From: Harialombos
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
how would be a good way to build a target for realistic penetration testing. something cheap. (a example would be a milk jug with water covered in cloth and your arrow must pass through both sides to be good.) Im looking to build something so I can test my set-up at differt ranges different broasheads sharpers ect. YES I know there are random factors just looking for some ideas and how much my arrow should penetrate. no debates please thank you much all.
|
|
From: George D. Stout
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
No debates? Okay. I've killed enough deer to know what works well so I'll stick to that.
|
|
From: Rick Barbee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
Pretty much anything you use, that will allow some penetration, yet stop the arrow is going to tell you which ones penetrate the best.
Styrofoam works just fine for that, as long as you have it layered thick enough to stop the arrow from a complete pass through.
A 4' X 8' X 1" thick sheet will give you 16 12" X 12" squares to layer up for a total thickness of 16". Costs about $15. 3/4" sheets will work just fine.
Depending on the energy, and momentum your arrows are delivering, but you might (probably would) be able to layer the sheets up in 8 24" squares to get the job done.
Rick
|
|
From: Kodiak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
So many variables and variances that it'd be tough to make one that's meaningful.
Just my opinion but good luck anyway, I'm wrong all the time. lol
|
|
From: babysaph
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
If you can shoot through a deer it penetrates enough
|
|
From: onager
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
I agree with Kodiak. Perhaps those translucent gel blocks that we've seen used for firearm bullet penetration would probably be comparable. Probably have been used, but I don't recall reading or seeing them be used with arrows. Bet they are expensive.
|
|
From: fdp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
The target Rick Barbee described is reasonably priced, easily obtainable, and just as effective as any other target. Ne need to over complicate the process.
|
|
From: 2 bears
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
Like has been said they all work for comparison but none relate directly to deer or other critters. Go with proven equipment and make life simple. >>>----> Ken
|
|
From: Rick Barbee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
[[[ "I use a huge 26 lb gummy bear.
KPC " ]]]
Those are real too.
I never thought of it, but I bet they would work great, plus you can set them on a nice clean surface when shooting them, and eat the pieces you cut out as you go.
I'm gonna try it. 8^)
Rick
|
|
From: fdp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
Rick....they mess up your fletching if you get a pass through. :) Especially in the summer time. in Texas.
|
|
From: Rick Barbee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
Yeah Frank, I didn't think about that, plus even on sale the 26#ers are $100. I'd have to go with a 5#er, and probably couldn't hit it.
Rick
|
|
From: Woods Walker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 23-May-18 |
|
Use the search option for "The Dead Cow Thread".........
|
|
From: White Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
I love circus peanuts, even the hard ones!!!
|
|
From: Birdy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
The only thing you will learn is what penetrates best in that particular medium. Not live game.
|
|
From: Draven
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
" I never thought of it, but I bet they would work great, plus you can set them on a nice clean surface when shooting them, and eat the pieces you cut out as you go. "
You eat what you kill!
|
|
|
From: Longcruise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
I thought the new standard was a blue plastic barrel. :^)
|
|
From: nomo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
Isn't ballistic gel supposed to simulate a body? Personally, I wouldn't waste the effort. A good, quality BH and heavy enough arrow has always done well if delivered where it is supposed to go and it all depends on many variables, but they will all (quality BHs and arrows) do a good job.
|
|
From: Birdy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
Ballistic gel is going to have some crazy drag on the shaft and blade, it might work for bullets but not for cutting projectiles
|
|
From: Joe2Crow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
Years ago when Jack Howard did his penetration testing, he used compressed cardboard. You can look up the results, they might surprise you.
|
|
From: oldgoat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
A target designed to stop arrows is not a good test medium, post what you got and ask guys like George if it should work
|
|
From: RymanCat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
Cinder block step up and let her fly or 55 gallon plastic barrel of water near garden beds.LOL ''Don't forget to draw a deer or bear on barrel and let it have it.
|
|
From: nomo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
Yeah, I didn't think about the shaft drag part. I just thought about the body simulation part. I stand corrected. ;~)
|
|
|
From: Longbow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
A swinging box hanging on a trapeze . pencil taped to one side, poster board on side. Hit with arrow, impact draws a swing arc..,more arc, more impact.
|
|
From: fdp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 24-May-18 |
|
Ballistic gel doesn't create anymore drag on an arrow shaft then skin, bone, muscle, and body fluid does.
However, it isn't neccessary. The arrow combination that penetrates the deepest in the ground is the same arrow combination that will penetrate the deepest in any other medium.
|
|
From: twostrings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
It would be nice to have something like the lowly freestanding milk jug. Something so cheap and ubiquitous that many people will put arrows in them and record and publish their findings. There is a lot of back yard data available for bullets, just the stuff on Youtube alone is a significant data collection.
|
|
From: Brad Lehmann
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
Use a piece of new stall mat. If you happen to hit a hole made by a previous shot, do the shot over. You need to have a test medium that is uniform throughout. I think this material is pretty uniform.
|
|
From: Okiak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
In Dr. Ashby's report on Momentum, Kinetic energy and Arrow Penetration, he talks about a test medium other than freshly killed animals. He goes in to detail as to why materials like foam aren't good choices. He recommends ballistics gel covered in elastic material which simulates hide.
Years ago I made a test target from Knox gelatin instead of more expensive ballistics gel. I used a cardboard box to keep it together and that could be improved on by using a container that simulates hide. I'll post the URL for the old thread and for Ashby's report I mentioned. A very good read.
http://leatherwall.bowsite.com/TF/lw/thread2.cfm?threadid=150573&category=88#1811152
http://www.grizzlystik.com/Ashby-On-Momentum-Kinetic-Energy-Arrow-Penetration-W19.aspx
|
|
From: Longtrad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
"I agree with fdp. When it comes to comparing relative penetration, any medium will work, as long as it's consistent. It doesn't have to be the same consistency as animal flesh. All other things being equal, the arrow that penetrates farther into sand, foam, a huge gummy bear, or anything else will also penetrate farther into flesh.
Sand in a milk jug will work if all you want to know is which arrow penetrates farther.
We needn't make this any more complicated that it is.
KPC"
I dont really agree with this, when testing different mediums certain points will work better than others, on some mediums I have tested blunts were the best penetrator
I would think the best simulator for live game would be freshly killed game.
|
|
From: twostrings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
If it's easy and cheap you'll get more results from more people. You may have the best test medium possible but do you have all bows and all arrows to test?
|
|
From: Rick Barbee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
"If you're worried about it", all you have to do to eliminate certain variables such as friction when shooting into foam, is to lubricate your arrows before shooting them. Just spray some WD40 (or whatever) on a rag, and wipe the shaft & broadhead down with it.
If you're not worried about it, then go shoot.
"I guarantee you", the one that penetrates the best in the foam will also penetrate the best in an animal.
Rick
|
|
From: GF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
I believe Dr. POPE found that field points out-penetrate BH in wood. On a similar note, I shot an arrow with no point at all on it clear through a wooden slat on a fence, whereas same arrow, same bow had been stopped more than once when loaded with 125 FP.
But maybe I hit a soft spot in the fence?
How about a truck-tire innertube filled with Knox gelatin, and you just keep thickening the mixture 'til you stop gooping up your fletchings? Once the gel gets shot up, you can melt it down and try again?
The thing is.... you have to ask what really slows down the arrow, and JMO, that comes down to how much resistance is met getting through the hide.
What you hit on the inside matters a whole lot, but that has nothing to do with the arrowhead that you chose, does it? Assuming an equally good tune...
The only thing that's approximately "equal" on every shot is the Hide. The more resistance getting in, the less "energy" is available for getting through the middle and out the far side, and the more efficiently the broadhead gets through the hide, the more resistance can be met on the inside and still leave enough oomph to punch back out.
Easiest way to eyeball the resistance an arrowhead met on the way in (or out) is the size of the hole in the hide. Big hole means the hide stretched before the blade popped through, which means a "soft" impact which means "energy"/momentum was used up stretching the hide instead of driving the shaft on through. When you hit over muscle or bone, there's much less stretch because the hide has no place to go, but again, you can only control that to a degree. If you're good enough to always hit them in between the ribs, you've got to teach me your aiming system!
And if you're wondering if that could really matter.... FWIW, shooting deer with a .54 Roundball, I noticed that at bowhunting-type ranges, I got an exit wound on the broadsides, but not on the quartering angles, because the ball would flatten out on impact, get to the hide, and then slide sideways, stopping several inches away from were it punched on out through the chest wall. At 90 degrees, the hide just stretched straight away from the chest wall, but since the ball (now more of a disc) couldn't escape to one side, it would go through.
Anyway, JMO, if you want to know what arrowhead will penetrate the deepest, it's the one that cuts the tidiest hole on the way in - meaning the hole that is closest to the actual dimensions of the blade. Innertube full of gel will probably show bigger holes with squishier fill, due to holding the tube in place as the head penetrates...
|
|
From: reddogge
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
No debate? Ha.
I seem to remember Onesharpbroadhead did his penetration test with ballistic gel. He didn't use broadheads but tested heavy arrows vs very light arrows with field points.
|
|
From: GF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
Yeah, but did OSB take into account the lubricating effect of ballistic gel as it melts more/faster owing to the greater production of heat due to friction created by the faster arrow?
Yeah, didn't think so.
So there. Nanny boo-boo to YOU, sir!
Ahhhh... Gotta love a Friday afternoon!
|
|
From: Rick Barbee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
Pay attention to KPC.
Rick
|
|
From: Okiak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
Here's what Dr. Ashby has to say about using artificial test media to predict how a hunting arrow will penetrate living tissue. Screen shot was taken from the report I listed in my earlier post. It really is a good read. Even if you've read it before.
|
|
From: unhinged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
How about a yummy spiral cut ham?
|
|
From: fdp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
So here's a question. If you have 2 arrows, with the same type of point, and you shoot them both into a target and one penetrates further than the other. Then you cahnge pints, again using the same type point on both arrows, what would make the arrow that penetrated less the first time, penetrate more the second time? That is as KCummings stated earlier "all else being equal"?
The answer is it can't. And actually that is one statement made by Ashby that makes very little sense. If one arrow can overcome "shaft drag" better than another arrow, leading to greater penetratin, it will also penetrate better without the added burden of "shaft drag".
|
|
From: Okiak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
In the paragraphs I posted he is saying that the dynamics of arrow penetration in synthetic media are very different than the dynamics of a hunting arrow penetrating living tissue.
Elsewhere in the report he concludes that reducing the shaft size and having a smoother shaft finish does enhance penetration. These two qualities would reduce shaft drag in living tissue.
|
|
From: fdp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
Well of course reducing shaft diameter and having a smoother finish would enhance penetration to a certain degree. However, whether or not it would make a real world difference is open for debate.
The BEST penetrating arrows I ever used (for a particular draw weight) were actually made from 1/4" pultruded solid fiberglass rods. With a 5/16" broadhead the penetration qualities were far better than any other shaft I had ever used before, or since.
Problem being, they weren't stiff enough to shoot well out of most of my bows.
|
|
From: Okiak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
"However it still doesn't change the fact that with all other things being equal, whichever arrow penetrates better in synthetic media will also penetrate better in living tissue, as long as they are consistent."
In the paragraphs I posted, the first statement in bold text does say that penetration into artificial media differs from from the actual results of testing with real tissue.
fdp, In the final section of his report he talks about shaft diameter. Smaller diameter isn't a clear cut factor in better penetration. He says there are other factors, but in general a shaft with a diameter smaller than the broadhead's ferrule is an advantage.
|
|
From: Okiak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
I tried to build a penetration test target. My purpose was to use it as an instructional tool to demonstrate the difference between a sharp BH and on that was not. For that it worked. I think that most hunters would benefit much more from reading Ashby's reports. He was able to do his testing on real animals. But then he specifies that sometimes real world results are very different from research. There for his conclusions are outcome driven.
|
|
From: longbowguy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: 25-May-18 |
|
How about a cow, or an old goat? You could start with a live cow. Later you could compare with all the commentary in our archives on a dead cow. Yummy if you get a young one that hasn't been dead over long. - lbg
|
|
If you have already registered, please sign in now
For new registrations Click Here
|
|
|