This seeems to be somewhat of a heated topic for some reason but I have been wondering g to myself why people wouldn't want their arrows FOC on the high side?

Back in the day-- say 40-50 or more years ago, and a lot longer ago than that, most broadheads weighed about 125 grains, give or take a little. On a cedar shaft, they produced an FOC of about 8-10%. Arrows like that got the job done for thousands of years, and a lot of folks just don't see any reason to change.

No doubt they work, but Ashby's research shows that higher weight forward shafts, and skinnier shafts, generally fly better and increase penetration. I still shoot wood, but my preference for hunting is a front loaded carbon with about 20%-25% FOC.

As I mentioned on another thread regarding a different topic altogether, the best indicator of future performance is past performance. So let's put that this way, if something has been shown to work for thousands of years...it must be valid. That doesn't take away the fact that front loading can and does work, so you have a win/win situation. My question would be why not shoot what you like since both higher and lower fronts of center work just fine?.? It seems the biggest issue is some folks who shoot high fronts of center think everyone else is wrong. History shows otherwise. Pick you favorite and you'll be fine.

As long as the pointed end is heavier than the fletched end, it works for me.

MP

There you have it. Three valid answers. Thread closed. Time to shoot or hunt what got you here.

Hi GUY? Can't say for myself but "in some cases" Higher FOC might work? Your mileage may vary? But remember that old adage? At some point ( no pun) DIMINISHING RETURNS will come into play?? You will need to figure out Your COMFORTABLE DISTANCE and work with arrows that do BEST at THAT distance. Will THAT WORK??

I again have to agree with George. What concerns me with Ashby's study is he did all his research on thick skinned heavy boned animals, anyone ever wonder why? My feelings are that there was so little difference testing on North American game, that the results would be meaningless.

Bob

I never have been convinced that high FOC works well on wood or aluminum arrows.Works on carbon because of their quicker recovery from the paradox.I mean a 125 gr. head or point on a wood arrow was more then enough FOC.

With a carbon arrow the weight of the trailing shaft is extremely light, it dynamically functions like a very narrow wind vane. When you load a carbon arrow up with larger fletching it can have more of a nock end wind drift than the same arrow with small feathers. The aerodynamics of a wood shaft have different balance characteristics in the wind. The carbon arrow may have its tail end lagging down wind more than the wood arrow and possibly the broadhead design will have different characteristics from one arrow to the other, depending on the conditions that it flies through. I have seen carbon arrows tail lag in our Iowa winds more than i like. I have seen aluminum arrows that worked for me in most conditions for years, surprise me with a major side step in a certain strong buffeting tailwind, I have seen the head break off of a wood arrow when I took a 10 foot shot at a buck and hit a rib. In that situation, I thought that the 'S' curve looked a little wide, but the arrow was straight at 15 yards, so I figured I was okay. It is a pick your poison thing. Attempting to load a wood arrow with a crazy heavy point weight just to get a 25% foc can cause it to be more reactive in a side wind. Arrows to not drift as far in a breeze as many think, but with any arrow I like to see the shaft flying in line with the broad head if possible.

And extreme FOC does reduce distance.

With a bit on tinkering and tuning you can end up with a high FOC arrow that is heavy enough for good penetration for hunting and still have a fairly flat shooting arrow for 3D. I dropped in bow weight this past winter due to shoulder issues. I had been shooting .400 spine carbon from my 55# bows. By changing out the standard aluminum inserts for a 100 grain brass insert I was able to keep shooting the .400s from my 45# and 48# bows, but out past 15 yards the arrows started dropping off fast. Total arrow weight was 630 grains with a 250 grain head. This summer I switched to a .500 carbon with the aluminum insert and the same 250 head. Had to play with the shaft length a bit to get the flight right, but they fly great with field points or brodheads. Total arrow weight now is right at 500 grains.

Some folks benefit from high foc. I've seen it, and don't doubt it.

It usually works best (in my opinion) for those who have sub 28" draw lengths, and/or are shooting sub 55# bows at their draw length.

Some folks don't benefit from high foc. I've seen that also, and don't doubt it either.

I don't benefit from it.

I've tested/tried it lots of times. LOTS of times.

My penetration tests show me, that 9 gpp, and between 10 % 15 percent foc is the best (For Me). It's also where I get the best arrow flight & trajectory.

I'm currently 8.9 gpp, and 12.9 foc, and it gives me all I ask of it, and then some, but that's a 30.25" (to back of point) 640gr arrow from a 68# @ my 29.5" draw.

When I get over 15% foc I see a decline in performance, that gets incrementally worse as I go up.

If I get over 18%, I start have serious weak spine issues to go along with the performance drop, and I am shooting AMO .248 spine shafts.

Your millage may vary. The only way to know is to try it, and see

Rick

ask the Olympic shooter and coaches why they do not use high foc if it produces such great arrow flight? 125 gr have been working with complet pass threw for over 30 years and 10-15% foc is plenty more than this is really a wast. and does affect distance it will drop a lot quicker. as for steady you buy my 200+ gr. heads and i will tell you how good they work also.

How or why does FOC reduce distance assuming equal Gpp arrows are being compared?

"Want" and "gonna do" can be two very different things sometimes. I agree with Orion, George, Aromakr.

Bow cut inside of center are easier with tinkering to get the carbon arrow performance they want. Bows cut outside of center are different. I have friends that want to shoot carbon arrows out of longbows, it can be a challenge. They quite often end up with full length efoc almost off of the charts. With a wood arrow it is a simple pick your length, your point, and try a various spines until you hit the spine that flies the best and then go with a full set of those. it is almost always one of three. Occasionally, someone may have a slow bow with a softer than they expect release and have to go one extra spine down and other times someone may a hotter shooting bow and a harder than average release and may need to one spine up than normal. Pretty simple really.

Birdy - the assumption (bad one, IMO) is that the high FOC arrow must be getting dragged down by the nose. I don't buy it.

On the other hand, if UEFOC really WERE the cat's... uh, pajamas... for distance, I expect that the flight shooters would have figured it out by now.

Rick B just detailed it pretty well, and as a short guy drawing low #50s at best, I'm listening.

And yes, **of course** Ashby did his penetration testing on things that were really hard to penetrate... pretty much the point of the exercise.

I will say this in favor of high FOC: If you use a very heavy head, you're going to need a stiffer arrow. But arrows initiate flex TWICE per shot - on launch and on impact. That stiffer arrow is going to flex a lot LESS on impact than it did at launch, because there is so much less mass on the tail end, so the whole shaft will do a better job of following the head through the wound channel instead of flexing and banging against the side of the animal. I'd think that alone would help the penetration quite a bit.

But carbons also seem to enter settled flight a lot closer to the bow than wood or aluminum does, and it could be that by loading up the front of a heavier-than-necessary wood/Alu shaft, that sets it up for a lot more "swimming" on its way to the target, and that could hurt penetration quite a bit (as Dean noticed), especially if impact occurs at the same instant that the arrow is most flexed.

So maybe the lighter weight, lower-FOC woodies and alumalogs damp out the oscillation more quickly than the ones with all that mass on the end? They're both going to have to flex the same amount to get around the riser....

I would also like to know how 2 arrows of the same weight, with different FOC %, how one of them flies farther than the other when shot from the same bow.

Dr. Ashby didn't concentrate on FOC alone. It was *one* factor that affected penetration. Shaft diameter, broadhead design etc. also made a difference.

Since I'm not an expert on tuning, I can't say for certain, but it seems reasonable that a 'balanced' shaft (modest FOC) would be easier to tune for best arrow flight. If you find your self using extreme nock point settings etc. to make a high-FOC arrow fly well, you might want to think again.

Of course if you're hunting the biggest critters, 'perfect' arrow flight is not the highest priority.

13%-18% for me. Low end for self bows-standard longbows Mid range for hybrid longbows-asiatic fiber bows High end of scale for Recurves-Static tip bows-Horn bows *note...all Saluki bows will handle 18%-22% I have not fully tested others so I am not excluding "your" bow.

The above chart is taking into consideration-speed>kenetic energy>accuracy

Some want to continue to argue that the Earth is not round. That's fine. Dr. Ashby's studies are relevant to hunting any animal that requires penetration. His studies are the best that I know of and done in a systematic, scientific manner. If people want to ignore his studies that's fine. Some of us have found them very informative and have helped us build a better, more lethal arrow.

Worth repeating: "It seems the biggest issue is some folks who shoot high fronts of center think everyone else is wrong. History shows otherwise. Pick you favorite and you'll be fine."

got a 27" carbon with 200gr.head and a 30" alum. with 100gr.head. the alum. is 10gr. hevier than the carbon. both fly well. the carbon is much harder to pull out of the target. not scientific but I am convenced...ron

As long as you understand that a high EFOC arrow is inherently "detuned", and will probably be a bit trickier to tune to a given bow than a more conventional arrow. And you are willing and able to get good flight from it, there is NO issue at all. Trying different set ups is fun and educational. I certainly don't see a ton of value in EFOC for our common N American big game, but what do I know;-)

Just to throw some wood on the fire.

Old Easton guides said 10% for target, 12-15% for hunting.

"125grs have worked for years" ...... then why have they made 145's an 160's etc... for years.

10% foc has been good for thousands of years -- please show me a stone point that is 125 grs, or gives you 10% foc.(I may be out in the weeds on this I don't pay with rocks)

Just food for thought.

I shot a buck on opening day here in NC. I used a 30" bop GT Trad that weighs a total of 434gr with the Bear Super Razorhead that weighed 128gr. Factory nock and insert on the shaft. 5" high cut helical parabolics. I used a Super Kodiak 45x@28 but draw to 27, so let's say 44lbs. By my calculations I have an foc of 15.83%. I was not going for FOC, but rather a well tuned arrow.

I shot the deer as it was bent over eating and turned hard to the right. I entered behind the left side ribs and a little low. The exit was at the armpit on the right. I did not autopsy to see if bone was hit on the exit. The leg bone was not hit. When the deer was found, the arrow was sticking out of the armpit with about 8" remaining in the deer. I was amazed the arrow did not catch on trees and limbs as it ran to its final resting place. The arrow traveled through about 20" of animal at the angle of the shot. Had it been a straight on broadside shot the arrow would have exited cleanly sans any bone strikes, and probably ripped through ribs, if struck.

If hunting heavy bodied exotic animals or Grizzly, I would be more concerned with FOC ratio. But on thin skinned whitetail and similar animals, as long as you have some FOC and a well tuned arrow with a sharp broadhead, you should do fine with a well placed shot, or a shot like mine that was not perfect, but still quickly lethal.

Whitetail deer are my primary game sought.

I disagree with something here, I'm just not sure what or why.

I have noticed when shooting woodies and high foc carbons of similar weight in strong cross winds that the wood arrows would get pushed over a few feet by the wind. The carbons will fly with their tail kicking out whatever way the wind is blowing but hit on target, not nearly as much drift.

"please show me a stone point that is 125 grs, or gives you 10% foc."

I had the same thought, but then, are you thinking about what were called "bird points"? Somebody finally figured out that they were regularly being used on bigger game, so who knows. Imagine that - even then, guys were looking to hot-rod their bows with lighter arrows!

"Yes arrows with 8- 12% foc work fine but the difference comes when shooting carbons. It is proven they recover quicker from paradox with a real heavy head, almost acts to pull the arrow straight for a lack of a better way to say it. "

Maybe the better way is to say that with high FOC, there's more of the dog wagging the tail and less of the tail wagging the dog?

The biggest problem I run into (and I suspect other heavy bow shooters as well) when trying to go with a high foc is with arrow spine.

I'm already shooting the second stiffest shaft available, and even with the stiffest I have to put close to 6" of footing on the point end to stiffen it up enough for a high FOC front load.

Doing that put's me way over my maximum GPP for the arrow, and like I said, even when I do it, and get it down pat I don't get any better penetration, or arrow flight.

Rick

"Worth repeating: "It seems the biggest issue is some folks who shoot high fronts of center think everyone else is wrong. History shows otherwise. Pick you favorite and you'll be fine." It also seems many on here that shoot low FOC are saying that people who shoot high FOC are wrong.

Well I say less involved is right for me. Stick, feathers, point. Inherently anything more advanced and better requires more detailed tuning and gadgetry. That's not just arrows. The more I experience this addiction of ours the more I realise that less is more...... and that means more satisfaction in the sport of archery for me. JMHO nybubba .

HFOS and EFOC arrows are only one of the compnents in the system that Asby discussed in such detail.

Broadhead/shaft integrity, as well as over all arrow weight were even more important than FOC %. Ashby wrote himself in 2010 that until you reach the 650gr. weight range, you aren't meeting the "heavy bone threshold" arrow weight. He also said that total arrow mass trumps FOC % every time.

So, shoot what you like or what you think you need.

I prefer Wapiti cedars and Surewoods with 145 or 160 up front and 1918s with 160 grain heads on one piece adapters with all of the bows that I shoot. I do have a set of tapered carbons that are very much bow particular. Meaning that they shoot good out of one bow and terrible out of all of the others. While the Cedars and Surewoods and the 1918s with the proper point shoot good out of all of my bows including the one that likes the carbons. Don't know why, but it is what it is. I have some stiffer Acmes with the big 190 Ribtec heads that seem good in my yard, but I have not had them out for long shots in the wind yet. I never trust a broadhead arrow until I have done some serious long range shooting on a windy day. I know some will say that 'tuned arrow arrow will fly in any wind'. That is flat out not true, wind is a big variable and it rarely goes in a smooth straight line. Today would have been a perfect testing day, but 90 degrees and a cracked rib would have taken all of the fun out of it.

Shawn, It's not hard. It's just not doable within my window of acceptable performance.

I don't want that much weight in my arrow. Like I said, I've tested it a lot, and it does not benefit me at all.

When you start getting that heavy with an arrow, you lose enough speed to negate any gains you might have got with the heavier arrow.

Been playing this game for a long time. Been shooting very high draw weight bows for a long time. Have extensively compared & tested just about every angle on equipment there is.

My results have always brought me back to a happy medium between the bell curves of weight & speed as the best place I need to be for the high expectations I demand from my equipment.

```````````````````````

I tried to get a penetration challenge/contest/information gathering event going a couple of years ago.

I pushed it had, yet there was not one person other than me to participate.

I figured the HFOC/EFOC/UEFOC folks would have jumped all over it, but they didn't and very few can say they didn't know about it. I'll give you 3 guesses as to why the didn't jump in. 8^)

Rick

Now that you mention it, Rick... with your DL and the poundage that you've been known to shoot... I'm amazed that you can find shafts that are stiff enough for a "normal" amount of FOC....

Tall people problems, I guess! I'd just like to be able to shoot high #40s without dropping down to an 1816!

Like I said I'm not nay saying about it. I know it works for some folks, but it just ain't gonna work for everyone.

I'm not one to turn down any penetration, or performance enhancements on my rigs. If it's there to get, I'll get it, and usually get "IT", and then some.

Unfortunately HFOC don't do "IT" for me, and it's not because I don't know how.

Rick

I doubt that arrows have "always" had comparatively light FOC weights. Primitive stone heads on reed shafts were probably high FOC, and not all stone heads were "bird points", many were larger. The early Asian and European steel heads were often very large and heavy, probably 300 - 600 grains from their appearance.

I think the light weight broadheads of the early 1900's were the result of two things - copying the light metal "trade" points that were given to the Indians, and how early heads were made - a slot cut into a target point with a steel blade soldered into place. Had Roy Case or Fred Bear started with 250 grain broadheads we'd all be shooting them! ;^)

In my shooting I don't see that EFOC heads "pull the arrow into a nose dive" that's ridiculous thinking from someone who's never shot one. What I do know is that a EFOC arrow is very stable in flight . An EFOC arrow is not inherently "detuned" - what makes you state such a thing? I've found that a 200 - 325 grain head typically makes the arrow very easy to tune and get great flight, provided the shaft is properly spined. I've noticed the EFOC arrows typically require very little fletching and often shoot them with 2" fletching.

No, I don't think EFOC arrows are "necessary" to kill the average whitetail, but then again neither are razor sharp broadheads - a reasonably sharp broadhead through both lungs probably does the job just fine. For me and my shooting, I'll stick with fairly heavy broadheads as sharp as I can get them. Not for the double lung hits, but for those occasions when everything doesn't go exactly right - besides, in my setup and shooting style, that's how I get the most accuracy.

"I like to see the shaft flying in line with the broad head if possible."

That's what I understand to properly put all the weight behind the point, in line withe the axis of the arrow, for maximum penetration.

I have shot arrows which are in the center of the target, but flew with the tail somewhere other than straight behind the point, and no, an outside influence, like wind, was not the cause. In the short distance shots I take deer at, straight flight is critical. Therefore, any combination of shaft weight distribution that accomplishes that, is where I'm striving to be.

How the speed and control of the arrow is transferred from the push at launch, to the point in flight, is a mystery to me. Where does the point take control of the arrow and pull it? Where does the drag on the fletching succumb to the weight of the point? With extreme FOC, why use fletching at all?

Not to put people on pedestals....but Rick Barbee and Jimmy Blackmon don't like it. They don't worry about popular opinions and would use it if they did like it.

For me, I've gone through many long process of tuning using different arrow/head combos and I keep ending up at 8.5-9gpj with fairly low FOC.

Arrow flies straight, bareshafts well, I hit where I aim. And for ACCURACY, target shooters don't care about FOC. If there was ANY accuracy gain, they'd use it

Not ALL, but a lot of the heavy arrow/high FOC are also in the 'I keeep my shots under 15 yards' crowd too. I am not going to limit myself to short shooting. Every time I get outside of my normal setup, I don't like it.

I don't need more penetration. I need to learn to get in the right place right time for the shot :)

Guy -

The more I read Rick B's (and a few other peoples') posts, the more I think we went to different schools together ;).

He's spot on.

The high FOC thing is only real in the minds of people who only shoot at close distances and probably have little shooting ability to begin with. In test's I've done, accuracy isn't changed with higher head weights and "penetration" differences are usually subjective. IOW's with an appropriate hunting rig, there's nothing you're going to change that will make a shot more or less lethal.

Most "trad" types understand that their bows will never be as fast as compounds, and instead of dealing with that fact, they make up reasons to make their equipment even slower - just to be more "special".

Look, what you do is your business, and in the long run, if it makes you happy, go for it. Just don't delude yourself into believing that it's any kind of an "advantage".

99% of the things "we" worry about account for less than 1% of our (shooting) success. Get decent equipment, do reasonable tuning for YOUR ability and then learn how to shoot. With that, most of the other stuff stops mattering.

Viper out.

Just entered the numbers for my current hunting arrow and 3rivers calculator says it has 16.3% FOC. So not low, not high

Most of efoc came about due to proliferation of carbon arrows that are so stiff they need alot of weight up front to bend. Carbons are skinny, slick, and stiff. Drag. There's your difference not efoc. imo

Just occurred to me to wonder....

Anybody know the range on the Ashby testing?

Definitely a factor, if "quick" recovery is one of the observed benefits.

All the arrows I have for the bows I shoot end in the 8.5-9gpp and a FOC between 16% and 19% - 3RiversArch. calc. tells me this. Is the setup that works best for me since I want to hit also targets in the 40 yards range. I never cared about FOC, I care for the arrow flight. When I will be capable to see a difference between 19% FOC and 22% FOC at 30 yards I will change my mind.

GF -

You're also going to have to define "quick recovery". Is it 10', 30' and what's the difference on impact, 1 foot-pound, 10?

BTW - in science, a single study may intrigue people, but until a number of corroborating studies are done, yielding the same results or empirical evidence is overwhelming, are the reults taken seriously.

Viper out.

GF, most of his shots for the penetration portion were at 20 yards and closer. All the information is in the public domain, and you can go read it.

That's why I say that folks who use EFOC and UEFOC arrows, claiming better penetration in soft tissue or bone, and use UNDER 650 grs. are fooling themselves.

As I mentioned above, Ashby said that until you hit that arrow weight there was NO significant gain in penetration.

Now, Ashby does or at least did bareshaft his arrows out to 30 yards, so it's not like he doesn't know how to shoot.

Again, the configuration of the arrow is 1 and only 1 component in the ENTIRE system, and not even the most important one.

ANd for those who don't understand how 2 arrows with the same physical weight but different weight distributions would shoot at different elevations it's pretty simple. It's ballistics whether you like to admit or not. The flattest shooting, longest range bullets DON'T have all the weight up front, and for very good reason. They don't retain energy well.

I'll probably get flamed for this, but Ashby's work, by his own statistical analysis did not show valid (r squared values higher than 90%) statistical correlation to penetration for any of the variables he tested except for high FOC. What this means is he saw trends but trends alone don't give a cause and effect understanding. And, as others have pointed out, distance and type of test material (thick skinned, big boned African game animals) have to be kept in mind since how one tests, and what one tests, has a major bearing on the outcome.

In addition, to the best of my knowledge, all of his tests were 'single' variable. But most physical systems in the real world have several variables happening simultaneously. So to do single variable tests and draw general conclusions, is pretty dangerous.

I don't recall seeing any multi variable tests, or multi variable regression analysis to to see if multiple variables were in play and how they interact.

To his credit, he did organize a very systematic series of tests and controlled it, one variable at a time to see 'trends'.

My interpretation of his tests is if one is going to shoot at thick skinned, heavy boned animals, at less than 20 yards, one needs an arrow that is heavy and has near instant recovery coming off the bow so all the mass is in line when the target is struck for maximum, short range penetration.

And, in many cases, folks think what was best for Dr. Ashby must be best for them when they hunt whitetail deer or other North American game animals.

So, at the end of the day, everyone ought to look at what they use their equipment for, expectations they have on distance, speed, and weight for the animal they are hunting, and choose what works best for them.

If I were brave/crazy enough to hunt water buffalo with Monty Browning I'd want the heaviest arrow I could get that would fly the straightest at 10 yards or less. I'd likely use Dr. Ashby's recipe. But if I want to shoot 3D with the same set up I use for white tails, I'm going to use a very different set up.

I don't mean to copy the wise words from Rick Barbee, but after 45 years of shooting traditional equipment, the best set up, for me, is 9gpp, and less than 15% FOC.

My preference is just that--it's what works best for me and the conditions in which I use my equipment.

Now, as far as the comments about what happens to UHFOC 'arrows' at longer distances, just take a look at the many posts from Larry Hatfield's flight shooting with foot or hand held bows. In Larry's words, or close to them, such arrows drop like a rock and are not used by a flight shooter. Remember, Larry was trying to shoot a mile.

So pick your use, and then the setup to match and all is good. Just note, like the EPA does, your mileage may vary.

It is easy to see a lot of you are long on opinion and short on experience, or common sense. A high or extremely high front of center arrow does not have to be heavier than any other arrow - there are plenty of shaft weight and spine combination s to work with. Two arrows of equal weight and tuned to fly properly will have roughly the same trajectories, especially within 60 - 80 yards. This entire argument is ridiculous, about like arguing over 3 vs 2 blade heads. We each use equipment that we have found works well for us, sometimes through trial, sometimes through opinion. I love to read of others experiences and knowledge and give different things a trial - different broadhead designs, different arrow weights, different FOC, different bow weights, long bows, recurves, skinny strings, varying anchor methods, etc. Without such trials, you only have opinion - not that opinion makes you a bad person - you just don't have the experience to make informed statements. A few years back I did extensive testing on a variety of bows, arrow weights, and FOC. One of the tests was flight distance. Until arrows approached 800 grains there was very little flight distance difference - but boy those 800 - 2000 grain arrows sure walloped the target! Try lots of stuff, open your minds - your brain won't fall out!

[[[ Slayer NE Said: "A high or extremely high front of center arrow does not have to be heavier than any other arrow - there are plenty of shaft weight and spine combination s to work with." ]]]

In a carbon .250 or .300, I have yet to find a "durable" shaft in weights less than 9 gpi. This puts my completed HFOC arrows at well over 700 grains.

That's way to heavy for my taste. I refuse to go over 10.5 gpp, and would much rather be somewhere from 9 to 10. That weight window has always given me the best result.

I bet my 9 gpp arrows (640 gr) shot from my 68# bow will penetrate just as well as your 800 gr arrow in anything you want to try it on as long as our draw weights are equal, or close to it. Care to compare? 8^)

I'll say it again - HFOC works for some, but there are those who are just in a window of arrow requirement, that will not allow them to do the HFOC thing. That latter generally has enough penetration energy anyway. 8^)

Rick

I'm not even sure that HFOF or UEFOC arrows HAD to be heavier in general.

The discussion was that to perform the way that most folks think they should, in line with the Ashby studies, the DO have to hit 650grs. which is the low end of the bone penetration threshold. Ashby said that.

In addition, I don't understand the flight shooting statement either. There IS a very significant difference in the distance that can be covered betwenn an 800 and 1200 grain arrow. Especially if the draw weight of the bow is the same for both arrows. Now, it can be different if draw weight is adjusted to maximize arrow weight.

So I seee people saying it does not aid accuracy and I see others saying it doesn't hurt it. I also see a lot ofnp pile saying it decreases arrow performance but I am. It sure if they are referencing the FOC or are thinking a high FOC arrow I'd also a heavy arrow?

so I have some arrows that are right at 10 gpp with 25% FOC. Would my arrows shoot faster or flatter if I were to use a heavier shaft and lighter point to make a 10 gpp arrow?

My buck last year, according to the 3Rivers spine calculator with that bow should have been a 42 dynamic spine. That arrow was way to soft in spine to fly. The ones that did were from 452 to 459 grains with a 51 spine and a 14.1% foc, Wapiti cedars. I hit one rib the arrow flew into never land and the buck went down very quickly in plain sight. The buck from the prior year with a 5 pound stiffer shaft and a slightly heavier head, ended up at the same 51 pounds of dynamic spine, the arrow went squarely through the entrance rib without breaking the rib and broke a rib on exit and shattered on a bur oak shrub 6 or 8 yards past the deer. That deer ran about 60 yards and went down hard. Both heads were Mussato style serrated, with one being a slight modification to accommodate its single bevel. Both heads were slightly less than 1" wide. completely wrong by some standards, but the short recoveries and massive blood trails, lead me to think that there is nothing to fix. What works for one bow may not work for another.

Wow typed that last response on my phone and it turned out terrible! Sorry about that.

I know what you asked, we had one individual that thought that heavy points would "take the arrow out of the sky like a lead balloon". What we found with carbon arrows that weigh 600 grains versus wood arrows with larger feathers that weigh 600 grains, is that carbon arrows fly further than the wood. For longbows wood arrows are easier to get right the first time and are conveniently shorter and do not have as much feather drift in a strong cross wind, but less air drag at the same weight will always fly either just as flat or flatter at distances over 25 yards. I don't think the high foc goes nose down until it is almost completely out of gas. One comparison we did 20 years ago was on mushy topped ice. Shooting out with about a30 degree or so loft, the cedar arrow skipped when it hit the ice and my carbon arrows stuck. Then when tried my heavy tapered Alaskans with large feathers, wind was not an issue that day, they really stuck. At a more than one hundred yards the wood arrows with 125 heads came down flatter, that proves nothing about the speed or the length of flight, just a circumstantial condition with that particular setup. Oh, this was done with an 89 pound Kramer built Hill.

When we shot the above arrows through a chronograph there was no difference to speak of in the arrow speeds, but for distances at a 45 degree loft the carbons with the three 4" feathers shot the furtherest every time. that particular bow did not like high spine arrows at all, but all of the arrows seemed to fly pretty much perfect that we tested out of it. The reason for the test was that I could not get stiff woods or 2219s to fly well with 125 grain heads. Ended up with 70 pound wood shafts and 2018s.

I didn't say there wass no difference in flight distance between a 800 and 1200 grain arrow, what I said was until total arrow weight reached over 800 grains, the flight difference of all the other arrows shot from all the other bows was surprisingly similar. I don't have all the figures in front of me, but the arrow weights started at under 400 grains and the bow weights ranged from about 45 - 70 pounds.

Rick, I highly respect you and your work but it would be impossible by the laws of physics for a heavier arrow to not out penetrate a lighter arrow provided everything else was equal. Impossible as long as the arrows are actually launched and fly from the bow. I don't suppose a 70 pound arrow could be launched from a 50 pound bow. Again, referring to the testing I did above, which was published in Trad Archer's World, momentum always increased as arrow weight increased.

Oops, sent that too soon.

A 10 grain per inch arrow, 30" long would weigh 300 grains, glue a 300 grain point on that and you have 600 grains, maybe 40 for nock and fletching. Most trad hunters shoot less than a 30" arrow, and would still be under 10 GPP for anything over 65#

Anyway, the whole point of what I was trying to say is it doesn't make nay difference what I shoot, what Rick Barbee or anyone else shoots, there are millions of varieties, find one you're confident in, use it, and be happy with it. There are many, many, many things in my life that are far more important than how heavy my bow, arrow, or broadhead are. I was just offering information from testing I've done to help people make informed decisions. Ya put arrows through a couple hundred animals you start to see trends develop and learn what works well and what doesn't work as well.

Go out hunting, have fun, spend less time at the keyboard and more time out in the real world.

I don't care what anyone else used but I'm in line with what Rick posted - 9-10 grains and 12-17 FOC.

If we want to throw arrow weight into the mix Jack Howard did a test in the 60s using specially made Easton aluminums and a shooting machine. I know this will generate all kinds of comments from serious to ridiculous and I'm not posting it to change anyone's opinions on what works best for them. Also it's long but details the steps he took and his thinking. He was constantly testing things and was fairly detail oriented in his approach.

tradmt may want to go for more beer.

Heavy Arrows vs. Light Arrows By Jack Howard

As far back as I can remember there has always been a controversy on which would penetrate further, a slower heavy moving arrow or a fast light moving arrow. Way back in those days I never really had a strong opinion either one way or the other, I did though favor an arrow on the light side for other reasons. I have always been a long distance shooter, and only with a light arrow can you reach out with a good degree of accuracy. My practice sessions have always been a 75 or 80 yards. My reasoning was if I learned to do well here I would even do better for any close shots that might come along. This has worked out well for me as most of my kills have been in the range of 50 to 60 yards, with a few Deer, Elk and Antelope kills ranging from 75 to 85 yards. I have always tested everything I possibly could because without some type of actual test you never have any real true answers. I had delayed though on penetration testing as I had been perfectly satisfied with my hunting results and have always been pressed for time. Back in 1967 Bow & Arrow Magazine asked me if I would do a penetration test article for their magazine. I said I would, this was a good excuse for me to break from the usual grind and find the answer for my own satisfaction, the age old question about penetration. I find that I have some spare room in this catalog issue and think some of you may be interested in my findings. What follows is a condensed version of my 1967 article.

All bow hunters know how important penetration is, yet I have seen and heard of cases where there has been no penetration at all. Cases where the arrow has hit squarely in the rib cage and bounced back. Still other instances where penetration was only as deep as the broadhead point. Even though these are rare happenings, for the sake of our bow hunting sport, it is best they do not happen at all. There are an assortment of reasons why such things can occur. A few hunters in their excitement forget to come to a full draw, thus losing considerable speed and power. Or a combination of shortened draw and a poorly designed or rounded over broadhead point. Broadheads such as a reverse barb (sawtooth) can cut penetration in half in soft tissue and stop the arrow abruptly if gristle is hit. It's not possible for all bow hunters to have the same efficiency in their equipment, but it is important that each of us try to obtain as much penetration as possible. Some of the things that influence the ability to penetrate are bow weight, arrow weight, broad head point design, arrow speed, draw length. A hunter shooting a bow weight, arrow combination that is 60# at 31" will have considerably more power than a hunter shooting a combination that is 60# at 28". When a bow hunter invests large sums into his equipment and costly hunting trips, it is wise to choose equipment carefully so the hunt will be a gratifying success. Because there are certain arrow-bow weight combinations that are more efficient than others if the wrong choice is made, in certain cases a slight gain in bow weight could cause a loss in penetration.

In setting up for a penetration test, the material used that is to be shot into must be as consistent as possible. For this type of test there is nothing I know of that is more consistent than compressed cardboard. I can shoot 6 matched arrows into cardboard and they will penetrate to exactly the same depth. I made up a strong wood frame to hold and compress the cardboard. What would be the best kind of point to use was the next question. Broadhead points were out, not only would they be difficult to work with, but there would be too many misleading results. Things such as alignment, sharpness, size and type of hole opened, etc. would give a varied effect on penetration. You would only use broad head points for a test if you were testing the penetrating ability of one type of brcadhead over another. My test though was not a test on broad head points. I was only concerned on how shaft weight effects penetration, an answer to which could best overcome the binding effect of the carboard against the shaft. Would a shaft on the light side which travels faster, or a shaft on the heavy side at a slower speed have the most penetration. To make this test as accurate as possible, all points had to be exactly the same shape and diameter and remain the same throughout the test. I chose standard steel target points as they are absolutely consistent. Shaft diameters, arrow length, fletching, all had to be exactly the same, identical in every respect except for what I was testing, weight. As I had no method of making up such arrows, Easton Aluminum made these especially for my test. The arrow weights made were 325 grains for the lightest arrow, 480 grains for the middle weight and 650 grains in the heavy arrow which is just twice the weight of the lightest one.

The bow weights used in my test were 40, 50 and 60 Ibs. Out of a bow of a given weight, I think we all realize that as arrow weight is increased, the speed of the arrow decreases. Also as arrow weight is lessened, then the speed of the arrow increases. How though does all this effect arrow penetration, this was the whole point of my test. As for the figures on how the test came out, I won't give all of the many figures as this would only be confusing. With each bow weight shot, the lightest arrow penetrated the deepest, the mid weight arrow had the second most penetration and the heavy arrow had the least penetration. For a comparison with just the light arrow and the heavy arrow. From the 40# bow, the light arrow penetrated 3 ½” further than the heavy arrow. From the 50# bow, the light arrow penetrated 4" further than the heavy arrow. From the 60# bow, the light arrow penetrated 5 ¼” further than the heavy arrow. The penetration range of the mid weight arrow was half way between the light and heavy arrow. In the actual depth of penetration, there are some figures that may surprise a few, in the heavy vs. light division. Just comparing what the light bow with the light arrow versus the heavy bow with the heavy arrow penetrated is somewhat astounding. From the 40# bow, the average depth of penetration of the light 325 grain arrow was 12". From the 60# bow the average depth the heavy arrow penetrated was 11 ½”. If you take a close look at these figures you will note the light bow and arrow penetrated on the average of 1 ½”" further than the heavy arrow with a bow that was 20 lbs heavier. Of course none of us can use a 325 grain arrow for hunting, but I feel the figures still tell us something. For one thing, speed is an important factor that should definitely be considered. Also if you choose the proper arrow-bow combination for your bow, you won't go wrong. In my opinion it is best not to make a decided effort to go real heavy on arrow weight as a few hunters do.

Many have been mislead by a few manufacturers advertisements, especially when they talk about heavy arrows and heavy broad heads giving shock type knock over power. There is no such thing as knock down power when it comes to killing game with a bow and arrow. Knock down power means shock from being hit by a projectile, this does not happen with an arrow. On rare occasions one might catch an animal off balance, but this has nothing to do with shock or knock down power. The fact that the broad head is sharp and pointed in itself takes what little striking shock that might be generated out of the arrow. If striking shock was the name of the game, we would be using blunt points. In conclusion I would like to mention that I made this penetration test because of a request from Bow & Arrow Magazine, plus my own information. I have given the results here as I feel some may be interested. I have no ax to grind on this subject and will be pleased to make a customers arrows any weight he wishes them to be.

Thank you very much Phil. Everyone says heavy pens better but its never been my experience. Good to see someone in modern times agree. I don't buy into the high foc heavy arrow better because what I've used has always worked great for me, so why change. One study shows these findings, hundreds of thousands of bowhunters thruout history shows the opposite.

Shawn,

"Again whatever you choose is fine but the guys saying the difference is minimal are not really correct. Yes arrows with 8- 12% foc work fine but the difference comes when shooting carbons. It is proven they recover quicker from paradox with a real heavy head, almost acts to pull the arrow straight for a lack of a better way to say it."

I've heard this hypothesis presented as fact many times over the years, and have repeatedly asked for such "proof." The closets anyone came was a guy who said he knew his UEFOC arrows recovered from oscillation within one yard because he could shoot bullet holes through a paper tuner at that distance. The only thing that proved is that he didn't understand arrow flight very well.

“This seems to be somewhat of a heated topic for some reason but I have been wondering to myself why people wouldn't want their arrows FOC on the high side?”

Before making any change Ito my equipment I ask myself two questions: What problem am I trying to solve, and how will this proposed change help with that. With respect to my hunting arrows, I’ve used the same setup to shoot through every species I’ve hunted up to an including bull moose. Seeing as there is no problem for me to solve, the proposed change is moot.

So why aren't my hunting arrows high FOC (assuming "high" is above the 13% they are now)? Because that would be of no benefit to me.

I did not read everyone else's reply but I avoid what is considered High FOC.

I assume you are asking for hunting purposes, but for target a high FOC gives me a crazy arch on my arrows. Meaning drastic chages in gaps over short distances. An FOC closer to 11-15% has a very smooth rise and fall.

For hunting I guess my reasoning is the same. If I have a regular arrow that has a predictable flight pattern, I can more accurately hit what I am aiming at which is top priority.

FOC in general is way down my priority list.

For strictly hunting considerations, I want accurate, skinny shafts, stiffest arrow I can tune to my bow (little to no side plate), and if I can swing it I want a slick surface on the shaft.

I go for 100 to 150 grain heads depending on what that bow needs, but if I need over 150 grain heads to achieve weight or spine, I drop spine or find heavier arrows.

I think the High FOC thing is misuderstood. Its percieved that it penetrates better because deflection in weak shafts can scrub off a lot of penetrating power. Folks think they need a 600 spine arrow on a 50lb bow because they use rope for a string and have a huge side plate. I can penetrate as good or way better tuning a stiffer arrow to my bow with a lighter head.

Hey guys -

You do realize how many times this same "debate" has been started here and run it's course, ending with the same stalemate.

The response I usually give goes something like this: When two diametrically opposed theories both yield successful results, the bone of contention is usually meaningless.

Carry on ...

Viper out.

eastons nibb (new improved balanced bullet) points came 7, 9 and 11 percent foc. They were of the weight to make the shaft each was made for come out to one of those foc's. Most I sold were 9 or 11 percent. That's what eastons research determined was the best foc for a best all around target arrow. And so was what Olympic archers shot. So that also gets rid of the superior accuracy myth.

FOC isn't just one thing, it functions in archery at a number of levels: Trajectory for long range targets as in original Olympic format; Penetration on game; modern trends with super high speed gear.

So the original FOC studies were to find the optimal balance in arrows for long range recurve work, like the Olympics. Balance meaning the arrow maintains the best alignment relative to the arc, for least drag. The FOC range specified was the one you got putting the heads in the packets you could buy into the shafts used for Oly archery after the test had been accepted. Oly arrow set ups are the full beneficiaries of FOC research. I think they did raise FOC for Oly rigs at the time, or more or less standardized them. Now the Oly distance is also 70M, so a shorter distance with the same gear (and gear has backed up for some shooters) means a different ideal drag free FOC for the perfect match to the arc. Though I have no idea how many points having a bunch of different set-ups would add.

FOC for hunting could include the aero concern if you were making long shots, but mostly it has been discussed relative to penetration. So high FOC can mean simply high weight as the most economical way to get it is to raise head weight, therefore arrow weight. It can also mean higher spine, because all else equal heavier relative weight in the head requires a stiffer arrow, so if that hits game square it could mean better alignment and penetration. And higher Foc means less weight, relatively, behind the head, to again the shaft weight/stiffness, should be more optimal for penetration.

Ashby was employed to produce data that could be used for setting archery standards for African game, he wasn't trying to stack the deck on what any NA hunter needs to do to shoot a whitetail. But it isn't as though all arrows penetrate fully on all whitetails, or that whitetails don't have any arrow stopping bones.

The third issue is the relevance of aerodynamic FOC with modern compounds, or very short range shots from trad bows. Just ignore it.

I guess most guys point is, if it ain't broke , why spend money to fix it.

Really like George's and Rick's answers above about a high FOC doesn't work for everyone and we all have a lot of differences with our arrow set up. Wonder what the FOC was on those skinny 1616 27-inch aluminums with nibs and 1.75 inch vanes I used to shoot when young. They shot real flat up to 25-30yd out of a 32# Tamerlane.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here