I was reading a thread where the discussion turned to bow efficiency and it got me thinking about the difference between efficiency and effectiveness. For me, they are not the same. If we go by poundage, 54 or 55 pounds might be most efficient. However, I think 45 pounds is the most effective and maybe the most efficient poundage, all-around, for many archers. In my experience, there is very little difference between 45 and 50 pounds. When you get up around 55 pounds, there's a difference, but it is not great. You can use a heavier arrow, but again, shot placement is everything. A 45 pound bow is easier for most to handle, yet heavy enough to get the job done. That makes it one of the most effective poundages you can hunt with, especially as you age.

Joe

I think you are just talking to yourself. If the you are aging, or otherwise need a lower weight. But somehow this isn't actually overbowed; If the animals you hunt are small enough for 45 pounds to be all you will ever need; If you are in the magical situation where shot placement is everything (it isn't), and you never miss or any of the other bad things that affect getting the arrow where it needs to be happens. Then you are closer to 45 being perfect than it otherwise would be.

Efficiency and effectiveness are two different things. Efficiency is what you get out for what you put in. Effectiveness is whether what you got, was enough. An efficient bow would be one that made your job easier for your effort. It could be a cost thing, if you got a lot of bang for your buck, or unusually accurate, either stable, or tunable. And of course, higher velocity for energy required to shoot a particular bow.

That me what shoots best for you. The bow I killed the most game with in the shortest amount of time was 77# draw weight R/D longbow. I am sure it was not the most efficient. But for me was most effective. Long range, short range, running shots, did not matter.

The worms are crawlin'out of the can...............

IMO the shooter makes the bow effective . the bowyer makes it efficient..... or not

Frisky, I've thought of both the perfect 'rule of thumb' and the perfect response to one of your posts in general! Every archer should find their draw weight max, and buy a bow who's draw weight is exactly one-half that amount. For a hoss like me that happens to be about 60 lb, but for lesser men that make up the great majority of shooters, 45 would be about right :). Guess this is one of the 2 minutes out of the day your broken clock is correct ;). Hahaha!!

That's really not true. Earl Hoyt years ago addressed this very issue. I'll look and see if I can find his statement, but it was pretty simple, increasing draw weight up to a point as long as draw length stayed the same, became the most efficient.

I was just thinking exactly that yesterday...any archer with reasonable strength can either shoot 45 pounds with no problem or condition themselves to shoot 45 pounds...my Kodiak Deluxe is a measured 46 pounds at my draw weight and I would not hestitate to take it moose hunting

DDave

Efficiency is quite quantifiable..

Efficacy..effectiveness....has to do with the archer, his shooting..and what he's shooting at..Jim

Frisky..A bit more study on these subjects is needed on your behalf..

"Efficiency is quite quantifiable.. Efficacy..effectiveness....has to do with the archer, his shooting..and what he's shooting at..Jim"

This bears repeating and folks need to understand it before rendering an opinion really. Efficiency is expressed as a percentage, as Jim alludes. It's real.

One pound of draw weight equals about a 2fps gain in the arrow, that's it, that's all. You can have a 45# bow that will deliver the same weight arrow with more energy(and speed) than a 55# bow. This is why draw weight is a very poor 'standard' for predicating energy and ultimately penetration. Having said this, Frisky is just playin' yinz........don't fall for it.

Here is what Earl said on this subject as it appears on page 193 of the "Traditional Bowyers Encyclopedia 2nd Edition

"a half inch draw length change will effect bow weight by about

1 pound which approximates 2 feet per second. And it changes energy storage and arrow acceleration distance by approximately another 2.5 feet per second, totaling 4.5 feet per second. These are ball park figures but are reasonably close for most bows especially recurves. Hypothetically, should an archer desire to increase his bow performance, he could increase bow weight 1 pound, draw length 1/2" and decrease brace height 1/2" for a total gain in arrow velocity of nine feet per second. This assumes that these changes would be compatible- that the archer could accommodate the longer draw, and heavier weight and that the arrow spine would be sufficient to accept these changes"'

This has always been what I've referenced.

Frisky, don't you think you should start serving up that stew, you been stirring it up long enough :-).

I don't believe how much/less pounds you shoot has anything to do with weather the bow is 40#, 45#, 50# or more. The design of the bow and WHO is shooting it that will determine the efficiency and effectiveness. These are just my thoughts.

How is a bow's "efficiency" measured? The thread about Black Swan bows talked about their high efficiency but I didn't see a discussion of how it is determined.

bowlin wrote: "I think you are just talking to yourself. If the you are aging, or otherwise need a lower weight. But somehow this isn't actually overbowed; If the animals you hunt are small enough for 45 pounds to be all you will ever need; If you are in the magical situation where shot placement is everything (it isn't), and you never miss or any of the other bad things that affect getting the arrow where it needs to be happens. Then you are closer to 45 being perfect than it otherwise would be. Efficiency and effectiveness are two different things. Efficiency is what you get out for what you put in. Effectiveness is whether what you got, was enough. An efficient bow would be one that made your job easier for your effort. It could be a cost thing, if you got a lot of bang for your buck, or unusually accurate, either stable, or tunable. And of course, higher velocity for energy required to shoot a particular bow."

X2!

What has been said before, "dead is dead" how the critter got that way, light bow, heavy bow, who cares, it is dead.

Lots of excellent info in this thread! I agree with most of it. However, I've decided that 45 pounds is optimum for most shooters. It has the combination of ease of draw and cast that will take all North American game. Over 50 pounds, and old shoulders start to hurt, lowering all-around performance. 45 pounds is the new 60.

Joe

Efeciency allows for effectiveness

Take a look at the bows Ishi used for all of his hunting. His favorite was a 40#@25" flatbow. A modern 45# recurve, drawn to 28", plus or minus an inch for most, is a superior weapon. Clearly enough power for everything. That said, I believe in shooting a fast 45 pounder that can easily equal or surpass most 50 pound bows.

Joe

take note that the decrease in brace ups the speed,, I love that one,,

Joe are we talking killers vs target archers? The means of delivering a missle?

Yes missle thats what my TWP. calls an arrow.LOL A 60 weight can be as uneffective as a 35 weight in the wrong hands.

A misplaced shot we can all do that also so where does all these theroys come from?

Why do target archers generally use lighter weights?

Why do younger guys tell themselves they can handle the heavy weights then watch them shoot it.LOL

When you see a guy shaking as he draws and sets and releases he's over bowed no matter how strong he looks or he thinks he is.LOL

What is balance when the entire world is off balance?

Whos to say whats wrong or whats right do we all have to be authoritys in BS? LOL

Ryman- the two of us are the last remaining sources of authoritative bs. We share a monopoly on authoritative bs and thus, we need start distributing it evenly to all others.

Joe

The worst affliction in the universe is when one truly, emphatically and completely comes to believe their own BS. There's no cure for that!

But seriously, I have complete faith in my ability to cleanly dispatch anything I am hunting, excluding moose, with a 45 # bow and the right head and shaft combo. I have several bows that are set up to do so with 1816's and 1916's.

Pass through is pass through...

Backcountry, efficiency is a work in, work out calculation. A bow will store x amount of energy when you draw it back, when you shoot the arrow x amount goes into the arrow. It is not calculated off the peak draw force but stored energy instead.

Lol, correction. target archers used to shoot lower weights than hunters. Now a days hunters mostly shoot the same weight as target archers and some hunt with less. Oh and you can't kill everything in north amerrican with 45lbs because in some areas its not legal for all game.

All else being the same a 50# bow will be more efficient than a 30# bow of the same model. Usually the bowyer will make the core lams thicker to get a higher draw weight but the width of the limbs and tip overlays dimensions doesn't change much. So the heavier bow tend to have less limb mass and also string mass per pound of draw force. Some people feel there's a diminishing return somewhere over 60#. This could be partly explained by the elastic compression of the body when drawing a bow that's too heavy for the individual body frame. So when you shoot and compare a 70# bow to a 50# you may not be getting that much extra performance out of the 70# because you are actually drawing it less than the 50# under the heavy compressive forces.

A funny thing I noticed at any 3D shooting not all arrows land the same and theres all sorts of shooters and weights and talents too.

Then I usally ask hey BTW when I see a good shooter I ask whats in his musseum? Meaning whats on your wall?

Then that gets narrowed down further what have you arrowed? Guns and modern weapons don't count when your in a sticks comparison and looking for like minds? LOL

Some only play with their sticks and then use compounds or cross guns to kill?

Never could figure that out?LOL

I have seen guys shooting 60 pound bows but when the released it was more like 50 or even less? Oh I'm shooting 60, no your not you creep up big time.

Plenty of variables always.LOL

Efficiency in bow design looks great on charts, and chrono numbers when shooting them w/ machines but IMO, those parameters eliminate the most important factor of archery '' human error''.

I read so many argue the fast bow reduces the arrow trajectory. Sure it dose as long as all human factors are controlled. Some bow designs take more discipline to shoot consistently. Sure, reduced draw weight can aid in discipline tremendously but some bow designs lessen the discipline curve.

Years ago I read an interesting article titled, First Be Effective, Then Devise Ways To Be More Efficient. An exsmple given: Two military commanders were charged with a mission to take out an important enemy target by noon the following day. The first took the target out at 1PM but kept casualties at an all time low. The second took the objective out by noon the following day as charged. The first commander was efficient. The second was effective. The first commander failed his mission.

"Usually the bowyer will make the core lams thicker to get a higher draw weight" That's not exactly correct in all designs. The combination of glass to wood is much more important.

"Usually the bowyer will make the core lams thicker to get a higher draw weight" That's not exactly correct in all designs. The combination of glass to wood is much more important.

Many years ago Jack Howard said that once you get to 60# that bows more than that become much less efficient. I've shot bows in the 65-70# range for years but have been shooting 60# Ilf limbs on my DAS riser for about 10 years with greater success and penetration. I am currently shooting 54# Morrison limbs with much better effectiveness than I can remember. When it comes to effectiveness it really, IMO, has more to do with the quality and sharpness of your broached and how well tuned everything is. A poor flying arrow from a 70# bow is not going to penetrate as well as a properly flying arrow from a 50# bow.

Regardless of draw weight the more grains per pound you shoot the more efficient your bow will be. Very often guys will shoot heavier bows and lighter arrows to gain speed. They will gain some speed but they will also loose efficiency. I have tested bows from about 30# to 110# and as long as I am shooting the same grains per pound I don't see any pattern of heavier bows becomming less efficient.

Me neither, Steve.

My turn agian, a lot that has been said is probably true. I sence another heavy bow vs. light bow thread evolving if not already. We seem to as a culture need other people to agree and accept our way of thinking for our mental reinforcement. Sometimes we tend to fantasy what we believe rather than use our real life experiences. Other times we want to justify what has to be for ourselves, agian acceptness. We tend to go to great lengths to make these happen. Facts from studies, personal experiences by others are examples. I applaud those efforts and have no trouble excepting them, but not as the holy grail. Your turn,

And a properly tuned arrow from a 70lb bow is going to out penetrate a properly tuned arrow from a 50lb bow. Talk about stacking the deck. Why is it when guys talk heavy and light bows someone always has to tell how the heavy is always shot poorly or tuned poorly. Compare apples to apples and you'll find a heavier bow can shoot a heavier arrow faster and pen better than a light bow, period. And we're not talkin gpp, we're talking good ole penetration. less efficient but more effective.

Never meant to say that guys that shoot heavy bows were out of tune. I always bare shafted, even with my heavy bows. I think Jack Howard was right, 60# is plenty. Regardless, I agree, well tuned equipment is the key. But, and again, it is a small but, with today's carbon and synthetic limbs you can get as much from a modern limb 15# lighter than you can with a 10 year old shooter. Bow weight, in and of itself, means little if all other things are not in tune.

For these discussions, we should assume all bows to be set up, tuned and matched to arrows equally well, shot equally well, same strings, same design and materials... but for some reason folks don't. They seem to want to compare only to heavier bows that are handicapped by any and all means... which makes this a huge waste of time.

"I think 45 pounds is the most effective and maybe the most efficient poundage, all-around, for many archers."

Ok, all together now....hogwash insanity.

It's the truth. 99% of all bowhunters are overbowed. Most can handle 45 pounds, making it most effective and efficient for them.

Joe

"99% of all bowhunters are overbowed."

Joe, what thin air might you have found that absurd nugget of unknowledge?

It's a hunch, and my hunches are always correct.

Joe

I noticed with some of my heavier longbows that they like lighter spined arrows than the charts would indicate, even though I know I was pulling them back the same length, I tag my finger with the broadhead. Jack Howard told me that you do not get much more killing power at 28" than 56 pounds in his bows. I believe that efficiency will vary from one bow to the next for spine requirements as weights go up. Byron Ferguson referred to it as the point of diminishing returns. As far as light bows to heavier bows, back in the 70s, PAA pro and bow shop owner, Glen Adler's, target bow would shoot the same weight shafts faster than my short 11 pound heavier recurve, at the same draw length. The one thing I am sure of, if you were shooting a 45 pound bow and I was shooting a 90 pound bow, if you just killed the deer that I just missed, you were a better archer than me that day.

1. Add the coconut oil and 3 popcorn kernels to a large pot. 2. Cover and cook over medium-high heat until all 3 kernels pop. 3. Take the three kernels out of the pot. 4. Add the rest of the popcorn kernels. 5. Cover and take the pot off of the heat. 6. Wait 30 seconds. 7. Munch on the fresh popcorn while reading the next 11 pages....

i like to shoot a 45 pound bow,, but I get a better release and am more consistent with a heavier bow,,so the lighter bows are not my favorite because I am release challenged,, but I am still working with the lighter bows to improve,, I try to stay open minded,, the bow that shoots best for me is what I go with,, the weight is secondary,, I think more than overbowed ,, most shooters are underpracticed :):) and overconfused :):):)

Under-practiced is probably the case with many, including me.

Joe

I am released challenged with my 45 or 46 pound at my draw Grooves recurve when I use a shooting glove, I shoot it good if I use a tab, but that bow will shoot a 500 grain arrow as fast as many 55 pound longbows.

Are you guys talking about bowhunting or shooting a bale of hay. Dagnabit, I don't know why I just assume we're talking bowhunting here. My fault.

Either way, hunting or target, this is one of Frisky's stir the pot threads. I will add that a weak shot with a heavy bow is not as deadly as a strong shot from a 45 pound bow.

Not stirring the pot at all with this one. I honestly believe 45 pounds is most effective for most shooters and most heavy bow shooters are overbowed due to lack of training.

Joe

I agree, my mistake. The first year that I shot a heavy bow, I was over bowed. My post about me missing a deer with a 90 pound bow and another shot it with a recurve actually happened.

... and a weak shot from a weak bow isn't nearly as deadly as a strong shot from a strong bow.

So that proves it.

If you don't shoot enough you will be overbowed with any weight bow within reason. If you do shoot enough you won't be overbowed with any weight bow within reason.

It's not possible to just pick a weight that is right for everybody. I weigh 135# but been shooting for 40+ years. A person that weighs 250 vs me at 135 you can't compare the "right" draw for us. If I draw 45# he should be able to shoot 80# no problem . Don,t work that way. I'm not out of shape, I put up 12-13 cords of firewood every year and run and walk a lot. I'm just 5' 4" and 135#. When I wasa teenager and shot everyday a lot I pulled a 100# compound that nobody in the shop could. Now lots of years later I'm happy with 35# for target & 45# for hunting. Deer still die just fine so I'm with frisky 45# is just right for a lot of people.

So the bottom, very bottom, line that snakes itself thru sooo many of these Leatherwall threads is this.....

Many of you guys consistently look for new ways to justify reasons to shoot light weight weapons.

Sapcut, it works both ways.

I am hunting turkeys with a 60 at my draw, but I have a nice little 52 pound Robertson that wants to go, I think that he will get his wish tomorrow and for the rest of the spring season. I have seen too many clean kills with bows that are lower poundage to ever criticize someone for wanting to stick with 45 pounds. For some like myself, it is possible to go way up with work to shoot heavy bows. For others, it is not practical, that does not mean in any way that they cannot cleanly kill game. I never understand why heavy bow shooters are so concerned with lighter bow shooters' bow weights, when it has been proven over and over that they are getting clean kills. I have seen more problems with folks shooting more weight than they should than with those that shoot less weight than they maybe could. Whether it is 45 or 95, being able to handle your bow is important, but it is also important to not injure ones self from trying to shoot to much weight because of pressure from heavy bow advocates. So, if you can shoot a heavy bow, good for you. If someone else cannot, why should you care?

Cause it's just funny seeing the grown men light weighters talking themselves into the idea that their bow is just as good as a heavier weapon. While at the same time act like just because they can't shoot one accurately then noone can. So it's funny to watch it in action.

I am in my 60s, the other day I shot about 200 arrows out of my 80 pounder and I shot it about as good as my lighter bows, but I did not feel like a bigger man for it, nor does that strength level that I have make me think any less of those that cannot, nor do I find any humor in it. It is a simple fact that many people can successfully hunt with bows half that weight, more power to them for being good hunters.

"It is a simple fact that many people can successfully hunt with bows half that weight,..."

And so can everyone else. And..?

You da man,

No sir, You da Mr. Man

Sapcut has it all wrong. Many grown men cannot handle more than 45 pounds. Fred Bear and others knew this and 45 pounds became the most common poundage on hunting bows. Since most men can handle 45 pounds, it is, for them, the most effective and efficient draw weight. There are several reasons for the inability to handle heavier draw weights. Two of the most common are injury and lack of training.

Joe

I believe Sapcut really doesn't care what you shoot, but if it's under 65# he is very disappointed in you..lol

I started to respond to this one on Monday, I guess... apologies for looping back a bit, but...

So, badger...

"I have tested bows from about 30# to 110# and as long as I am shooting the same grains per pound I don't see any pattern of heavier bows becomming less efficient. "

By "less efficient", do you just mean that they all shoot at about the same fps as long as GPP is held constant (assuming tune, string, bow design, etc. are essentially "equal")?

That actually surprises me just a bit, because in Nature, things don’t scale in a linear fashion. An Ant can move many times its own weight, because… They don’t weigh anything. At our own scale, a #133 human who can put up 3X body weight in a “raw” squat is pretty unusual, but not unheard of; a #360 human who can put up 3X body weight is… Unheard of. Ever. I found a world record of #810 lifted by a guy who goes #370; a Pathetically Wimpy 2.2X body weight.

So the lighter human is more “efficient”, with a higher power rating. On the other hand, the heavier one can probably warm up with 20 reps at the lighter lifter’s 1-time max.

Likewise, it stands to reason that the physical mass of a #100 limb would be more than 3X the mass of a #33 limb, so all else “equal”, the lighter limb should accelerate more quickly. So off-hand, I’d expect a (much) heavier bow to be a bit slower at a given GPP, but maybe it would also be less affected by increasing the GPP…??

But why would you do that? The beauty of Surplus is that Efficiency is a non-issue.

Life is too short to shoot a weak stick

The first year that I hunted deer, I was 15 no drivers license, I kept my 55# recurve with a bow quiver hanging in my locker at school and I had to sneak out of town on my Bridgestone 90cc motorcycle. The one town cop would know when I was around because he saw my little motorcycle parked at the school. He never caught me. I had chance to shoot a really big buck before it got to cold to run out that far with my bike. I almost died from buck fever. Another guy that hunted that area on the last day that I took my bike it was below freezing, 20 miles is a long driver when it is that cold, he brought me home with his pick up with the deer that I helped drag out and my bike in the back. Looking at his bow, it was a streaky green 60" solid fiberglass r/d Ben Pearson longbow 35 pounds, his arrows were bodkins on number 4 microflites.

Many grown men CAN handle more that 45 lbs... with ease.

GF, I would probably have to disagree with your post. Depends... how are your hypothetical bows designed relative to one another? Keep in mind that a bow twice as wide is twice as strong, but a bow twice as thick is about 8x as strong.

So if the draw weight is increased by adding thickness, as is almost always the case, less needs added. As such, mass doesn't increase proportional to the strength (stored energy). Thicker/stronger bows store more energy with less mass... relatively speaking.

"Many grown men cannot handle more than 45 pounds."

Assuming that is true, which it can't be, yes...that is very disappointing.

Sapcut- Unless you're lucky, you're gonna get hurt or start feeling the effects of old injuries when you get into your 50s. If it's a shoulder or elbow issue, you have no choice but to drop weight. Even many of you guys who are healthy probably are overbowed and crappy shots. That's just the way it is!

Joe

Joe, not sure about you but I personally am not comfortable shooting an 80# recurve. I am comfortable with a 70ish #er. I am a very normal person. I shot a borrowed 45# Wasp that I pittled around with when I was 15 years old. I then bought a 70# Bear many years later. I then got my current bow shooting 71#s in 2007. I am 47 years old now and that weight is easier to shoot now than ever.

To go along with that I have been pitching for the last 12-13 years in a very competitive 25 years and older wood bat baseball league.

Not boasting by any means, just making a point about how easy it really is for a normal grown man to shoot a bow much greater than 45#s.

Its just simple exercise of drawing a bow. Some people don't mind simple exercise and some people despise it so they try to use as little weight as possible to hunt without putting in any effort. Then ask away on archery sites about what is the least it will take to hunt or kill with....so they can feel better about choices. That is why I like calling people on it...cause its hilarious for them to say that from one side of their mouth and from the other they talk about how notsogood it is to shoot a "heavier than thou" bow because you might hurt yourself and there is no possible way you can shoot it accurately. And being that you can't shoot accurately you might make an unethical shot.... and that would be kinda "wrong". But yet, the same mind set is also saying to heavier weapon shooters that we're looney for using a heavy bow and heavy arrows to prepare for the notsogood shots, should it occur.

BTW, Shoulders and elbows are injured all the time and its not from pulling a bow. Exercise will do wonders to protect from injuries.

most shoulder injurys have nothing to do with shooting a bow.

I really can't say much. My wife shot 45lbs for deer and 55 for larger game. Oh and my 9 year old killed a buck with 45lbs. So yeah it works.

btw 62 y/o and no effects on shoulders or elbows from my 50 years of mostly 73-76 lbs with my first couple being 53 and an 82 for 2 years in there someplace. As a matter of fact most guys I hunted with over the years shot 60's or 70's and no shoulder problems.

Really guys?...You are actually tryin to be serious on a Frisky thread?.... lol..

The fact you guys can handle that weight and Sapcut can pitch a baseball show you have above average strength to begin with. It's a physical gift. Very few, if any 20 year olds in this forum have my leg speed. You ought to see me sprint on a road bike, in spite of a damaged disc in my back! However, upper body injuries have me shooting 45 pounds and even that takes a lot of work!

Joe

Shooting my new Black Widow PLV: https://youtu.be/9tDec2D6ZPo

"However, upper body injuries have me shooting 45 pounds and even that takes a lot of work!"

That is precisely my point. YOU have limitations that basically "have you" shooting only 45 lbs. and then YOU say that 45#s is the most efficient and effective. So funny.

Right, because it works best for more people than heavier poundages. Also, my 45 pound Holy Grail will shoot the same arrows almost as fast as your bow at 71 pounds! My 54 pound Bow of Bows will shoot it even faster! Obviously you don't have to shoot those big poundages to get the same effect.

Joe

"Really guys?...You are actually tryin to be serious on a Frisky thread?.... lol.."

I see your point Stan.

Know what an insane pig is called?

The same thing Frisky is trying to convince others about...Ba log na!

lots of lunchmeat on this thread! full of misinformation and hyperbole. oh well, going to be a long summer.

There is no magic about 45 pounds, tons of people can't shoot that accurately or everyone would win the tournaments, not just one guy.

My theory is that most people are reasonable misers. Most people say shoot the heaviest bow you can handle, when they should be saying shoot the heaviest bow you don't completely suck at shooting. On a deer a miss that hit the deer with a heavy bow is better than the same miss with a light bow, on average. I'm pretty sure there isn't any scientific evidence to contradict this overall point.

This is actually a pretty common problem in sport. A lot of people act as though we are almost there, or above average. But the reality is that most humans finish just as high in a 45 mile marathon as a 65 mile marathon - they don't finish at all. And that is the main appeal of traditional archery, if you are going to fail it looks better to fail at something a little bit harder. Nobody will believe you are flapping your arms to fly to the moon, but take two unsuccessful shooters and the guy with the stick will seem more skilled to a lot of people, because he has bitten more off.

"Also, my 45 pound Holy Grail will shoot the same arrows almost as fast as your bow at 71 pounds!"

Really? I thought you were judging draw weight? If so, all other factors should remain the same. So let's assume his bow is the same thing as yours only stronger. What if you both then shot HIS arrows? Say 700 grains? Judging them on only arrow speed wouldn't be fair THEN aye?

I agree, trying to talk sense on a Frisky thread is like trying to talk sense to the carnival clown at the dunking booth.

Joe, why don't you begin titling your threads like Addington?

"Frisky: on bow efficiency."

Jeff, that's a great idea! LOL!

Joe

I thought you might appreciate that :^)

I was hoping we would actually learn something about bow efficiency and how it is determined. Is it too late to turn this thread into something useful instead of another Frisky bash?

Yes. It is too late. The time has come and gone to turn this thread into something useful.

Here is an idea Backcountry... Start a new thread, that we can take seriously..

All of you heavier poundage shooters, Sapcut, Jeff and the others, I don't really care what weight you shoot. I just wonder why you feel it's necessary? Do you think a 45 lb. bow won't kill?

Backcountry, bow efficiency is simply a measure of what percentage of the bows energy makes it into the arrow and is not lost to vibration in the bow. Efficiency is not the only measure, some bows store more energy than others but may not be efficent. Some bows store a lot of energy and are also efficient. Peak draw force ( bows draw weight) tells you only how much the bow is drawing. The stored energy may range from 90% of peak draw force to 110%. This is what we calculate efficiency from, work in and work out.

You measure the weight of the arrow, the speed it is traveling and that will give you the kinetic energy. Then you measure the force draw curve of the bow and figure out the stored energy. You comapre the two for an efficiency percent. Not many people are going to go through that.

Speaking of building muscle, yes it is possible. One time I was heading out from truck to go turkey hunting. I had a 65 pound longbow that day. I was noticing how an hour before sunup in early May is a lot more light than an hour before sun up in November, when a car pulls up and a woman gets out. She was very friendly and wanted to know everything that I was planning. I could tell she wanted me in the very worst way. She asked if she could try a shot with my bow at a dirt bank, she could get it back and shoot it. Then she suggested that we meet at particular spot about 10 or 11, when it would warmer, and have a nice picnic. At 9:30 I was sneaking back to my truck like a frightened cat and getting the heck out of there.

I should have also pointed out that she shot it bare fingers, she was hunting with a shotgun.

What some fail to mention here is the one simple fact of injuries.. Improper weight training, and improper drawing of the bow does indeed bring on injury, to claim otherwise is clouding a truth, that has somehow escaped these conversations..

Badger, thanks for the more detailed explanation. This is interesting, but I'm not sure how useful it is to know for us average Joes!

The year that I shot a deer with a bow under 40 pounds was because I lost control of a weight bar when I bumped a support post in my basement. A safer way to lift weights is to use moderate to light weight dumbbells and lift ergonomically and fairly quick, but then make up for the lack of weight by letting down very slowly. I read that a muscle builds quicker when one is resisting longer in the lengthening of the muscle group, besides being much safer.

One should first obtain flexibility of tendons,muscles and slowly build from there... The older you are the more important this becomes.. This combined with proper breathing exercises and proper technique creates success... I have found, some folks who have trouble with heavier draw weights, are not pulling properly..

". On a deer a miss that hit the deer with a heavy bow is better than the same miss with a light bow, on average. I'm pretty sure there isn't any scientific evidence to contradict this overall point."

this is the kind of stuff that makes my skin crawl. a poor shot is a poor shot. the results will be nearly the same no matter what weight the bow is. i've killed hundreds of animals in my long archery hunting life. deer, elk, and bear. have used bows from way over a 100# draw down to a very light kids bow i killed tons of tree peeling bear with. thats my scientific evidence that statement is trash.

Oh btother.

So Larry, are saying that within 15-20 yard shots there is really no reason to shoot a 70# bow when hunting because on a poor shot it is no better than a 45# bow?

Is that what you are saying?

i said, in my opinion, based on shooting and killing a lot of animals with bows of all sorts of weights, that a bad shot is a BAD SHOT. shooting an animal in the wrong place with a 70# bow does not make it a good shot. neither will a 45# or whatever weight MAKE IT A GOOD SHOT. the results will be nearly the same. is that clear enough for you?

Well then, if and when I get a new bow I may make a few changes. I will make it about an 80# bow instead of 70.

I'd suggest Sapcut save his money for shooting lessons instead of buying a new 80# bow to compensate for his gut-shooting tendencies. Sheesh!

Why would I have gut shot tendancies? I have more of a tendancy to blow thru a shoulder than guts....because I would rather not hit guts.

Sap- I think that Larry's point is that a bad shot with a bow is a bad shot with a muzzleloader is a bad shot with a centerfire, so why would the difference between #40 and #60 amount to a hill o' beans?

On the other hand, Pope wrote of slicing the head of the humerus clean off on a shot at a Griz... Don't recall if it was the sow or one of the cubs, but Griz are bigger'n deer. Of course, he was loaded for bear - quite literally.

I haven't shot enough deer to have drilled a humerus or a blade (not with a bow, that is!). Still a bad hit even with a rifle, IMO, just because of meat loss, but I don't know just how heavy a rig it would take to drive 6"-8" past the heavier leg bones of a #200 buck. I don't expect that my #55s would bail me out where a #45 would fail... Not very often anyway. Kinda like using a 12-gauge instead of a 16 or 20, but funny how you don't hear a lot of talk from the 20-gauge camp about how the 12-gaugers can't shoot worth a damn... Nor do the 12s run down the 20s for being wussies.

Jeff D- interesting point about thickness vs. width. But I can't square your POV with the observation from several here that there is a law of diminishing returns which kicks in at #60-#65..... (?????)

Badger- 110% efficiency?!?!? You're gonna have to explain that one. I don't think you meant what I think you said...

Now I'm curious...

How is a 70# bow an advantage if you make a bad shot?

What is the cutoff for 'too light' of a bow? Sounds to me like there isn't any? After all, a good shot is ALL that matters, right?

Should we all be shooting 20#.... do I hear 15#...or maybe 10#?

Wouldn't be effective!

Backcountry, more power will propel a heavier arrow faster than a less powerful bow.... Increasing the chances of turning a bad shot into a dead animal. Pretty simple.

"Backcountry, more power will propel a heavier arrow faster than a less powerful bow.... Increasing the chances of turning a bad shot into a dead animal. Pretty simple."

so what you are trying to teach everyone is that if you make a lot of marginal or bad shots the cure is to increase your draw weight? thats just plain silly.

Larry:

I think what Sapcut is saying is a heavy bow and arrow combination can be more effective on a poor hit, as it might well penetrate deeper and take out a vital organ that a lighter arrow, shot out of a lighter bow, might not be able to reach. Kingwouldbe subscribes to this theory too. In certain situations, this could well be the case. However, I say the 45 pound bow might well make it easier for many folks to make a good hit, as I see many over-bowed.

Joe

No Larry, that's not what anyone is saying, and twisting it up like that is worse than silly.

One could send an arrow on the precise path intended but before it strikes things can happen that result in the animal being struck differently. It doesn't have to be caused at ALL by inaccuracy, and it can happen with any draw weight bow. Anyone who has shot more than a few animals knows it can happen, and any of those who are honest and forthcoming would say so.

If/when something like that does happen, I want to be shooting the heaviest bow/arrow combo I'm comfortable and competent with under hunting conditions, because even a little additional penetration could spell the difference between a recovered animal and a lost one.

Larry, I said "increase the chances". I did not say cure. Clear enough?

Frisky, that is exactly correct except I am not referring at all to someone who makes bad shots because they can't handle a certain weight bow. I am referring to shots that occur due to zero fault of the shooter...and they do happen.

But if they don't happen and a perfect shot is made then the same 70# bow will do what the 30# bow will do.

Yes Joe, but some folks make it seem like we're advocating the use of bows heavier than folks can shoot perfectly well under real hunting conditions. I have NEVER seen anyone advocate that.

Too many of us posting at the same time here :^)

Enough bow to do the job vs. heavier weight to compensate for poor shot placement? Okay, if a person can shoot a heavier bow just as well as the lighter one, I see no downside to the heavier argument.

But I'd rather be solid and at full draw with the lighter bow (if it is adequate for the job) than shaky with the heavier one. Neither is effective if the animal isn't recovered.

BC I'd rather be at full draw and solid with a heavier bow than shakey and half draw a light bow. It goes both ways. Clueless people always try to compare a good shot with light to a bad shot with heavy or well tuned light to poorly tuned heavy. Its cute on the internet but doesn't go that way in real life. I see more light bow guys half drawing than heavy bow guys. At our shoots no one but me and one or two others shoot over 45lbs and I see 15 or 20 half draw guys at ever shoot. Shooting low weight doesn't mean guys too lazy to shoot much aren't gonna be overbowed.

just do not see how more draw weight somehow magically compensates for poor shot placement? a gut shot is a gut shot, almost any legal weight bow and sharp broadhead will do the same amount of damage. statements like that are misleading to someone who has not actually killed animals. makes it sound like the thing to do is go heavy and shoot wherever and the animal will die. thats what i object to. i could care less what weight anybody shoots. does not affect me in the least. but, on a public site read by tyro's that does not read well or make sense.

On my weekly Sunday archery outings, I tend to throw quite a few arrows. I mean, a lot. Years ago, I injured my left elbow with heavy weight lifting (still plagues me when I lift super heavy) and reduced my poundage to 45-50 longbows. Seeing as I draw (canting the bow) at 27 inches, you can tell that I'm not quite utilizing the full potential of those limbs... yet my shooting style gives me quite a bit of speed. Fact is, gentlemen, I've put away all of my bows (longbows/recurves) that are 54-60pounds. Never shoot 'em. Am I a whimp? Could I possibly take down a deer, perhaps an elk?? You know the answer to this one. And, the bales and stumps I shoot at (and hit) have yet to complain....

Larry, I understand what you're saying. But to not advocate "shooting the heaviest weight you can accurately under any possible hunting conditions", which I think is a very easy to understand and responsible statement, because someone might not comprehend it properly? That doesnt make sense to me at all.

Besides, that "heaviest draw weight one can handle under any condition" may very well be 45 lbs. And if so, that's great. That's the responsible thing to do. No one is saying to shoot more than we can.

I have been on bloodtrails that ended successfully because, imo, the weight of the bow/arrow helped push the broadhead farther through into the vitals, and I've been on a few that didn't end well for light bow users... not enough to make absolutely concrete deductions either way, but I'd really like to have seen how it would have worked out with the shoes on the other feet.

I know a guy that has shot progressively lighter weight bows over the last several years, and has lost enough deer the last few that he's ready to quit. One could assume, for the benefit of argument if nothing else, all or most of the blame on the ineffectiveness of his light bow and arrows, but I try to be an objective person, and honestly, while it may have been a factor, I don't think his accuracy is where it should be. So, if that is indeed the case, then light weight doesn't magically guarantee accuracy as some may mistakingly understand the light bow proponent's message to mean. See how that works both ways? :^)

Objectively though... Lighter weight may help, but doesn't magically guarantee accuracy. And heavier weight may help, but isn't a cure-all for poor shot placement.

That kind of brings us back around to... well, common sense... "shoot the most you can accurately in any hunting circumstances". And of course that number could vary for each of us.

I am glad to report that I recently paid a visit to Wes Wallace and ordered a bow. During our 2.5 hour conversation a similar topic came up. Wes said, "I would rather see someone shoot a elk in the hart with a 50# bow that shoot one in the butt with a 65# bow." I think there are points on both sides of the subject, however I believe Larry was looking out for the less experienced archers that might be reading this. Have a good day guys.

"I would rather see someone shoot a elk in the hart with a 50# bow that shoot one in the butt with a 65# bow."

Ya thin?

Breed - let me know what heavier longbows you need to get rid of, and I'll see that they get plenty of fresh air and receive humane treatment if I can help you place them in a new home.... ;)

But this one has me REALLY confused:

"I would rather see someone shoot a elk in the hart with a 50# bow that shoot one in the butt with a 65# bow."

I don't get it. If you wanna kill an Elk, why would you shoot a hart?

jeff, i have no problem with the "shoot as heavy a bow as you are accurate with." i believe in that. what i don't believe is that a heavy bow will make a bad shot a good one. as backcountry posted--"Enough bow to do the job vs. heavier weight to compensate for poor shot placement? Okay, if a person can shoot a heavier bow just as well as the lighter one, I see no downside to the heavier argument. " to infer that a heavier weight compensates for poor shot placement is just plain wrong, but backcountry seems convinced. thats my objection.

I know for a FACT that a 45 pound bow shot at any draw length with any arrow combination, will be no more Efficient OR Effective, than a 100 pound bow shot at any draw length with any arrow combination, neither will not penetrate any deeper, when shot into 1/8 inch plate steel if you miss the kill zone on a Bionic Deer Target. I don't believe one rings any louder than the other either, with that impact. I will say: IT WILL make your shooting partners laugh just as hard, no matter which bow you shoot when you do it. It is VERY effective in doing that. DANNY

To clarify, I agree with Larry that a heavier bow does NOT compensate for lack of accuracy. Sorry if I was misunderstood.

The advice from this thread is this taking both sides at one time, power is important and enough power in the right place is important and many folks don't have enough strength to have enough power and no one in there right mind would shoot a Hill longbow that does not have anywhere near the power of a high performance recurve and the power of the bow is more important than the penetrating differences in arrows. Most of the bad hits and lost deer that I have seen in the last 20 years was because of compound shooters that could not get their complicated crap together when shooting out of a tree stand, so they just took a blind hoper shot. The other one is those damn light weight arrows with mechanical blades that don't open evenly and the arrow twists it energy off line. Oddly enough, the trad hunters that I meet whether they were shooting with heavy bows or light bows pretty much all knew their stuff.

So an archer using a lightweight bow, strikes a deer in the leg, (breaking the leg), would've been better off using a heavier bow, as it would've resulted in a MORE broken leg.....I don't think so ....

When power levels go to high, the excess power is wasted on air. You need just enough to blow through the vitals. Any additional power is not needed and is inefficient.

Joe

Ok, I'm convinced....based on the last two posts, perhaps some folks shouldn't be allowed to carry any bow. I have heard it all now but probably not.

:^)

Arrow PLACEMENT is paramount in all forms of archery.

"Arrow PLACEMENT is paramount in all forms of archery."

I think everyone on this site could seriously not agree more with that statement. I personally just like to take it a step farther by using a more powerful weapon, if I can.

Jesus....Just let it go... Childish last word crap is old..

...and I can.

I went to heavier weight because at 53lbs I lacked a good blood trail too often (more than once is too often)because of poor penetration on good shots at large game like moose and elk. But then I have hunted a lot more large game than alot of guys probably. I went to 76lbs then 82lbs and then back to 73lbs for most of my 50 years(this year). After a bad injury and a long layup I dropped to the 60lb area.

All of this is still going on and you are still arguing about a subjective number, which at best is an abstract configuration of hoped expectations. I know a fellow that has two 55@27 66" Hill Big Fives, both built by Ted Kramer. One is 56 pounds on his scale and the other is 58 pounds with a modern string. With a B50 string one is 54 pounds and the other is 55 plus. The lighter one shoots the same arrow 9 fps faster than the heavier one and it does it nicer, they look very identical. He has killed quite a few deer with just simple cedar arrows and Hunter Heads or Zwicky Eskimo boadheads with only one shallow high and right neck hit, that was probably not fatal, that he could not find. My 45 pound at my draw Grooves shoots his arrows faster according to his chrono than either of his bows, so does my 52 and 53 pound Robertson, my 55 pound yew longbow, my 60 bamboo and yew longbow. my 60 Robertson, and my 53 pound Morningstar. To make it worse I have a 26" draw left handed and a 26.5" draw right handed, he draws a very consistent 27&1/4". My point is, if you think there is a vast spread in lethality with a difference of a few pounds, I would look more at the rest of what you hunting with than the number on the side of your bow.

If you want to argue about how two identical bows can be that different, that really is barely noticeable and can be attributed to the release caused by the expected feel of the bow.

This thread reminds me of the old big game rifle caliber rivalry decades ago between gun writers Jack O'Connor (who advocated proper shot placement with a .270), and Elmer Keith (who advocated big bore / hard kicking magnum calibers like the .338 Win). Although Frisky may be stirring the pot with this thread, I agree with him. Heavier bows are fine... IF one can shoot them accurately. And some people can do just that. Most can't. But shot placement is the objective, and the majority are going to have an easier time hitting the target with a 45# bow.

All I'm saying is we need to listen to Ishi who shot 40 pounds at 25" and was well- prepared for anything. We should be able to take out a hippo at 45@28"! 45@28 is the new standard of excellence.

Joe

No, really there needs to be categories for species considering more performance from modern designs and materials. I think 38 for close in small to moderate sized deer, 44 or 45 for large deer and elk, and 47 for larger American game.

No Frisky, all you're really saying is you have a bo bo injury and can't shoot more than 45#s, remember? It has nothing to do with most effective. It has everything to do with justification.... because it is the most you can shoot.

BTW....why not shoot 25-30#s because it will kill a deer?

Exactly. A 25 lb bow can kill a deer dead as a stump. I know a guy that did it when we were kids. So aside from game law restrictions, why ever shoot more?

Or, perhaps better stated.... why EVER shoot more than the game law minimums? 45 lbs is more than many states require. Pa is 35 lbs. MORE than enough when the arrow is accurately placed. Why shoot a heavier 45 lb bow?

Because 45 pounds has greater efficiency.

Joe

Assuming the shooter doesn't have a bo bo from an old figure skating injury, which is more effective.....

a 450 gr. arrow or a 700 gr. arrow propelled at the same speed?

Spin that one.

Oh no Joe, it doesn't. Better efficiency is doing the same job with less work/energy. If less draw weight does the exact same job, it MUST be more efficient at it.

Try again.

For me, 45# is the most effective, and efficient. If a man can shoot 60# as good as he can 40, than by all means, the 60# bow is more efficient and effective. If he however shoots a 60# because he has a macho image, but then strains, and short draws 3 inches and has a floating anchor, like I have seen many times, than he is less efficient and effective. There is no doubt that a 60# with a 600 grain arrow is more efficient than a 40# bow with a 400 grain arrow. The heavier bow will win out every time, definitely penetrating deeper.

Not quite understanding efficiency verses effectiveness, but I have noticed something when I have shot with three families at the 3D events. Women and young'uns seem to shoot well when they shoot with enough draw weight to have a relatively flat arrow trajectory at the short targets. High poundage and flat shooting. Now that's effectiveness.

Remembering shooting field archery when I was a teenager, which was different. I shot better with low poundage bows because I did not get tired after shooting 420 arrows at 54 targets for two day field archery events. Those light poundage bows could kill cardboard targets pretty good and stick'em right in there while shooting instinctively with skinny Easton 24SRT aluminum arrows with nibs tips at long distances. Low poundage and stable arrow flight. Now that's efficiency.

I notice that some heavy bow advocates like to dis on those that like lighter bows with derogatory terms. "Assuming the shooter doesn't have a bo bo from an old figure skating injury, which is more effective....." I wonder how well they actually handle heavier draws. Ron L used to hunt with stiff bows as well, as the years have gone by his bow weights have dropped, no one is dissing on him. I can still shoot either light or heavy, but common sense says that not always shooting max weights will keep me shooting longer with less injury and it does take a lot of work to truly stay in heavy draw shape. I wish that I had settled to max draws in the sixties sooner than I did. I remember when I got that longbow back from Jim Fetrow, he shortened and retillered it for me, the person that owned it decided that a 40 pound recurve was going do better with a questionable shoulder problem. I had never hunted with anything as light as 53 pounds. Grizzly broadheads had just come out and I put them on some dandy 5/16" Acme shafts that were rather heavy and stiff for the 5/16" dimensions. To make it worse those were left wing fletched arrows with the original right wing Grizzlies. A rather large bodied deer came into the hillside meadow, I was backed up into some cedar branches for cover. At about 30 yards the shot felt right, I laid the bow over to clear the branches, pulled it to 26&1/4" and released. The last I saw of the arrow it was going over the hip where the deer had come around. The deer spun, ran for about 55 yards and dropped. The arrow had to have cleared the deer by more than 15 yards to fly over that hip, I never found it back.

I don't belittle folks who choose to, or have to, shoot lighter weight bows than I do. That's just ignorant and disrespectful. And there are many folks who shoot more than I do, and I'm respectful of them as well. But Dean, it's a two way street. Generalities and disrespect are thrown toward those who shoot heavier draw weights as well, as I've seen them ridiculed by others for being egomaniacs, innacurate, overbowed, etc. when that certainly isn't the case for all.

Why? That's what I wonder. Why do they care and why are folks inclined to treat others that way? Is it because of their own insecurities, competitiveness, needy egos, envy, need to be right, defensiveness? It's ridiculous.

I would say this is rather efficient and effective...if I'm small tree hunting. I could be wrong but I doubt a 450 grain arrow from a 45# bow would push a field point thru the tree straight into the intended target....without any damage. But perhaps.

Maybe if you were shooting a 450gr. aroow from a 45lb. bow, you wouldn't have hit the tree!! :>)

Right, lol! Extra power is no excuse for poor shooting!

Joe

Poor shooting? Are you blind? You're funny...and blind.

Do you see the green feathers? That is an onside heart shot. The blue feathers are from an angled away exiting lung shot....after going thru the tree. Correct...I did not intend to hit the tree but in my case it didn't matter.

Speaking of effectiveness and efficiency....hello??

I finally read this entire thread and have reached the conclusion that there are at least three schools of thought here. One is those that want to shoot heavier weights. One is those that are OK shooting lighter weights. And the third are those that tend to make bad hits so they believe they need really heavy weights along with EFOC arrows because that combination is as effective as a claymore mine. This justification is laughable. Shoot whatever weight you like and are accurate with, nobody truly gives a rat's behind. If I could still shoot 65# bows well I would because it felt good, not because I needed it. I can't but I still enjoy bowhunting and can still kill any animal I hunt with the bows I'm using now.

There is a big difference between the efficiency of a bow and the effectiveness of the bow/arrow combination.

There's also a big difference in credibility between someone that has killed a lot of game and someone that hasn't.

"Extra power is no excuse for poor shooting"

That is true. I've never had a shooting problem due to more power.

"There is a big difference between the efficiency of a bow and the effectiveness of the bow/arrow combination."

Thanks Phil, that is basically the point I am proving.

Superb efficiency is no guarantor of effectiveness. And I suppose the reverse is true.

But if I had to choose one or the other...

Funny thing, though... I'd wager that shot would have killed only the tree if he'd been using a broadhead. Unless the tree was dead & rotted to begin with.

And you think about it.... A miss is a miss; sometimes you get lucky. So unless that was a called shot, it doesn't shed any light on anything.

Oh how the denial continues to drip.

one thing you can't deny, is the fact that the "effectiveness" part of the equation is how the archer shoots the shot. the bow arrow combination, by itself, is not capable of anything. it's all about the archer shooting it. a 1000 grain arrow out of a 100# draw weight bow is totally ineffective if the archer misses the shot, just as if an archer misses with a 35# bow shooting 350 grains.

Sapcut, I don't see any denial. What I see is a photo you posted of a bad shot that you're trying to say was a good one because of where the arrow ended up. I will admit to hitting a sapling or branch on a 3-D course and, on occasion having the arrow end up in a killing spot on the target. But you won't ever find me posting a photo of a bad shot like that and claiming how it good it would have been if it were a real deer. You missed what you were aiming at by at least a foot, maybe more, according to that angle of that photo. No draw weight can make up for that error.

Yep, Phil.... Kinda like the shot I made that bounced off of a tree on the left side of the shooting lane, crossed over to slap off of a tree on the right... and ended up in the 10-ring.

Except that I DID do it twice in a row. I think the second shot scored an 8. But it was on a turkey. (They're smaller than deer.)

So Sapcut are you really saying "I'd rather have a lucky shot, than a good shot." ? THAT IS unless you deliberatly shot through that sapling. :-) DANNY

Sapcut made a crappy shot and is desperately attempting to rationalize it. We don't accept rationalizations around here!

Joe

Phil,

As I have already said, correct, I did not mean to hit the tree but the arrow did hit the tree. It did not glance off the tree and miss the target. It did not glance off the tree and happen to hit the kill zone. It went thru the tree in a straight line and into the vitals. Even though you ingnore it, that is an example of a very effective bow/arrow weapon and chances are ginormous that it is more effective than Frisky's "45# bow is the most effective" bow...which is my point

Linecutter,

Incorrect. I am not saying that at all. I am basically showing you a good example of what a well built arrow/bow setup can do compared to the average bowmantically built setup that Frisky began the thread with.....which will continue to be denied by the same bowmantics.

Carry on with the picture right in front of you.

The photographic evidence is inconclusive.

Joe

Sapcut, That may happen once in 50 shots. You have to hit the tree dead center or it will not go in a straight line. That may or may not happen with a broadhead. The one constant here is you made a bad shot and missed what you were aiming at, unless you intended to hit the tree. And accuracy will trump bow draw weight every time.

Phil's right. You have to hit the branch dead center. I once was shooting 360 grain carbons out of a 40 pound 76er Deluxe. An ash sapling jumped in my way and I hit it dead center, the arrow, with field point, penetrating to mid shaft. Had I been shooting my smoking fast 45 pound bow with the usual 450 grain arrows, it would have blown right on through and stayed straight on course. As Phil points out though, a broadhead probably would not behave that way. I wish I could give you other examples, but I don't very often hit saplings. Also, I hit a very hard sapling. You might have hit a tree that is so soft, you could push a straw through it.

Joe

Phil and Frisky are right you GOT LUCKY that you hit the sapling dead center to cause it to punch straight through and it wasn't any thicker than it was. I have shot through saplings also and put the arrow into the target (lucky!), if the sapling was bigger would you still have been able to even get the arrow to the target or even out of the sapling? I have hit some 1.75 inches across and split them with just the tail end of the arrow still in the tree. I have hit off center sometimes the arrow goes part way through as the sapling twists with the hit or if it is far enough over it deflects off in to the woods somewhere. You got lucky with the shot. By the way how much penetration into the target did you get after going through the sapling? Oh and the blue fleathers you went through the tree with, IF you had enough energy left after going through the tree and after REALLY LOOKING at the photo, IF you were LUCKY you may have caught MAYBE the edge of the liver, but looks more like stomache would have been hit. The arrow is not at a steep enough angle for how the deer is positoned to get to any lung. DANNY

So just so we're all on the same page....

Sap - would you be willing to share the specs on that set-up? Inquiring minds want to know!

I get a kick outa these heavy bow arguments cause I shot mid 70's like everyone else I knew for probably 40 of my 50 years. Now because of injury I went to a light bow. I shoot 60lbs which to me is a light bow. So its kinda funny hearing guys talking about heavy 55-60lb bows.

Richie, how many deer have you hit, killed or wounded with a 45 pound or lighter bow?

GLF, My experience is about the opposite of yours. From the mid 60s until the mid-80s most of the folks I hunted with in western PA shot 45-50#. In the 80s some of my friends still shot 50# but most of us moved to 60-65#. Now we're heading back down.

I recall growing up there was one guy in our neighborhood that let us use his hay bales to shoot. He shot 55# and we all thought he that was heavy.

I'm with Phil. Around most of the eastern coast the order of the day was around 45/50. The heavier bow thing started in the late 80's when the return...or rather the beginning of compound archers going to traditional brought those weights up. Show me a 60# Bear recurve from the 60's, and I'll show you a hundred 45#. It's how it was in reality. Well over 60% of all manufactured bows in the 1960's and 70's were 45#. Mostly 55# and up was special order.

George,

You are probably right with the compound cross over in the 80's. I switched to Recurves about that time but before the Traditional Revolution started. I was shooting 60# compound so I went to a 60# recurve really didn't have any issue with the switch because we were shooting fingers with the compounds then and we only had 50% let off. I think about that time also the Howard Hill books were coming back, becasuse more people were shooting Traditional gear, and reading those books alot of people thought you needed to shoot heavier weights to kill animals. You know it is amazing what people forgot in the 15-16 years (1970 to 1986) when I switched to Traditional gear (1986). Very few people it seem knew anything about Longbows and Recurves at that time, I had one person who could help me some but not like we have today. I had to learn pretty much every thing by Brail and developed some bad habits in the process. DANNY

George, 1. I was 15. 40 #s Didn't know what I didn't know. Hit a doe in the shoulder, exactly where I was aiming, from 8 yards on the ground. Arrow didn't do doodlum. Of course would've killed it wit a perfect shot. But needless to say, things are different now.

having built thousands of bows per year from 1960-2012 i can attest that except for a few individuals, most orders were for bows 55# and under until the compound crossover. some companies that ordered quantities from us ordered the same weights in recurves and longbows that they ordered in compounds. that was what drove a lot of people to heavy trad bows, not from need to kill north american animals. near the end of my career we were seeing loads of returns from these same companies of the heavy bow they could not sell.

Thanks for the reply Richie. Appreciate it. My worst shot was with a 68# Bear takedown. I didn't get it either, but a perfect shot would have. Hope you are well and shooting that bow on the mark. )

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here