mean that the concept is. Not every cutlure by any means - there are obviously lots of exmaples of cultures that chose to shoot lighter arrows as well, but there is definitely enough in the historical record to suggest that none of this is anything new. And isn't that actually what you said earlier, Phil, to get us started on this tangent? So now can you share some examples as well?

Was told to keep my arrows long and use plenty of weight for points when I switched to carbons. Being an old field archer, who still wanted to have fun shooting those long targets, for me it was Hogwash!! I just select carbons with flexible shafts to begin with and cut'em short or the same length as my old aluminums of the past. My points are usually only 125gns. My arrows fly straight, and I'm happy happy happy. Everyone has to find their own combination.

if the flight characteristics of efoc and eefoc are so good, why aren't they used in world flight competition? i can tell you why because i am one of the people that shoot flight and set world records. they turn nose down and fall straight down, well short of any normal flight arrow distance. that statement is a fact, learned from shooting thousands of experimental flight arrows in almost any configuration you can imagine. roger is correct with his comment that the myth that they fly farther than a normally weighted arrow is false. crusty? i set two world records this year using asian bows and innovative arrows. no moss on me!

roger, why show up to shout down someones desire for progress. Aren't you better than that?

Is that the way to guide a newcomer? Tell them that there are NO other ways to improve? Apparently so.

roger, I just put together a 1234 grain arrow with 32.4% UEFOC. that is pushing 900 grains in the front 8 inches of the shaft. It flys great with only 3 three inch feathers. Trajectory is very satisfactory for 16-18 yards (well within my average shot) Imagine that. I am gonna try to destroy a deer with it soon.

However, I'm not implying the crusty ones or the newcomers SHOULD use this type arrow unless they simply prefer to. I'm just shouting up another way (to me, because I know its been done for centuries) to build an arrow. Cause it's fun man!

I don't know where the "EFOC arrows fly farther" assertion comes from, but that hasn't been my experience. They may however, be more stable in flight and less subject to deflection and crosswind (which my experience has proven, at least for me), and any heavier arrow, regardless of weight distribution, will lose energy less quickly than a lighter arrow. But that doesn't mean they will fly farther, obviously.

And I don't really see how arrows for distance archery are relevant to this discussion, since it's a very different set of parameters, and characteristics. It's kind of like wondering why more soccer moms don't drive two-seater Ferraris.

Andy Man that dog has a way of bringing us all back to reality...very few dogs are extremists

DDave

""Just like I have said about George Stout a time or two....For some reason the improvements in archery tackle made between 1872 and 1976 are acceptable to be in your "following" but improving the weapon after 1972 is frowned upon and shouted down by the crusty critics....and at the same time suggest that said critics are sooo open minded. That is bologna and a means of crawfishing.""

Another crock of rhetoric from someone who is desperate to convince us that everyone is wrong but him.

"following but improving the weapon after 1972 is frowned upon."

You apparently don't comprehend what you read well. I'm the one who defends technology as it applies to traditional archery...Perhaps you can show a post where I said differently. I'm the one who challenges those who shout out that metal risers aren't traditional, or sights are only for compounds. Read the posts Richie and tell the facts. You only read or hear what you want.

The issue is really with you and your ilk that want to call us primitive, or stupid...or unknowing...whatever, because we don't buy into the hype that you do. Likely it works fine for you and that's wonderful. But you imply through your talk that we are dunces of sort for not believing everything you or Dr. Fred says. And just because you capitalize words, doesn't mean they hold any more meaning. And yes....your post, by it's choice of words does imply that Larry, or the rest of us, don't put in effort. Again, that is both ignorant and disrespectful. Yeah, I'm out of here too....it's like conversing with a fence post.

tradmt. most of the best flight arrows seem to balance less than 1/4-1/2"" ahead of true center and a lot are barely past true center. the point weight is barely more or sometimes equal to the nock weight.

"Another crock of rhetoric from someone who is desperate to convince us that everyone is wrong but him."

If that is what you think then that is a "You" problem and of course not at all what I imply.

I don't imply anything of the sort regarding a lack of effort by Larry Hatfield. I remind you of what you already know...."I" and "my". Unlike your constant disrespectful comments about a particular Dr. Ed Asbhy, which I really couldn't care less but thought I would call you on it anyway.

"Likely it works fine for you and that's wonderful."

See...why not just leave it at that? Good question.

But more importantly, I will also leave it at that and remind myself that this disagreement isn't worth loosing trad bowhunting relationships.

George and roger, I hope you and yours have/had a good Christmas holiday and new year!

Sometimes I wonder how I managed to shoot bows for somewhere around 54 years and not know about this stuff, I thought I was having fun, little did I know I must not have been. If I had a time machine I would go back and do it rite but I'd have to figure out what to do about all those animals I killed the wrong way, I wouldn't want to violate the prime directive.

This is a penetration test that I did after loosing a very large boar on a shot that would have been a quick kill on most animals. The boar was about 25 yards slightly quartering away, arrow placement was slightly below mid level and about 6 inches behind his front leg. Bow is 53#s @27"s arrow weight 630 grains. Long story made short, I tracked him for about four hours after giving him 1.5 hours before taking up his trail. Never found him. On the shot I was thinking nice placement, then as he ran off my thoughts changed to wow that's a lot of arrow hanging out of him! So, I had a 65 # bow back at the house and wondered if the penetration would have been enough to kill the pig. So I put a sheet of 3/8" plywood in front of my target and shot it with the bow I lost the pig with. Broadhead stuck through the plywood . Bumped tip weight 50grains, no difference . Pulled out the 65# bow with a 675 grain arrow and shot the plywood and not mutch better . Add 50 grains of tip weight , now getting the broadhead through but not enough to be impressive. Add another 50 grains upfront and voila, arrow punches halfway through. I've killed a couple nice boars with this setup . I think this much tip weight only works with carbon arrows because they recover so quickly. I have not tested aluminum or wood in this weight of arrow, they may penetrate just as well but wouldn't fly well with this much tip weight. Carbon arrows are a different animal, when building an arrow for penetration. Just wanted to add that I respect all of you guys that have been killing successfully for dam near as long as I've been alive.

Flash....thanks for that post. You gave a useful example from a practical, albeit not the most scientific, home test. Experience IS still the best teacher.

You read my mind (not the greatest challenge) in regard to shaft material and feasable workings of foc. I'm one of those old dogs you referenced but am not stone-set in my ways or close-minded and fearful of change. I mean, Ford's not still making black model A's...right. As a 34 year hockey coach I was always sponging knowledge and new ideas from those I respected....and that was many.

However....I do enjoy the soul-soothing beauty of my cedar shafts and the next carbon I shoot will be my first. That said, I agree with your thoughts about the ease of front loading carbons vs wood/aluminum....especially wood. I was mentored in my youth to cut shafts as short as possible for proper spine and quick paradox recovery.

My cedars are cut such that broadhead wieght is the sole option to vary foc. They do fly just fine...hit what I'm looking at...and leave 2 holes in my primary quarry, whitetail deer. They are also exclusively what I've shot for 30 years, and I still have a stash of a couple dozen. Also, the Zwickey 2 blade delta has been my war head of choice in the same time period.

I have, however, been itching to give carbons a try and tinker about with with sumpin' new...lol.

Just sayin......

Oh... yeah...my cedars are 31" from tip of nock to end of broadhead. Total wieght is 540 grains, and I draw 54lbs @ 29".

I balanced one to see....they balance 2" ahead of center....what would that correspond to in regard to % foc?

Just curious.

Rick, my calculations suggest about 7% FOC.

Thank you

"as a hunter in Colorado, distances become kind of long for certain game, mule deer in particular. I think EFOC is great when shooting out of a treestand at whitetails or even in heavy wooded cover after elk. Hunting mule deer, often in open sage and pinion country makes getting in close quite a challenge. Getting to 30-35 yards can be pretty tricky."

Think outside the box and you'll be able to get close to mulies. I've had people tell me it's almost impossible to take a desert mulie with a longbow...but these people lack creative thinking...impossible is just a word that limits THEM, it doesn't have to limit you.

"Aside from terminology there is nothing new in archery." I respectfully disagree. I will agree it's hard, very hard, to innovate in this old endeavor, but not "impossible".

For example, the Turbo Nock is one such innovation .I suppose it is possible there was an earlier patent, I don't really know, but when ever it was first produced, that was the moment something new in archery came to be. Just one example.

Re: EFOC, does anyone disagree that EFOC arrows allow for smaller fletching to get good arrow flight? I'm relatively neutral on this, just would like to know what others think.

I do not disagree that is a fact not a myth.

UEFOC creates a significantly larger spine window which makes arrow tuning much easier and flight sensitivity much less. More facts.

David, have you used the Turbo nock? what is the advantage? I am not familiar with it.

Yes. Rick Barbee has written a lot about it. The main advantage is quicker and more arrow rotation which argues for greater accuracy and possibly greater penetration.

I believe they are only available in right spin so if you use left wing fletching they won't work.

Yep, and unless they fit super tight you should glue them otherwise the rotation will simply turn the nock in the shaft vs. spinning the arrow.

There are other innovations such as circular plastic whizmos instead of feathers or vanes; lighted nocks, for example, these are almost technological "tricks". The hardest thing is create a new method, much less methods of shooting trad bows, and I'll leave it at that.

Maybe technology will produce a "feather" that is some soft material and looks and works like the real thing but is ... better. Namely, won't get wet and won't flatten down, etc. Not that people haven't tried, but so far they all came up short.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here