Traditional Archery Discussions on the Leatherwall


OSB's Penetration Test

Messages posted to thread:
Bowmania 04-Feb-11
upnorth 04-Feb-11
Van/TX 04-Feb-11
JJB 04-Feb-11
goldentrout_one 04-Feb-11
ButchMo 04-Feb-11
Sapcut 04-Feb-11
goldentrout_one 04-Feb-11
Van/TX 04-Feb-11
Van/TX 04-Feb-11
Lech 04-Feb-11
rraming 04-Feb-11
Stumpkiller 04-Feb-11
Coop 04-Feb-11
Stumpkiller 04-Feb-11
Lech 04-Feb-11
Quiet Man 04-Feb-11
Sapcut 04-Feb-11
Bigo 04-Feb-11
Coop 04-Feb-11
Bigo 04-Feb-11
Buzz 04-Feb-11
mikieg 04-Feb-11
ButchMo 04-Feb-11
kwikdraw 05-Feb-11
goldentrout_one 05-Feb-11
Al 05-Feb-11
Sapcut 05-Feb-11
Lech 05-Feb-11
Sapcut 05-Feb-11
LH 05-Feb-11
Whittler 05-Feb-11
MP1SG 05-Feb-11
upnorth 05-Feb-11
Bowmania 05-Feb-11
MP1SG 05-Feb-11
MP1SG 05-Feb-11
DCM 05-Feb-11
moosenelson 05-Feb-11
Al 05-Feb-11
JRW 05-Feb-11
cjgregory 05-Feb-11
cjgregory 05-Feb-11
cjgregory 05-Feb-11
Bob 05-Feb-11
KyPhil 05-Feb-11
JRW 05-Feb-11
Sapcut 05-Feb-11
Njord 05-Feb-11
cjgregory 05-Feb-11
Sapcut 05-Feb-11
cjgregory 05-Feb-11
Van/TX 05-Feb-11
cjgregory 05-Feb-11
Van/TX 05-Feb-11
Phil Magistro 05-Feb-11
Rocky 05-Feb-11
ishoot4thrills 05-Feb-11
Bill Stapleton 05-Feb-11
Ravenhood 05-Feb-11
SteveBNY 05-Feb-11
cjgregory 05-Feb-11
boone59 05-Feb-11
cjgregory 05-Feb-11
Bill Stapleton 05-Feb-11
Slayer 05-Feb-11
Scrub_buck 05-Feb-11
Bill Stapleton 05-Feb-11
TRS 05-Feb-11
Sapcut 05-Feb-11
Van/TX 05-Feb-11
ishoot4thrills 05-Feb-11
Njord 05-Feb-11
Sapcut 05-Feb-11
Coop 05-Feb-11
Bob 05-Feb-11
Al 05-Feb-11
Van/TX 05-Feb-11
Bill Stapleton 05-Feb-11
Van/TX 05-Feb-11
Bill Stapleton 05-Feb-11
cjgregory 06-Feb-11
deerdander 06-Feb-11
Al 06-Feb-11
Van/TX 06-Feb-11
Choctaw 06-Feb-11
Elkhuntr 06-Feb-11
Van/TX 06-Feb-11
PORTAGEMA3 06-Feb-11
13kodiak 06-Feb-11
Slayer 06-Feb-11
howler 06-Feb-11
Njord 06-Feb-11
Bill Stapleton 06-Feb-11
13kodiak 06-Feb-11
Sapcut 06-Feb-11
David Alford 06-Feb-11
David Alford 06-Feb-11
Jeff Roark 06-Feb-11
Stickbow37 06-Feb-11
Sapcut 06-Feb-11
David Alford 06-Feb-11
David Alford 06-Feb-11
Njord 06-Feb-11
13kodiak 06-Feb-11
Van/TX 06-Feb-11
ButchMo 06-Feb-11
David Alford 06-Feb-11
David Alford 06-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 06-Feb-11
TRS 06-Feb-11
ButchMo 06-Feb-11
Van/TX 06-Feb-11
Bill Stapleton 06-Feb-11
David Alford 06-Feb-11
specklebellies 06-Feb-11
ButchMo 06-Feb-11
Bill Stapleton 06-Feb-11
Van/TX 06-Feb-11
Bill Stapleton 06-Feb-11
buster v davenport 07-Feb-11
Stan 07-Feb-11
Van/TX 07-Feb-11
buster v davenport 07-Feb-11
Sapcut 07-Feb-11
buster v davenport 07-Feb-11
umich1 07-Feb-11
umich1 07-Feb-11
umich1 07-Feb-11
Bill Stapleton 07-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 07-Feb-11
Slayer 07-Feb-11
David Alford 07-Feb-11
PineLander 09-Feb-11
Stan 09-Feb-11
cjgregory 09-Feb-11
Stan 09-Feb-11
PineLander 09-Feb-11
Purdue 09-Feb-11
PineLander 09-Feb-11
BOW-HO 09-Feb-11
Van/TX 09-Feb-11
Van/TX 09-Feb-11
Purdue 09-Feb-11
Njord 09-Feb-11
Van/TX 09-Feb-11
Stan 09-Feb-11
cjgregory 09-Feb-11
Van/TX 09-Feb-11
Van/TX 09-Feb-11
Van/TX 09-Feb-11
Stringham 09-Feb-11
Ravenhood 09-Feb-11
buster v davenport 09-Feb-11
David Alford 09-Feb-11
Van/TX 09-Feb-11
cjgregory 09-Feb-11
BAbassangler 09-Feb-11
Njord 09-Feb-11
Van/TX 09-Feb-11
cjgregory 09-Feb-11
Van/TX 09-Feb-11
BAbassangler 09-Feb-11
bowhunt 10-Feb-11
PineLander 10-Feb-11
Dugga Bull 10-Feb-11
Njord 10-Feb-11
Greg 10-Feb-11
Dugga Bull 10-Feb-11
Stan 10-Feb-11
Dugga Bull 10-Feb-11
badger 10-Feb-11
badger 10-Feb-11
Stan 10-Feb-11
Dugga Bull 10-Feb-11
badger 10-Feb-11
Stan 10-Feb-11
bowhunt 10-Feb-11
Stan 10-Feb-11
bowyer45 10-Feb-11
badger 10-Feb-11
cjgregory 10-Feb-11
cjgregory 10-Feb-11
George D. Stout 10-Feb-11
badger 10-Feb-11
Stan 10-Feb-11
badger 10-Feb-11
Ravenhood 10-Feb-11
badger 10-Feb-11
cjgregory 10-Feb-11
Van/TX 10-Feb-11
Jeff Roark 10-Feb-11
Jeff Roark 10-Feb-11
PineLander 10-Feb-11
buster v davenport 10-Feb-11
ButchMo 10-Feb-11
buster v davenport 10-Feb-11
DenTradshooter 11-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 11-Feb-11
PineLander 11-Feb-11
Stan 11-Feb-11
Sapcut 11-Feb-11
Sapcut 11-Feb-11
cjgregory 11-Feb-11
GLF 11-Feb-11
GLF 11-Feb-11
upnorth 11-Feb-11
Sapcut 11-Feb-11
Stan 11-Feb-11
Jeff Roark 11-Feb-11
Sapcut 11-Feb-11
Sapcut 11-Feb-11
Jeff Roark 11-Feb-11
cjgregory 11-Feb-11
ButchMo 11-Feb-11
cjgregory 11-Feb-11
Sapcut 11-Feb-11
Jeff Roark 11-Feb-11
Van/TX 11-Feb-11
paul craig 11-Feb-11
badger 11-Feb-11
bwshooter 11-Feb-11
Sapcut 11-Feb-11
ButchMo 11-Feb-11
badger 11-Feb-11
Dugga Bull 12-Feb-11
Dugga Bull 12-Feb-11
Purdue 12-Feb-11
Purdue 12-Feb-11
badger 12-Feb-11
Purdue 12-Feb-11
cjgregory 12-Feb-11
badger 12-Feb-11
Purdue 12-Feb-11
badger 12-Feb-11
English Setter 12-Feb-11
English Setter 12-Feb-11
ButchMo 12-Feb-11
PineLander 12-Feb-11
PineLander 12-Feb-11
Dugga Bull 12-Feb-11
Dugga Bull 12-Feb-11
cjgregory 12-Feb-11
David Alford 12-Feb-11
FishHead 12-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 12-Feb-11
badger 12-Feb-11
Van/TX 12-Feb-11
English Setter 12-Feb-11
PineLander 13-Feb-11
cjgregory 13-Feb-11
David Alford 13-Feb-11
Sapcut 13-Feb-11
upnorth 13-Feb-11
Van/TX 13-Feb-11
badger 13-Feb-11
Van/TX 13-Feb-11
badger 13-Feb-11
Purdue 13-Feb-11
Van/TX 13-Feb-11
David Alford 13-Feb-11
Sapcut 13-Feb-11
cjgregory 13-Feb-11
Sapcut 13-Feb-11
Van/TX 13-Feb-11
Sapcut 13-Feb-11
cjgregory 13-Feb-11
buster v davenport 13-Feb-11
808grapplemonkey 14-Feb-11
808grapplemonkey 14-Feb-11
Sapcut 14-Feb-11
Esquire 14-Feb-11
JRW 14-Feb-11
upnorth 14-Feb-11
808grapplemonkey 14-Feb-11
Stan 14-Feb-11
Stan 14-Feb-11
JRW 14-Feb-11
bowhunt 14-Feb-11
Henry McCann 14-Feb-11
bowhunt 14-Feb-11
upnorth 14-Feb-11
Njord 14-Feb-11
PineLander 14-Feb-11
bowhunt 14-Feb-11
cjgregory 14-Feb-11
buster v davenport 14-Feb-11
Sapcut 14-Feb-11
808grapplemonkey 14-Feb-11
Onesock 14-Feb-11
Van/TX 14-Feb-11
Van/TX 14-Feb-11
GLF 14-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 14-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 14-Feb-11
David Alford 14-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 14-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 14-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 14-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 14-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 14-Feb-11
DenTradshooter 14-Feb-11
David Alford 14-Feb-11
808grapplemonkey 14-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 14-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 14-Feb-11
Sapcut 14-Feb-11
David Alford 15-Feb-11
GLF 15-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 15-Feb-11
upnorth 15-Feb-11
Henry McCann 15-Feb-11
Slowtacktoo 15-Feb-11
Murphy's Law 15-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
Stan 16-Feb-11
Stan 16-Feb-11
PineLander 16-Feb-11
Henry McCann 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
Sapcut 16-Feb-11
Sapcut 16-Feb-11
Sapcut 16-Feb-11
Sapcut 16-Feb-11
Sapcut 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
cjgregory 16-Feb-11
Sapcut 16-Feb-11
PineLander 17-Feb-11
PineLander 17-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 17-Feb-11
cjgregory 17-Feb-11
cjgregory 17-Feb-11
Purdue 17-Feb-11
cjgregory 17-Feb-11
slade 17-Feb-11
PineLander 17-Feb-11
sleepyhunter 17-Feb-11
Savage 17-Feb-11
Sapcut 17-Feb-11
PineLander 17-Feb-11
upnorth 17-Feb-11
JRW 17-Feb-11
PineLander 17-Feb-11
Stik_Bow87 17-Feb-11
Henry McCann 17-Feb-11
808grapplemonkey 17-Feb-11
Sapcut 17-Feb-11
Van/TX 17-Feb-11
cjgregory 17-Feb-11
PineLander 17-Feb-11
Paintedsticks 17-Feb-11
specklebellies 17-Feb-11
Sapcut 17-Feb-11
808grapplemonkey 17-Feb-11
808grapplemonkey 18-Feb-11
PineLander 18-Feb-11
cjgregory 18-Feb-11
upnorth 18-Feb-11
PineLander 18-Feb-11
Paintedsticks 18-Feb-11
808grapplemonkey 18-Feb-11
Dream Catcher@work 19-Feb-11
cjgregory 19-Feb-11
Purdue 19-Feb-11
cjgregory 19-Feb-11
Van/TX 19-Feb-11
Van/TX 19-Feb-11
harlen 19-Feb-11
welshman 20-Feb-11
Zipperin' 20-Feb-11
ironmike 20-Feb-11
From: Bowmania Professional Bowhunters Society - Qualified Member Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 04-Feb-11




Let me start by saying I love the test and My attention span will not allow me to read through 200+ posts. This may have been discussed and I don't know if this is correct, but I suspect it is.

First of all there's not a big difference in the penetration between arrows. And the only thing that I see OSB could have played with is the sharpness of the field point and I'm sure he would not have done that. SO does that mean that all this heavy arrow stuff is a load of crap.

I suspect not. OSB's test is good for 10 yards. Would he get the same results at 15 or 20. THat's where I think the heavy arrow would take over. A heavy arrow will loose it's speed at a slower rate than a light fast arrow. So that somewhere (?) after 10 yards the heavy arrow will out penetrate the light arrow.

Will that get me to shoot a heavy arrow. NOT at a whitetail. You just can't be as accurate with a heavy arrow as a light one. "Well, I never shoot over 20 yards." Well, when you miss that drop tine at 23 yards you may be wishing you were shooting a 400 grain arrow instead of 600. It's not hard to double lung a whitetail, even if he's over 200 lbs.b I'm putting that drop tine on the wall if he's at 30 and a little.

If this was mentioned in post 189 on OSB's thread, "never mind"!

Bowmania

From: upnorth
Date: 04-Feb-11




i loved reading that post . that was shot at my shop and the compound was me shooting . when i get into this with the compound guys they give me the same thing i should be shooting a heavier arrow . in my situtation i beleive i have more then enough killing force in my bow for about anything in north america except maybe a walrus.what ive found over the years on this topic the best thing to do is not to play .but im with ken on one thing i beleive its not as much on what you shoot as it is to where you place the arrow .you guys play nice now .

From: Van/TX
Date: 04-Feb-11




So, compounders think more K.E. equals more penetration? Why would they think that?...Van

From: JJB Professional Bowhunters Society - Associate Member
Date: 04-Feb-11




Because the laws of physics don't change because someone shot at gel in their backyard or local range. Momentum is a better indicator of penetration than KE but principals are similar. Projectile weight impacts penetration if all other variables are constant - broadhead design, sharpness, nature of edge, arrow material, arrow diameter, etc. - shoot two set-ups that are IDENTICAL with the ONLY exception being arrow weight. If that experiement was conducted using the same medium, the heavier arrow would penetrate further, period.

From: goldentrout_one
Date: 04-Feb-11




What JJB said.

Momentum (mass x velocity) is a measurement of the tendency of a body to stay in motion, as explained to me in my physics class at UCLA (go Bruins!). In other words, given two objects in motion, the one with the higher momentum will require a greater amount of FORCE (mass X acceleration) to bring the object to a stop (i.e., bring the momentum to zero).

I would be curious to see an estimate of the relative momentum of all of the arrows. I suspect that momentum would be the best predictor of which arrow penetrated the best. Assuming, of course, that all arrows were the same diameter and the coefficient of friction of the shaft was the same.

I wonder if there is some property of the phone book and/or ballistic gel that allows it to impart more FORCE on a heavier, slower-moving object? Just a thought. Still, doesn't change the results of the test - after all, penetration is penetration.

From: ButchMo
Date: 04-Feb-11




JJB, "If that experiement was conducted using the same medium, the heavier arrow would penetrate further, period." I'm really not trying to start anything. I kind of agree with you but, how do you know? A lot of problems arise when people use terms like "heavy arrow" & "light arrow". Nobody bothers to mention what is heavy & what is light. When talking light arrows, to some people, that means 375grns. To some people it means 500grns. Same with heavy. For some 500grns. is heavy While for some, 1200 is heavy. Sooner or later, you're going to get to a point of diminishing returns on both heavy & light. Till that is figured out, for me, this is all conjecture.

Butch

From: Sapcut
Date: 04-Feb-11




"What JJB said."

What goldentrout_one said!

"Momentum (mass x velocity) is a measurement of the tendency of a body to stay in motion, as explained to me in my physics class at UCLA (go Bruins!)."

Me too at Auburn War Eagle!!

In other words, given two objects in motion, the one with the higher momentum will require a greater amount of FORCE (mass X acceleration) to bring the object to a stop (i.e., bring the momentum to zero)."

Can you say....Cam Newton!

The cornerback at Oregon knows the meaning of momentum.

"Still, doesn't change the results of the test - after all, penetration is penetration."

The penetration in gelatin is penetration in gelatin.

The penetration in gelatin is NOT the penetration in an animal.

3 arrows in 10 minutes is not 1000's in 27 years.

From: goldentrout_one
Date: 04-Feb-11




Just did the calc:

Carbon Tech: 349gr, avg. velocity 214.3 fps, Momentum: 74,790.7

Carbon Tech w/weight tube: 539gr, avg. velocity 178.3 fps, Momentum: 96,103.7

Goldtip: 562gr, avg. velocity 174 fps, Momentum: 97,788

If these numbers are correct, then momentum is not a good predictor of penetration for OSB's test. For sure, the test medium MUST impart a greater force to stop the heavier arrows, since they have greater momentum - nonetheless, the lighter arrows seem to penetrate more! Maybe the higher velocity results in a lower friction coefficient between the arrow shaft and the test medium? Very curious...

I would be curious to see this test using GREASED ARROWS! Just for kicks...

From: Van/TX
Date: 04-Feb-11




Lord have mercy. Where else can you have this kind of quality intertainment free of charge ;-)...Van

From: Van/TX
Date: 04-Feb-11




From: Lech
Date: 04-Feb-11




"shoot two set-ups that are IDENTICAL with the ONLY exception being arrow weight"

This statement is only correct when you are talking about arrows and and speed. The variable is you and your bow. If OSB's bow could shoot the heavier arrow at the same speed as the light arrow this would be true.

I STILL WANT TO KNOW THE PERFECT WEIGHT ARROW FOR A 65 POUND RECURVE AT 25 YARDS.

From: rraming Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 04-Feb-11




Good Grief!

From: Stumpkiller
Date: 04-Feb-11




My wood arrows work out at about 600 grains and I can't shoot any lighter (30-1/2" BOP w/125 gr head 1-1/8" wide single blade, I draw 30" to 61#). Luckily and apparantly by coincedence the last two deer I shot: one arrow hung up at the fletch and the other blew through hard enough to shatter on a root behind the deer. The deer before that I did not get an exit - but that was a quartering frontal at ground level and the head split a rib and ended up in the liver and tore it to shreads as the deer ran . . . all of 35 yards.

Sorry I don't have any ballistic gel to shoot at.

From: Coop
Date: 04-Feb-11




Really interesting reading, for whatever side you take. Heck I don't even know what side I take now! lol

In other words, given two objects in motion, the one with the higher momentum will require a greater amount of FORCE (mass X acceleration) to bring the object to a stop (i.e., bring the momentum to zero)."

Quote:"Can you say....Cam Newton!

The cornerback at Oregon knows the meaning of momentum.

"Still, doesn't change the results of the test - after all, penetration is penetration."

The penetration in gelatin is penetration in gelatin.

The penetration in gelatin is NOT the penetration in an animal."

So Newtons law is solid EXCEPT for on gelation?

After all of this my head is hurting, but I kinda gotta think that I agree with OSB on this if both arrows are flying straight. "whatever penetrating energy you lose by going lighter - you gain by going faster and vice/versa - it ends up being pretty much a horse a piece."

From: Stumpkiller
Date: 04-Feb-11




I'd go with that. I'd also say no matter what you use you have to have 100% confidence in the shot and the arrow's ability to do it's job once it gets there.

We could also add a 1/8" twig in front of the arrows and see if the mass of the heavier shaft is an advantage to down-range performance.

From: Lech
Date: 04-Feb-11




well said coop

From: Quiet Man
Date: 04-Feb-11




Foot pounds of energy tells a lot about your set up, you know when you are starting to get a less efficient set up. www.reloadammo.com/footpound2.htm

From: Sapcut
Date: 04-Feb-11




Coop,

"Quote:"Can you say....Cam Newton!"

I didn't say Sir Isaac Newton....

Cam Newton is the Heisman Quarterback for Auburn University. He is 6'6" and 250 lbs.

The smaller and lighter defensive back that Cam commonly runs over has no problem understanding the concept of momentum.

From: Bigo
Date: 04-Feb-11




I'm waiting for a video as good as ken's video to show me that heavier,slower arrows will penetrate best.

Osb seems to have a perfect shooting technique. the results are the results.

the most important quality to a scientific theory is to be questionnable.

lt's do some test and see by ourselves.

max

From: Coop
Date: 04-Feb-11




I guess the bottom line for me is this, with my present setup I guess I'd fall in the medium catagory. I've read and been told by alot of folks that my arrows are too light I need to bump them up to atleast 10grains per lb. To do that if memory serves me correctly I'd have to add 60 grains. Now I use pieces of 8/32" bolt to add weight to my arrows so take and cut two pieces of bolt, one weighing 20 grains and the other 60 grains. Now after closing your eyes hold your hands palm up out in front of you while a friend places each piece in each hand. Dollars to donuts you can't tell the difference if you don't look. So it's just hard for me to imagine that 60 grains of weight traveling at 185 fps is gona make that much difference. With all that said with the last 15 kills I can't recall a single arrow not laying or sticking in the ground on the other side or just barely hanging out the other side and it falls out after step or two depending on whether it got some front leg meat. So I don't see me changing my setup to go lighter or heavier.

From: Bigo
Date: 04-Feb-11




by the way I wanted to thanks OSB for the time he putted on this video. I love to see peoples looking foward and trying to make things evolving.

max

From: Buzz
Date: 04-Feb-11




"I was told there would be no math."

From: mikieg
Date: 04-Feb-11




it a proper broadhead will penetrate 2 layers of elk hids at under 2# pressure, then it wont take mush arrow weight to do the job with same broadhead. the whole weight thing gets pretty pointless when proper broadheads are applied.

From: ButchMo
Date: 04-Feb-11




Somebody shows a video that he worked hard at & proves his point. Do you congratulate him? Do you say "well maybe I was wrong"? OSB said he was surprised the light arrow didn't penetrate as much as he thought. Give him credit where it's due? No. You still say heavier is better. No proof but, that's still what you think. OSB was rode pretty hard to put his money where his mouth is. And, he did.Maybe it's time you did the same. I've met knot headed people in my life but, some of you folks take the cake. Butch

From: kwikdraw
Date: 05-Feb-11




What Butch said!

From: goldentrout_one
Date: 05-Feb-11




Without a doubt, the arrow with the most momentum (generally the heavier arrow) will require more FORCE to stop. I would think that would predict penetration, but apparently there are more forces at work than just momentum.

My guess is that at higher velocities the test medium interacts with the arrow differently, i.e., the frictional resistance or tip resistance is reduced enough to compensate for the lower momentum.

For my job we sometimes perform something called a Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT), where we push a long, slender "cone" into the earth with a hydraulic ram, sometimes as much as 150 feet into the ground. There are strain gauges located in the tip and on the sides of the cone - we can measure the TIP RESISTANCE and the SIDE FRICTION (both in units of force/area, typically tons per square foot or MPka). This data is used to determine what kind of soil is present (clay, sand, etc.).

Similarly, I suspect that there are TWO forces acting on the arrow - the side friction and the tip resistance. What must be occurring is the the STRAIN RATE (the rate at which the shearing of material is taking place) must influence the strength of the material. The higher the rate of shearing, the weaker the material is. This phenomena can be observed with SOIL, which we test in our laboratory to gauge the strength of soil deposits. HOWEVER, it is typically observed that soils generally have higher strength at higher strain rates (we can control the strain rate with our equipment) - the opposite of what OSB observed. Of course, soil is not the same as a phone book or ballistic gel, and it's certainly not a deer!

Total speculation though, but sounds good to me. Sorry about the nerd-fest boys... This will be my last post on this subject.

From: Al
Date: 05-Feb-11




Thanks for taking the time to do the video. Interesting to say the least. My thought has always been if you hit no bone most any weight will penetrate. How about taking a 1 1/2 X 8 X 12 patio block and shooting the same arrows at 10 yds and seeing if any will break the block. Bone crushing power or knock down power. None the less great video.

From: Sapcut
Date: 05-Feb-11




"You still say heavier is better. No proof but, that's still what you think."

No proof? Apparently because there aren't 27 years of videos to document the published Ashby report, now it is no proof?

If anything is proof of what the best penetrating arrow setup is....It is the Ashby reports, without a doubt. Not anything, anywhere that only consists of a few hours and a few minutes if proof.

You guys are delusional if you think that video is proof of anything, especially concerning hunting animals.

From: Lech
Date: 05-Feb-11




Sapcut did ashby test light arrow?

From: Sapcut
Date: 05-Feb-11




Not sure how light but he did some testing. I know he did early on with a compound and it did not do as well as a heavier arrow from a longbow when shooting into zebras.

As specific as he could, he found what he refers to as the heavy bone threshold weight of 650 grains. So anything lighter didn't do too well in any consistent manner at penetrating bones in his testing.

I will look for more specifics.

From: LH
Date: 05-Feb-11




several years ago I shot different weight arrows through a chrono w/ compound. At 3 feet and then again at 60 yards. The first arrow was 400 grains the second was 530 grains. If I remember correctly the heavier arrow was slightly faster at 60 yards. LH

From: Whittler
Date: 05-Feb-11




OSB, thank you for the video I enjoyed it. I thought it was very well done and HE DID prove his point (no pun intended). I shoot what works the best for me, I do stay in the 8gr to 10gr for arrow weight so I don't damage my bow.

Do I worry about if my arrow is heavey enough, no. As long as the arrow flies good and stright, and a sharp broad, it will do it's job.

Thank you abain OSB you did a very good job.

From: MP1SG
Date: 05-Feb-11




"For my job we sometimes perform something called a Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT), where we push a long, slender "cone" into the earth with a hydraulic ram, sometimes as much as 150 feet into the ground. There are strain gauges located in the tip and on the sides of the cone - we can measure the TIP RESISTANCE and the SIDE FRICTION (both in units of force/area, typically tons per square foot or MPka). This data is used to determine what kind of soil is present (clay, sand, etc.). "

This is the coolest lesson I have had in years! Thank you. IMO a small diameter arrow with a cut on contact tip will penetrate farther than a large diameter arrow with same weight, same tip, shot out of the same bow in exactly the same manner.

Friction/resistance is the enemy.

From: upnorth
Date: 05-Feb-11




ok ill go . but i have cams not pulleys . i will tell you this has nothing to do with hunting unless you take it out there .kens indoor scores and consistency have gone up quit a bit since hes gone to the lighter faster arrow .plus when he shot the last two arrows the 349 and the 1795 at 20 yards and the lighter one had about 1 inch more penetartion the heavier one had 25 pct more surface area .im gone

From: Bowmania Professional Bowhunters Society - Qualified Member Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 05-Feb-11




The main difference between Ashby and OSB - field point vs broadheads. Get to work Ken. Could it be that the world is flat???

Bowmania

From: MP1SG
Date: 05-Feb-11




A faster arrow has less arc (shoots flatter) so less variation in hold from 10 to 20 yards.

If you are shooting cams are they not faster than wheels and trad bows of the same poundage? You likely have only one pin for 20 yards and under whereas us slower modeled shooters that us pins may have a 10 or even 15 yard pin.

From: MP1SG
Date: 05-Feb-11




I meant to type "that use pins" not "that us pins"

Fat fingers.

From: DCM
Date: 05-Feb-11




Haven't read all the posts but have kept up with the saga, even before it was OSB carrying the torch. OSB should be applauded for his testing and advocacy.

While I agree in principle with his argument, were this question (KE vs P) for penetration accurately/adequately tested (scientific, controlled, blind tested), as it has been in practice for millinia and in the lab the last couple centuries, extra P w/ same KE (what's really being tested, or should be) will always prove a benefit in doing work (penetration). And it's simply the nature of physics of a trad bow to impart more P w/ relatively the same KE given increase in arrow mass, a fact not disputed. In this case irrelevant almost certainly, when weighed against the relative value of trajectory for the range of our typical purposes and application, and certainly hard to demonstrate via testing.

While I know where this puts me, swimming upstream more or less of common opinion, I see both the Jack Howard and these tests as being of great value in a practical sense, but draw the wrong conclusion from a purely academic, scientific, theoretical, pov.

From: moosenelson
Date: 05-Feb-11




What happened to all the vitriol? OSB tests his theory and states the facts, good or bad. The guys who were calling OSB names have once again shown their true character. During the first go arounds when they had a crowd of like minded people, they played the fool, mocking and deriding him for having a different opinion.

As to his video test results vs. 27 years: Time and numbers of tests do not determine accuracy of said results. Repeatability is what is important. If Ashby and OSB could either collaborate or run the other guys tests with arrows tuned to bows then we may have the best of both worlds.

As for me, I think that: 1)accuracy kills more animals than arrow weight. 2)inaccuracy wounds more animals than light arrows.

I chose arrows that give me the best chance to kill. The single greatest factor affecting my kill ratio is accuracy and lighter arrows arc less and therefore are more accurate.

If OSB, Ashby and others continue to test arrow penetration, we will all learn more. If Sapcut and others just wanna eliminate opposing opinions, we will not learn anything new.

From: Al
Date: 05-Feb-11




After more thought I would question the test. The jell substance has X amount of elasticity which will spring back once a hole is punched. Since the elasticity is a constant in the jell the faster arrow will penetrate farther having nothing to do with momentum or inertia, just plain old speed.

From: JRW
Date: 05-Feb-11




Ken,

Here's another idea for a test that may be right up your alley, and it won't cost you $40 a pop for blocks of balistic gel.

It's been said that, all else being equal, an arrow with EFOC will fly flatter than one with normal FOC.

It's also been stated that an EFOC arrow will fly flatter than a normal FOC arrow weighing 150 grains less in weight (i.e. heavier EFOC will fly flatter than lighter normal FOC).

Since I questioned both claims when they were made, only to find out that no one had actually tested them, I decided to test them for myself at distances out to 40 yards (the furthest I can shoot indoors). I'm curious if your finding would be the same as mine.

From: cjgregory
Date: 05-Feb-11




You are correct goldentrout. The test was not indicative of the laws of physics. A 365 gr. arrow and the 1300 gr arrow should show that. Keep in mind that we are still dealing with very low velocities and mass differences.

The test is intellectually dishonest but not so on purpose by OSB.

From: cjgregory
Date: 05-Feb-11




"Hey bow - I did shoot at both mediums at 20 yards with the same results " OSB

If you say so. Just the phone book. The ballistic jell is not necessary. Keep backing up until the curves invert so that these guys don't get the idea that arrows proove the laws of the physical universe don't apply and that aerodynamics is a lie.

From: cjgregory
Date: 05-Feb-11




Ken,

I have never put the hammer to you in any way, ever. I am not your enemy nor do I intend to be. Your test is intellectually dishonest as it pertains to physics. My only purpose to even participating at his point was to ensure that these men did not get the idea that your test was a test of physical law. It was set up to prove a point that was not carried far enough to give an authentic representation.

It is unwise to alienate a man who has enjoyed your posts and your contributions. You will treat me with respect at all times. I have done some testing. I will not debate with you. If I do set up a test It would be difficult as the difference between 365 gr. arrow and a 465 gr. arrow is pathetically insignificant. Nor was weight forward brought into the equation. I do understand physics as it is part of my daily job. Your test was set up to somehow win a silly debate that I did not participate in. I saw a 750 gr. arrow (not mine) that passed lengthwise through a bull elk and more than half stuck out the front shoulder. Density differentials through an animal also come into play. Honestly, I don't care about Ashby or his tests. Neither am I a deer hunter. Haven't even shot at a deer in over 15 years. I have a different game than you.

Please do not pretend that you do not know that your test was not flawed. Do not treat me as one of your Ashby debate opponents again. I absolutely know for a fact that a light 300 fps arrow will not penetrate as far on an elk because I have eyes and a mind and have observed it over and over every year. Heck theres a pig video right on this site that shows two guys shooting two pigs, within ten yards with the arrows going barely half way in from compounds doing close to 300 fps. Let me try that shot and I guarantee to get the broadhead out the opposite side.

From: Bob Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 05-Feb-11




sapcut wrote: "The penetration in gelatin is NOT the penetration in an animal. 3 arrows in 10 minutes is not 1000's in 27 years."

The "1000's in 27 years" only has meaning if meaninful measurements were taken. This passes along no knowledge about the relative performance of two arrows of different weight.

OSB's video does pass along that information. And, even better, OSB specified that his tests were not scientific. That's correct. They do give us some interesting information.

Here's what his tests conveyed to myself: (1) there probably is not much difference between relatively heavy and light arrows (2) the old line conventinal thinking of traditional archers about the virtues of heavy arrows has not really demonstrated (3) therefore, I personally would rather have a relatively lighter arrow with higher velosity to keep the trajectory flatter than would be the case using a heavier arrow (4) even argument # 3 is not a philosphy to live by because at most hunting distances there is relatively minor differences in arrow drop between the heavy and ligher arrows.

From: KyPhil
Date: 05-Feb-11




Where are all you guys that bashed and name called OSB in other threads over this. He got laughed at and teased, called an idiot and he is the only one that decided to do his own penetration test. OSB is just a guy who doesn't take everything he reads as truth and decides to find out for himself.

It doesn't matter the outcome was of what he did, just that he did it when so many people gave him a hard time about it. I even noticed that in other threads he could even post about something that wasn't even related to penetration and he still got jokes made about the phone books. At least he tried to inform himself instead of just being a sheep and following.

Not saying that ashby or OSB is right wrong or vise versa, just that he doesn't believe everything he reads and wants to know for himself.

From: JRW
Date: 05-Feb-11




Ken,

I have ICS shafts in 400, 340, and 300 spines. If you'd like, I'd be happy to mail you a couple of each to test.

What did I find out? Let's just say that EFOC doesn't exactly defy that laws of gravity. :)

From: Sapcut
Date: 05-Feb-11




Moosenelson,

"If Sapcut and others just wanna eliminate opposing opinions, we will not learn anything new."

You are correct. If I imply I am trying to eliminate another's opinion I am completely wrong. I do not intend, nor have I done that.

Not that he has an opinion. That is how we all learn.

Since you mention me...

"During the first go arounds when they had a crowd of like minded people, they played the fool, mocking and deriding him for having a different opinion."

I certainly don't mind opinions. My problem is an derogatory opinion without anything to back it up.

OSB has very strongly debated the comprehensive work of the Asbhy reports saying they are "wrong". He has done that with absolutley nothing that compares to the details of the Ashby reports. That is what I am calling out. That has been my point from day one....and still is.

From: Njord
Date: 05-Feb-11




The real point should be that OSB's tests do not contain a statistically significant ammount of shots. Nothing can be concluded, except that there is not a gross difference. Hundereds of shots need to be compiled and averaged before anything is KNOWN!. It was a good effort, however there were variables that I saw that were not controlled.

From: cjgregory
Date: 05-Feb-11




I will make a deal with you and all can participate. I will do the test with a phone book. I will continue to back up and when the curves cross, no matter what that yardage is...it's done and this debate is over.

It will cost you your bow. My silvertip against yours. A straight exchange of hands. I will use an arrow in the 350 gr. class and one over 700 Gr. They will probably not be the same diameter. I will use the same shape broadhead on it and shoot it into a Denver phone book. If the heavier arrow penetrates deeper at any distance between 10 and 40 yards it's over.

Deal?

From: Sapcut
Date: 05-Feb-11




"The "1000's in 27 years" only has meaning if meaninful measurements were taken. This passes along no knowledge about the relative performance of two arrows of different weight."

If you think because the Ashby work was not on video then it is meaningless, then we are certainly on different levels of thinking.

From: cjgregory
Date: 05-Feb-11




Do we have a deal or not? I want you to say so on this site. I just did it in my basement with a GT 5575 and a 2219. If I film it and post it here...pack your bow up. I used two 150 gr stingers by the way.

I do not agree with the same FOCs, lenghts or any of what you did. That's a loaded test as initial velosity comes into play. The idea here is to use the same bow. That is the only criteria.

From: Van/TX
Date: 05-Feb-11




It seems pretty simple to me. I don't see a problem with any of these tests.

OSB's test = Jack Howards test

Pat Lefemines test = Ed Ashby's test

http://bowsite.com/BOWSITE/features/articles/equipment/penetration/

From: cjgregory
Date: 05-Feb-11




I dissagree with the idea that it was indicative of a guy using a lighter arrow vs. a heavier arrow Van. The same FOCs, lengths etc. is not how the real world works. The test was very well done but it does not show the differences in penetration. Taper shafts, smaller dia shafts, all these things change a laboratory test. What changes in the application for the ordinary man is what gets through the animal. A heavier arrow of any significance is going to have a different diameter or different FOC.

If someone says that it has to be the same FOC then they must also be willing to admit at least some of Ashby's findings as valid. FOC and weight DO come into play. Even the early english archer knew this. Ashby's findings were based upon the relationship between total weight and FOC. Even though I am not going to use a 1300 gr. arrow I have to admit the legitimacy of at least some of his findings in actual application.

You put a darn arrow in a bow with a broadhead on it and you shoot it. The only thing that has to be the same is the bow and a reasonbly consistant draw length for both the light arrow and the heavier arrow. NOthing else should be equal. This is about what a hunter decides to go buy and put in his bow. That's what Ashby was talking about.

From: Van/TX
Date: 05-Feb-11




cj, not sure what test you are referring too. There's so many of them ;-)

"A heavier arrow of any significance is going to have a different diameter or different FOC."

Pat used a 2018 @ around 1000 grains. That's pretty skinny.

"This is about what a hunter decides to go buy and put in his bow."

To me is just plain old penetration tests in different material. I find them all interesting...Van

From: Phil Magistro
Date: 05-Feb-11




While I enjoy reading or watching tests like this they actually mean little to me beyond appreciating that someone would go to the lengths that they did to prove a point. I am always amazed at how much time folks will spend trying to defend one side or the other on this issue. It is very clear that the only thing any test proves is that if the exact same components are used on the exact same medium in the exact same way the results should be predictable. I find no need to apply equations or formulas to determine if a particular set up will work for the animals that I hunt.

Long ago I settled on the side that there are too many variables involved for any of us to see the exact same results in the field. Hit a rib or not hit a rib, penetration changes. Broadhead type influences penetration. Shorten draw and your power is lessened. A few yards more or less changes and there's another variable that changed.

My hunts are not in a controlled environment like these tests are conducted in.

From: Rocky
Date: 05-Feb-11




Just my 2 cents but I believe the medium you are shooting into has more influence over results them we are taking into consideration. Why do you think you need heavy solid arrows to penetrate water?

As for testing you can only get scientific results if the medium is exactly the same shot after shot. Meaning a new book for every shot or gel that has the same consistency shot after shot. Once and arrow is put into the medium everything changes and the results are skewered.

I shoot arrows from 1916 to 2020, carbon, wood, and fiberglass and at the distances most of us try to shoot deer the arrows do not drop that much and they usually blow right thru.

From: ishoot4thrills
Date: 05-Feb-11




Quoted by Bowmania at the beginning of this thread:

"You just can't be as accurate with a heavy arrow as a light one...."

That statement is bologna!

Accuracy is not affected by the weight of a properly spined arrow. Trajectory is affected but NOT accuracy. Although I would bet that a heavier arrow would be more accurate than a light arrow if there were any difference at all, but I can't prove that.

From: Bill Stapleton
Date: 05-Feb-11




OSB said:

"What about Jack Howards testing that had the same results as mine decades ago?" Really? Better read below bud. They're not my words but Jack Howards. Not my results but Jack Howards.

Jack Howard said:

"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 only comparison I see is that the lighter arrow out penetrated the heavy arrow. Anyone disagree with the findings of either test from either person? I DO NOT!! BUT...they are not the same results as claimed by OSB!!

Here's what I question;

1. Why does Jack's test show such great differences of light/ heavy arrows in penetration vs. OSB's (only 3/4 inch difference)test?

Think about that for a moment. I'm not bad mouthing OSB, I'm asking him a question. I could care less whose name is attached to either test. Jack's work even showed these differences in penetration with 3 different poundage bows. And his arrows were identicle in diameter too, for the sake of exactness...thought I think overall OSB's arrows were satisfactory, though not exact. Read it above or go back and find the article.

Here are some other questions:

2. What about the Easton Articles that were written on this that someone referenced in an earlier post and gave a link to? There's been no response yet from OSB or Dr. Ashby on those findings...findings that were published by the biggest arrow manufacturer in history.

3. If OSB's test is so similar to Jack Howards, then why the different results?

4. If OSB was aware of Jack Howards tests, why didn't he use compressed cardboard?

5. Why didn't Jack Howard use gelatin? They certainly had the gelatin back then, it was used quite extensively in military testing. Jack Howard didn't have access to today's carbons either, let alone the quality smooth finish these arrows have.

6. Why are OSB's and Jack Howards results so different that Dr. Ashby's?

Yes, Jack Howard and Dr. Ashby both have done extensive testing for their works. OSB shoots 6 arrows and he's given a pass by people because he said he'd do it. Big Deal!

Questions 1,3,6 are the most important to me. OSB, I liked your test for what it is, and I think you controlled things pretty well for the time involved. However, I hardly think you have the right to pat yourself so hard on the back for a measly 6 arrow test.

Don't you think it would be more fair to Jack Howard and Dr. Ashby to find out why the results are different? Or, at the very least acknowledge the differences instead of trying to lay claim to KING with a 6 arrow test vs. men who've spent countless hours testing. Wouldn't that be more helpful than outright saying Dr. Ashby's results are wrong, or boasting "I did it and I was right"?

Dr. Ashby is still workig on his tests, trying to find the why's...why's from results that even surpised him and busted his bubble of pre-concieved notions...that he humbly admitted he had. I could really care less what he finds, or what you may find should you choose to do more tests. More power to you.

I'll say this though, you keep obsessing over these things and you'll never be the shooter you want to be. You'll keep getting in your own way my friend.

I seen a guy spend $100 dollars one day trying to hit a 2" dot at 70yards in a 30MPH cross wind all to prove he could do it. He thought he had something to prove because some guys were trash talking. This guy actually started the trash talk but couldn't take the heat when he got to the line. I told that guy that day; "Your attitude gets in the way of where you keep saying you want to go. You'll never make it like that. Just shut up and shoot to beat your last arrow, that's all that matters...beat that last arrow."

That's what I told him. He was a heck of alot bigger than me too, but I didn't care. No, I didn't think about or even worry about getting in a fight with him. I can hold my own in that department...but I'm way past that too. I said it to make him think...to make him better because I knew he had the desire. He was already a great shot, but his mental game sucked. He was too worried about everybody else, what they were doing, and thought he had to prove he was a good shot. Heck, everyone already knew he was good, but I knew his weakness.

A few weeks later I heard he was looking for me. He found me and said he'd thought about what I'd said long and hard. He told me he appreciate those words and that he was going to forget trying to prove himself. Don't know if he ever quit trying to do that or not but I heard he's even better now than he was.

For those that may want to blast me and think I'm on Dr. Ashby's side...you should see my set-up...similar to OSB's...quite similar too. RE_READ THAT!!

Look OSB, in case you haven't noticed I think out of the box too. I tend to gravitate towards people that do. Which means I don't just jump on the band wagon OR jump off the boat, just because someone says jump. I sure liked your test and once again, comment you for it. However, IMHO if you're real honest with yourself and with the rest of us, the only real thing that you proved is that different variables yield different results AND that there's too many variables for each given test for a definitive answer, thus the reason for documented different finding, just like yours.

You folks look at this and ask yourself; WHY?:

OSB's --lighter arrow = more penetration with only 3/4 inch difference with a 40ish pound bow

J. Howard--lighter arrow = more penetratioin by 3 1/2 inches (40ish pound bow) more penetration with higher poundage bows.

Dr. Ashby's --lighter arrow but w/UEFOC (for a much HEAVIER total weight arrow) from a 40ish poundage bow (nearly identical to the 2 above) = more penetration.

The first 2 are similar yet different. Why?

The last is clear at the other end of the spectrum saying heavier (actually UEFOC). Why?

I don't think even Dr. Ashby can explain it yet so I know OSB hasn't explained it.

Even though I shoot lighter arrows I'm more interested in why UEFOC even seems to trump (in Ashby's own findings) an arrow whose weight is distributed throughout the shaft as in total mass weight.

I'm not interested in who's right. I'm interested in answers.

From: Ravenhood Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 05-Feb-11




OSB, I am still amazed at your bows performance. I just got done shooting through chrono, to get 215fps. with 350grs. I had to use 58.5# @ 29.75in. It is a big name high performance 60in. long recurve with 18 strand Fast Flight Plus Flemish string. With a 563gr. arrow it was 182fps. I had a mark on both arrows at 29.75in. and had my wife tell me whe to release. I think I need a new bow.

From: SteveBNY
Date: 05-Feb-11




"As for testing you can only get scientific results if the medium is exactly the same shot after shot. Meaning a new book for every shot or gel that has the same consistency shot after shot."

If that is used as a qualifier to discard OSB's test, then Ashby's are negated as well.

From: cjgregory
Date: 05-Feb-11




I agree Steve. Even in the really good test that OSB performed, if the same weight field tips were used and the lengths were the same...the lighter arrow has a higher FOC which supports Ashby and the ancient english archers, no matter how slight the FOC differential its a major determining factor.

I do believe that a lighter weight forward arrow will perform better in penetration tests than a parallel shaft of the approximate same weight as well. I have no need to perform any tests really. The only one I would do would be the one where I got to do a givaway on the site.

I do not hunt deer. Everything that is being shot by those here is more than adequate. I've heard that sickening sound as the broadhead hits the scapula on a mature bull. I didn't have the net to figure things out back then. I always assumed the faster the better. I'm over it. That being said I don't want to be under 190 fps. I like being able to be consistent at 40 yards.

From: boone59
Date: 05-Feb-11




the light arrow made more noise and a light arrow with flat trajectory is not more accurate if I shot a light arrow I would shoot 2ft over the spot at 20-25 yds. when your brain gets used to shooting a certain trajectory or fps it does not matter how fast or slow your arrow is going.

From: cjgregory
Date: 05-Feb-11




I have no wishes OSB. I have no vested interest. If they are the same length and same weight field tip. You have defied physical nature again. The lighter arrow would have the higher FOC. The field tip will lift the nock end of the lighter arrow higher.

This is not an argument for me Ken. I only wish to do a givaway with your bow. The offer still stands.

From: Bill Stapleton
Date: 05-Feb-11




OSB, if you'd stick to this arguement...

"By every test I have done - there is no benefit in penetration to using a heavier arrow - SO I WILL NOT WILL NOT SACRIFICE ANY ACCURACY JUST TO SAY THAT I AM SHOOTING A HEAVIER ARROW."

...if you'll stick to that...I'll buy it! One minute you make that arguement, for accuracys sake, then the next minute you're saying Ashby's findings are wrong, or thinking he's a kook...which isn't the same bud!! You seem wishy washy in your arguemnts.

From: Slayer
Date: 05-Feb-11




OSB - Thanks for doing the tests as you said, and the results show what you said. Good job.

For me this opens up a lot more questions. Why do you use a heavy hammer when driving a big nail? You're swinging both with the same arm. Or a heavier golf club to hit the ball farther? Would you rather a loaded dump truck at 10 mph hits your car or a prius at 30mph? Why does everyone I've ever read about use 1000gr + arrows to shoot elephants and other extremely large game?

I also have read and believe Ashby's tests. There are enough repetitions to be statistically accurate.

What I've seen in over 40 years of bowhunting is that heavier arrows penetrate better. The ranges of arrow weights I've used have run from about 350 - 780 grains.

Hey, I argued the light arrow thing for a while too. The a llot more animals, more arrows, more kills, convinced me heavier is better.

I don't know why your tests reveiled what they did. Would the same results show in other mediums - water, clean dry sand bags, ground meat ...

I don't think physics is wrong, though I suppose it could be. maybe your studies will re-write the history books. And we saw it here first!

From: Scrub_buck
Date: 05-Feb-11




Isn't this site great! I mean on the same website we have:

staggering arguments/discussions with arrow penetration

unbelieveable hunting stories of game killed by both heavy and light arrows shot with both heavy and light bows

you have the single bevel/double bevel broadhead arguments

you have the timeless arguments between 2,3,and 4 blade broadheads

the b-50 vs low stretch string material arguments

the baiting/no baiting srguments

carbon/aluminum/wood arrow arguments

folks concerned with modern bows/vintage bows performances

folks building, shooting,and killing game with thier own selfbows!

I never knew there would be so many things to argue about with a sport that is promoted as being beautifully simple!

From: Bill Stapleton
Date: 05-Feb-11




You've said currently and in the past a lighter arrow would penetrate more than a heavier arrow. You proved that with one simple test, I'll admit.

With your own words you said things didn't add up. You even did the math and it shouldn't have lied...but it did...didn't it? Yet you won't even question your own test as to why the math lied, which should tell you there's more than meets the eye... yet you'd rather stay saying "Hey boys I showed them...I proved my point".

I shoot 405 grain arrows out of a 47@ 29 1/4 Widow...and I think your test is good yet still young and standing on one leg. You, on the other hand, think it's the gospel truth and that you've proved someone wrong...like those who like the heavier arrows...even Ashby. Okay...it's your world.

You're welcome to shoot with me and share a campfire anytime OSB...I promise for your sake and mine I won't bring this up if you won't.

Have a good evening OSB!

From: TRS
Date: 05-Feb-11




I don't get it OSB. You talk about a test from a man you never met, skimed over his data at best, and then do a test that is "nothing" like his to disprove it.

This one FACT - you have posted bad things about him for the world to read; proves more about you than any test on paper and jello to me. How would you feel if someone you didn't know told you family how wrong and bad you are with 0 proff?

We all know a few things about archery and hunting.

1 - Sharp well placed arrow will kill your game.

2 - Bone is harder than flesh.

3- Field points do not penetrate like sharp broadheads.

Heres some gas for YOUR fire! If you have a problem being as acurate at yardage with heavy arrows you have either never taken the time to learn that skill-set or your form is not consistant enough to support accuracy at yardage with a heavy arrow. If a archer is compitant enough to tune his gear they can learn the skill sets with any bow arrow to shot many types of field and/or hunting set ups!

Pick your fights and know boby likes a yappy dog.

From: Sapcut
Date: 05-Feb-11




I'm posting results

http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/PR/Ashby_2005_Update_6.pdf

From: Van/TX
Date: 05-Feb-11




OK, let's recap.

1. Ashby's tests/studies favors heavier/slower/more momentum two blade broadhead arrows for animals.

2. Pat L.'s test favors heavier/slower/more momentum two blade broadhead arrows for plywood/foam.

3. OSB's test favors faster/lighter/less momentum field tip arrows for Balistic jel and phone books.

4. Jack Howards test favors faster/lighter/less momentum field tip arrows for compressed cardboard.

So what's the problem?

Here's a url for all of Ashby's studies in case anyone is interested. Pat's is on the Bowsite and OSB's is on this site.

http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/Dr.-Ed-Ashby-W26.aspx

I doubt we'll get Ed to test 47# recurve bows with field tips on a phone book.

I doubt we'll get OSB to test 94# longbows with 2 blade broadheads on dead buffalo.

Not sure about Pat L.

Dear Mr. Jack Howard is no longer with us.

So, where do we go from here? ;-)...Van

From: ishoot4thrills
Date: 05-Feb-11




Quoted by onesharpbroadhead: "ishoot - flatter trajectory in the real word translates to better accuracy - because it is more forgiving of errors in distance estimation - if all else is equal - and I have seen it in the rise in my averages at every league and tournment I shoot in - and I shoot instinctive - so however my brain determines distance - the flatter trajectory is more forgiving of that mechanism in my subconscious.

You can also see it by the fact that virtually every winner of any tournament is shooting arrows that many would consider light."

More bologna! Ridiculous. Accuracy in the true sense of the word means group size not ease in distance estimation.

Winners of tournaments shoot light arrows because they shoot light draw weight bows. They do that because of the fatigue factor and light draw bows are easier to hold steady for longer periods of time. They don't need to shoot heavy arrows because they don't need the penetration, not because lighter arrows are more accurate.

AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE, WE WILL HEED THE WORKS OF DR. ED ASHBY AND HIS 25+ YEARS OF EXPERTISE AND TESTING! (Note the doctorate degree!)

From: Njord
Date: 05-Feb-11




I sure am glad they don't test medicine once an proclaim it safe

From: Sapcut
Date: 05-Feb-11




ishoot4thrills,

Precisely

From: Coop
Date: 05-Feb-11




Well I guess the bottom line is folks that disagree with OSB's finding need to do a identical test with video and post their results. I'd love to see it myself. Heck if I didn't have so many things on my plate now I'd do it. I'm curious enough I plan on doing some testing of my own come summer. With that said I can't believe the folks who claim physic laws, it just can't possibly be, but turn around and say it's the test medium. Seems to me it would be consistent with ANY medium. Just my thoughts. Like my dad always told me put up or shut up! lol For the record let's just say I'm not one of OSB's fans for his responses on lots of posting in the past, but posting on the internet and talking in person is too different mediums. However after reading his responses to these threads I've gained a new more postive outlook concerning him! Now OSB don't go thinking me and you are best buds now! lol

From: Bob Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 05-Feb-11




I'd like to discuss what Van/Tx writes. He is looking for some conclusions that make sense from what we do know.

I'm no expert. However, I have done scientific research in the Biological sciences and I have a somewhat of a background in statistics. It it statistics in this instance that is the determining factor on what is "scientific." And, if it's truely "scientific" it will lead us to the truth.

Van/Tx:OK, let's recap. 1. Ashby's tests/studies favors heavier/slower/more momentum two blade broadhead arrows for animals.

Bob: I read thru his material. I didn't see this result whatsoever. I saw that he showed so small a difference in this regard as to have no result whatsoever. It was only on EFOC v FOC that he showed 25% to 40% more penetration. However, these are averages. He admonishes the readers it is not scientific. That's really too bad. Because even on EFOC he gives us nothing due to the fact that we only know his "averages" and not his "standard deviation."

Van/TX: 2. Pat L.'s test favors heavier/slower/more momentum two blade broadhead arrows for plywood/foam.

Bob: Don't know the guy.

Van/Tx: 3. OSB's test favors faster/lighter/less momentum field tip arrows for Balistic jel and phone books.

Bob: OSB also says his work is not scientific. He's correct. It is not scientific because he didn't do enough of a controlled experiment, didn't shoot enough arrows, and didn't run statistical tests. I would say he could not get a statistical difference by the work he did as I saw in the video. However, OSB did one thing that was important - he tried to create a controlled experiment. The gell and phone book are probably uniform in resistance (unlike Ashby). In addition, OSB videoed his results. And, OSB's results were consistant with Ashby's on arrow weight as OSB did't do anything on EFOC.

Van/Tx: 4. Jack Howards test favors faster/lighter/less momentum field tip arrows for compressed cardboard.

Bob: Don't know the man.

Van/Tx: So what's the problem? Here's a url for all of Ashby's studies in case anyone is interested. Pat's is on the Bowsite and OSB's is on this site. http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/Dr.-Ed-Ashby-W26.aspx I doubt we'll get Ed to test 47# recurve bows with field tips on a phone book. I doubt we'll get OSB to test 94# longbows with 2 blade broadheads on dead buffalo.

Bob: I seriously doubt that the laws of physics change with a 94# bow v a 47# bow. And, as verbose as Ashby's site is, I saw nothing that would, in the least, convince me that arrow weight meant anything. What concerns me about Ashby is that he seems to be blowing sunshine up my A** especially since he goes around telling people he's invested his life saving for my personal benefit and his personal loss - so I better believe him or he'll get angry at me... (I could be wrong. Someone else could have spoofed that and used his name... here's hoping).

At any rate, comparing two arrows out of the same bow was done by both Ashby and OSB. But, Ashby intentionally wanted to use a medium to shoot his arrows into which is extremely variable, thus creating a lot of difficulty in obtaining results with any meaning. Some would say that OSB is using a medium different from real animals. Well, that's true for the phone books, but not the gell. At any rate, OSB's medium is consistant.

I go with OSB hands down.

And, I would put real money on a bet that says EFOC is not going to provide statistically signifacant superior penetration. But, nothing so far is scientific. Seems to be that if I were to waste $ 300,000 as Ashby perports, I would have done experiments that could be legitimately called "scientific."

What's this mean for the average archer? As has been told to me, it doesn't make a lot of sense to go to extremes either in weight or EFOC.

From: Al
Date: 05-Feb-11




I am no expert, only a logical person. I think ballistic jell stops a bullet by compression on the nose of the bullet. I think it stops an arrow by compression on the sides of the arrow. As for the phone book, I think until the book is totally penetrated it will show very little difference in arrows. I would consider the jell better. OSB, not contradicting your conclusions, just letting my mind analyze the video. Still a super video and interesting test. Thanks for sharing.

From: Van/TX
Date: 05-Feb-11




Bob, it's evident that you haven't read Ashbys stuff. There is a chart that shows penetration in animals based on calulated momentum. Seems you've only read his FOC study. He has many studies. FOC was just his latest. You may be a genius in statistics but statistics often lie when not using all the facts.

So, you only use information on people you know? That's pretty dumb. I'm just a brain dead Redneck but that doesn't make any sense to me.

Pat is the guy that owns this site BTW...Van

From: Bill Stapleton
Date: 05-Feb-11




I actually don't think even if OSB had of done the tests with EFOC/UEFOC vs. the lite arrow that he has, with or without broadheads,...I don't think it would show much more deviation than what he's already demonstrated. I'd bet a 24 pak of A&W there wouldn't be 2 inches difference in the gelatin.

If I'm wrong I'm wrong.

I just think the gelatin acts differently and compresses around the shaft too much, versus REAL animal tissue. The gelatin my friends have used in the past for bullet work is a bit sticky or rubbery, more dense, and not like jello brand gelatin at all as some would think.

I still don't see how that could then be compaired to Dr. Ashby's work or allow anyone (including OSB) to say which penetrates better. They're two different tests, with different results. A blind man could see the results are different. I am not afraid to ask why, or even consider why.

It still would not explain the differences Jack Howard showed in 3 1/2 inches difference from lite to heavy arrows versus OSB mere 3/4 inch difference. The only similarity being simply that lite went further.

My main reason for being so hard on him is I don't like how he's made his test out to be the end all of arrow penetration. Again, I shoot a similar set-up as OSB for the same reason...forgiving of distance error.

I think it's more individual though than he'll admit and I personally know many folks who shoot heavy arrows quite accurately, though perhaps not to OSB max yardage. In fact, I think the human mind has the ability to adjust if we'll give it time and quit switching back and forth on arrow choice. So for trad bow close hunting, it isn't any wonder why many like heavy arrows...because it doesn't matter. They mostly prefer quiet first.

From: Van/TX
Date: 05-Feb-11




"I seriously doubt that the laws of physics change with a 94# bow vs a 47# bow"

Bob, did anyone say they did? As I read you post again I see so many things that make no sense it would take me all nite to respond to them. You seem to be hung up on this EFOC thing. Get over it.

"Ashby intentionally wanted to use a medium to shoot his arrows into which is extremely variable, thus creating a lot of difficulty in obtaining results with any meaning."

He was shooting animals for crying out load.

Bob, I'll have to hand it to ya. Your's is the funniest post I've seen on this site in a long long time. Thanks for the entertainment ;-)...Van

From: Bill Stapleton
Date: 05-Feb-11




Van...it's sort of hard to compair animal against anything else, for arrows that cut that is. Gelatin is great for bullets, I just don't feel it's a fair comparison. Not at all.

The sad thing is, other than an animal, I don't have any other suggestions. How could I? Animals are what they are...right?;) Sort of like saying the test is what it is...right?;)

From: cjgregory
Date: 06-Feb-11




"I seriously doubt that the laws of physics change with a 94# bow vs a 47# bow"

No. of course it doesn't. However with a 94# bow it is more apparent and measurable.

The mere fact of making all three arrows as identical as possible is a miss representation. Take a light arrow of choice and a heavier arrow of choice with a higher FOC from the same bow. Anyone can do it. Did it in my basement at 15 yards today. lol That's all you need to do for crying out loud. That still does not mean I'm going to slow my arrow down to less than 190 fps.

From: deerdander
Date: 06-Feb-11




I will post 2 things here that most will disagree with.

1. Heavy FOC arrows may or may not penetrate better but I think we can all agree that if an arrow is deflected at an angle on point of impact then it will penetrate less than an arrow that hits square. Heavy FOC arrows are less tolerant of lateral string oscillation. This is because all the weight is in the front of the arrow. So unless you use a mechanical release, having more weight on the rear of the arrow translates to better potential accuracy. I would rather hit exactly where im aiming then be 6" off or more and have 1" or less better penetration.

"here is a fun fact, a 0.020" of an inch launch angle deviation due to lateral string oscillation gives 1.8" at 20 yards! 4.55" at 50yards, and 6.36" at 70 yards and 9" at 100 yards! This just goes to show how vital it is to get a good release, and to get torsional rigid limbs...and also how good you guys are at controlling this variable!" -Sid Border Bows.

2. I have to agree with OSB that in all my testing heavy and light seem to penetrate about the same +/- 1". I have however found significant improvement in penetration when the shaft of the arrow is smaller than the Ferrel of the broadhead or field point. So skinny shaft that is also a heavy shaft with 100-145 grain tip and standard light weight insert is my best penetrating arrow.

From: Al
Date: 06-Feb-11




Tell me where my thinking is wrong. Which will penetrate deeper, a 350 gr arrow at 200fps or a 177 pellet at 1000fps? Answer the arrow. So at some point lighter is not better.

From: Van/TX
Date: 06-Feb-11




Bill, Jacks testing material was a stack of compressed cardboard similar to what some archery shops use for their indoor range. It's much softer than a phone book but still offers a bunch of squeeze on the arrow shaft.

For example you could push a knife blade into compressed cardboard much easier than you could push a knive blade thru a phone book. That's why Jacks arrows were getting more penetration than OSB's.

It's all about the test material. You can easily push a hunting knive blade into a hogs heart. I've seen 120 pound ladies do it on TV. I doubt the same lady or a big man could push a hunting knife into a phone book. Hmmmmm, think I'll try it ;-)...Van

From: Choctaw
Date: 06-Feb-11




Al, that is a good question, and in the same vein with a different variable.

Which has least resistance to penetrating a medium, a needle or a rolling pin?

If you want to compare apples to apples shoot the exact same shaft size and head with only a weight tube or weighted insert as the difference. Jack Howard's study used Easton aluminum arrows weighted the same. The study never states that the arrow diameters are the same. In my opinion a larger diameter arrow will not penetrate as far as a smaller diameter arrow. I think this has been conclusively proven with the introduction of carbon shafts. The Goldtip in this demonstration appears to be visibly larger in diameter than the other two arrows, and the surface of the Goldtip I own are not as smooth (slick) as the surface of other carbon arrows.

From: Elkhuntr
Date: 06-Feb-11




you ever open a thread, read some of it, and wish you didn't?

From: Van/TX
Date: 06-Feb-11




Choctaw, Jacks arrows were the same diameter:

"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."

From: PORTAGEMA3
Date: 06-Feb-11




Just in the last few posts you will see the words:

"I doubt" "I think" "I don't feel" "I don't see how" "I seriously doubt"

From: 13kodiak
Date: 06-Feb-11




Your test was flawed from the start:

1. The paper test showed the lighter arrow flew thru the paper perfectly, whereas the heavier arrows were slightly off!

2. The heaviest arrow's surface was different than the other two arrows!

3. The lighter arrow's tip was of a different design and had less bearing surface!

Therefore the test is inconclusive due to these error's, unless the testing was skewed to prove one's own point!

From: Slayer
Date: 06-Feb-11




OSB - I'm agreeing with you- obviously, your tests, using the parameters you were testing, showed the results you claimed. I'm saying it does open up a lot more questions.

Obviously the test medium you shoot the arrows into makes a lot of difference, as does a lot of other things - point shape, shaft diameter and finish.

Shoot a 40gr .22 bullet into a bag of sand and it penetrates an inch, shoot it into a pine 2x4 and it'll shoot right through it. Now shoot an arrow into a bag of sand, and then into a 2x4 - what happens? The arrow probably shot through the sand bag and hardly penetated the wood. Or even try this with a 240 gr .44 mag and an arrow.

Put a flat steel blunt on an arrow and shoot at a 1" board, then shoot with a 3 blade broadhead, or even a field point - I'll bet the blunt blows right through the wood and the others are stopped.

Shoot a guillotine (sp) broadhead designed for shooting turkeys at a 3-d target, then shoot a two blade head.

I can't explain WHY the results differ on the medium shot into, I just know they DO.

Thanks for running the tests and taking the time and expense to do so.

From: howler
Date: 06-Feb-11




I too think that all the arrows should be exactly alike, Jack Howard did the same test as OSB 40 years ago and for the most part came up with the same result as OSB, here is his test, it was posted on the other thread and I think it should be read by everyone who is interested in the subject.

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 broadhead 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 cardboard 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.

From: Njord
Date: 06-Feb-11




The medium makes a huge difference. In a solid medium Ke will win, in a fluid medium momentum will win. Which is why an arrow with out penetrate a 30-06 bullet is water, also why a 30-06 bullet will penetrate 20"+ of dry oak. The medium matters. Iv'e said it before, animals are not solid, how can they be when muscle is 70% liquid water.

From: Bill Stapleton
Date: 06-Feb-11




Van, I understand and know what Jacks test material was, I read the article.

I am certain you are correct in saying that the medium was the reason Jacks arrows penetrated further than OSB's. That's pretty simple. You may have misunderstood what I was saying or perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

I was pointing out Jacks variance of 3 1/2" difference between HIS (his own arrows) light and heavy arrows at 40 lbs.

If penetration = penetration then by all means OSB's variance of his light vs. heavy arrows (from the same bow) should have shown the same 3 1/2" of variance like Jacks test...but it didn't. OSB's test only showed 3/4" of an inch variance in his own test. That's 2 3/4" gain over Jacks tests. Remember as Jack used heavier bows the distance of penetration increased between his light and heavy arrows. (Which solidifies OSB's comments that a light arrow would penetrate more.)

Jacks mention of a 1 1/2" inch variance was clearly between 2 different bows:

The distinction was;

A light bow/light arrow...w/12" inches of penetration...AND

A heavy bow/heavy arrow...w/11 1/2" inches of penetration...

which is only a difference of 1/2" instead of 1 1/2" inch ( 1 1/2"was listed in the article) as stated in the article. Could have been a typo in the article or since this isn't the real article it may have been tampered with. Last time I did math 12" minus 11 1/2" = 1/2". Regardless, light still went further, AND the 1/2" inch is closer to OSB's 3/4" inch variance...just keep in mind it was 2 different poundage bows w/ different weight arrows that showed the 1/2" variance...NOT his light bow shooting 2 different weight arrows...because Jack stated that variance was 3 1/2" inches.

OSB did not shoot a heavy bow/heavy arrow combination. Beyond that, I think Jack's findings and OSB's comments from the past few days make sense that the sort of cross each other out.

Is that explanation any better? 8^)

From: 13kodiak
Date: 06-Feb-11




Me thinks thee doth protest to much! Do some more testing and get back to us!

From: Sapcut
Date: 06-Feb-11




"Virtually all ballistic experts agree what ballistic gel is the most consistent medium to use to simulate the penetration of flesh."

You say that at the same time you say 27 years of animal flesh tests are "flawed" and "wrong".

Why simulate when the real thing has been done and still available?

Let's just say we are all 3-D shooters, never hunted but wanted to know which arrow would best penetrate a 3-D McKenzie whitetail deer target.

We wouldn't go out and shoot real flesh and blood animals, would we?

If we REALLY wanted to know the best arrow option for penetrating the deepest into a McKenzie target, wouldn't we shoot the McKenzie targets?

From: David Alford
Date: 06-Feb-11




"I'm waiting for a video as good as ken's video to show me that heavier,slower arrows will penetrate best."

Bullets, not arrows: Go to 5:20 of this video:

http://tiny.cc/i6afk

From: David Alford
Date: 06-Feb-11




I think we need a very rigorous highly replicated test to dissect all of this out. No offense to OSB who I think did a good preliminary study, but I spent a lot more time and shot a lot more arrows in my own study showing mismatching feather orientation with broadhead bevel gave no difference in penetration contradicting Ashby's claims yet I got a lot of flak saying it was flawed, too limited, etc.

I don't disagree that the experiments were preliminary and have often called for others to repeat my experiment. In our case here, I suggest the same thing. We need others to repeat the tests and better, expand upon them. But the bottom line is, both OSB's experiment with arrow weight and my experiment with feathers vs. bevel are contradicting Ashby at least in the medium we used.

From: Jeff Roark
Date: 06-Feb-11




Sapcut,

You seem to bring up bone penetration alot in these discussions. Why don't you go get a shoulder bone from a butcher and do some filming for everyone to see? It would be interesting to see two extremes prove their point.

From: Stickbow37 Professional Bowhunters Society - Qualified Member Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 06-Feb-11




I ran a test a few years back using a complete shoulder from a mature beef cow. This was complete with shoulder blade and all meat intact. I shot several arrows from a 59# recurve that weighed between 400 grains, and 600 grains, using the same 125 grain razor sharp broadhead . The 600 grain arrows blew through the shoulder blade, the 400 grains - well, lets just say they penitrated the blade, but did not pass through to what would be the body cavity. I guess all that tells me is that heavy arrows will really do damage on hard bone, while lighter arrows, which have less kinetic energy, were stopped short. Nothing technical in this test, didn't use gelatin, didn't measure arrow speed, just stood off at 20 yards a flung away. Test results were pretty darn conclusive in my mind. I didn't video this, just tested to satisfy my own curiosity.

There is a huge difference in testing with soft gelatin, and phone books and trying to blow through a massive shoulder blade of a large ruminate such as an elk or moose or bison. That is not to say that this test is flawed, but it doesn't really take into consideration the real world of bowhunting large animals which have massive bone structures.

The reason I ran this test was to find out for myself what would happen if I shot an elk in the shoulder blade with a 400 grain (or less) arrow. It convinced me that I needed a lot more arrow weight to seal the deal on a 1000 pound bull Roosevelt elk if I in fact struck the animal in the shoulder blade. Not that this is the best place to hit an elk, but it darn sure can happen. I concluded that speed does not answer all when it comes to this type of penitration, and opted for the heavier, slower hard hitting shaft. They have served me well over the years in that reguard.

I have read with intrest the various comments on this thread, and although OSB has done a good job of evaluating penitration with gelatin and phone books, one must also look at the reality of large ruminates bone structure and decide what really works best for them.

Dave

From: Sapcut
Date: 06-Feb-11




Jeff, "You seem to bring up bone penetration alot in these discussions."

Because bone is the medium that we hunt and the medium that will stop some arrows but not others. Which one's is the question. Bone is also the medium that I always thought we had no chance of penetrating there's no need to worry about it.

Some still think that way but there is a way to bust through the biggest of bones and still recovery the animal.

Flesh and soft tissue is not even in the discussion because it takes very little force to do that deed. That is why.

"Why don't you go get a shoulder bone from a butcher and do some filming for everyone to see?"

I have certainly thought about it and still might. But the point of penetrating animals has been proven with much better detailed work with many more shots than I could ever do.

And a shoulder blade from a butcher is not animals we hunt. It would be testing the shoulder blade from a butcher....which would be interesting in itself.

From: David Alford
Date: 06-Feb-11




"The medium makes a huge difference. In a solid medium Ke will win, in a fluid medium momentum will win. Which is why an arrow with out penetrate a 30-06 bullet is water, also why a 30-06 bullet will penetrate 20"+ of dry oak. The medium matters. Iv'e said it before, animals are not solid, how can they be when muscle is 70% liquid water."

The irony is that Ashby makes such an issue of heavy arrows being critical to penetrate well in bone.

From: David Alford
Date: 06-Feb-11

David Alford's embedded Photo



My personal opinion after many years of bowhunting and penetration tests is that heavier arrows penetrate a little bit better overall and that is probably because they absorb more energy from the bow.

Most of us will never hunt Cape Buff so in the meantime medium weight arrows probably will serve most of us best as a good compromise between reducing bow noise and having good trajectory, which probably are more important concerns than any differences in penetration.

I hunt out West where shot ranges tend to be longer and am not reluctant to go to light arrows depending upon bow choice and game hunted. Here is a mule deer buck taken 20 yrs. ago with a 23" 390 gr. 2013, but tipped with a cut on impact bh. The buck was center punched in brisket face on and the arrow penetrated up to the nock (that's about to where the tip of the recurve is in the pic).

A small footnote, this was bowhunting history's first STAR Method buck.

From: Njord
Date: 06-Feb-11




OSB: I may have missed you description of the gel test media. Was it ballistic gel or was it knox gellatin. What was the percentage of gel and the moisture content when set?. What was the temperature of the gel when shot. It appeared to be much more solid that fresh muscle or organ tissue.

From: 13kodiak
Date: 06-Feb-11




I admit I was wrong, it does appear you shot the heavier arrow first and got the cleanest shot thru the paper test! If it was me doing the testing, I would want to do more extensive and thorough testing before giving results from the testing of 3 arrows from one distance that defy the laws of physics! This is why your results are suspect, and your continued arguing only leads one to believe your motive's are suspect as well!

From: Van/TX
Date: 06-Feb-11

Van/TX's embedded Photo



Bill, not sure I understand. I'm old so please bear with me. I think the difference in his penetration was small because there's not a lot of penetrating going on in the first place. The difference between all 3 was small but maybe the same ratio as Jack's. Don't know, haven't done the math...Van

From: ButchMo
Date: 06-Feb-11




"This is why your results are suspect, and your continued arguing only leads one to believe your motive's are suspect as well! " I haven't seen OSB arguing. If you read the posts, it's mostly the heavy arrow proponents that are arguing.

I don't usually agree with OSB. It's how he says things, not what he says. But, he did attempt the tests. Were they conclusive, no, but, they were an attempt. I really believe a large amount of the arguing is being done not because of the conclusions but because of a deep dislike for OSB. Not a very adult reason to debate. Open your minds & see his results. If you don't agree, fine. Arguing because you dislike someone is pretty silly. Butch

From: David Alford
Date: 06-Feb-11




"This is why your results are suspect, and your continued arguing only leads one to believe your motive's are suspect as well!"

That's funny...OSB at least made a video and did some reasonable testing. Why shouldn't he argue for his hypothesis? Of course, you can do some of this testing yourself. We'll wait for your results and video, then.

From: David Alford
Date: 06-Feb-11




" I really believe a large amount of the arguing is being done not because of the conclusions but because of a deep dislike for OSB."

I'll expand on this...I have argued/debated with OSB offsite, but the one thing I do not do is hold grudges from one day to the next or one topic to the next. In all fairness, he seems a personable and reasonable guy in his videos and more importantly to the topic, he made a reasonable effort in his testing.

As I said in another thread, there is a tendency in society to criticize people who think differently and don't go along with the crowd even though most of our inventions and progress come from people who are thinking outside the norm. Of course, I've been on a similar end with my STAR Method, so I guess I understand what it feels like to be villainized. It's very unfortunate not to value the contrary opinion. From my experience, the crowd is usually wrong. At any rate, "group think" should always be suspect. By extension, let's value the highly individualistic. The individual! This is you, too!

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 06-Feb-11




"Motive's are suspect!" This is crazy! OSB did a wonderful job in his penetration test. I love the fact that he questioned the dominate paradigm!

I see nothing wrong with shooting the lightest arrow that would fly straight, not compromise the bow or make excessive noise. I've been doing this for over a decade with excellent results. It must have taken some time and effort to put all this together. I think we should all thank OSB and for those of you giving him a hard time, appologize!

Thanks again OSB!!!!

From: TRS
Date: 06-Feb-11




ButchMO and David Alford to me it is not his test or the way he argues, it is his indecnt manner he trys to belittle or imply they are bad people when he does.

That is fine coming from one person he is real easy to ignore (or read for entertainment) but to have so many others blindly look the other way and pat his back is bad IMO. You see OSB type of statement from online/text every few months in the news leading to violent acts. Condone him I do not think so!

I shoot close to most others on here 550g out of a 56# with 18% foc, so I am in the middle of the road camp I guess.

I thought 2-3 minutes after reading ALL of the Dr reports it makes good since and plenty of data, not switching over to hunt in Indiana though.

OSB did nothing close to those test for anyone to compare with. With that kind of testing results accepted by so many no wonder so many people believe Mr Gore global warming the inventor of the internet.

From: ButchMo
Date: 06-Feb-11




David, I wasn't referring to you. We've had discussions off site & I find you a personable fella. I was referring to other people. Sorry for the confusion. Butch

From: Van/TX
Date: 06-Feb-11




It's only Archery but it's hard for me to tolerate close mindedness. But I try. I really feel sorry for those type folks. Y'all know who you are ;-) Just thankful that I'm not...Van

From: Bill Stapleton
Date: 06-Feb-11




Sure Van, no problem. Let's try it again, just working with the 40ish lb. bows. Pay close attention to the numbers. We'll work with Jack test first.

Remember his arrows were made by Easton especially for this test. Jack stated they were EXACTLY the same DIAMETER.

Jacks bow:

40 lbs exactly.

His light arrow weighed 325 grains for the light arrow, the heaviest (exactly double) weighting 650 grains. The light arrow from this bow penetrated 3 1/2" inches more (in cardboard) than the heavy arrow.

OSB's bow:

47 lbs.

OSB's arrows weighed 349 grains for the light arrow, the heaviest (only 213 grs more, NOT double) weighting 562 grains. The light arrow from this bow penetrated 3/4" inch more (in gelatin) than the heavy arrow.

Here's what we know from this (not talking at all about the 60lb. bow yet).

We know the testing mediums were different in both test.

We know that Jacks arrows were identical in every way except for the weight. Easton made them for him.

We know that OSB did his testing at 20 yards.

We know Jacks bow was at a minimum 7 lbs. lighter than OSB's bow.

We know Jacks light vs heavy arrows from his 40 lb. bow pentrated 3 1/2" inches different from each other.

We know OSB's light vs heavy arrows from his 47 lb. bow penetrated 3/4" inch different from each other.

We know that because Jacks heavy arrow was exactly double the weight of his light arrow, this would then solidify OSB's findings even further, or at least should, that a light arrow is better than a heavy arrow.

We know that Jack calculated the average depths of each arrow he shot. He found his 325 gr. (light) arrow, from his 40 lb. bow penetrated an average of 12" inches into his testing medium.

Here's what we don't know.

At what distance did Jack do his testing? I didn't see a distance listed. Does it matter? Would testing at different ranges show different results?

Why did a 7 lb. heavier bow (OSB's bow @ 47 lbs. tested @ 20 yds.) only show 3/4" inch variance between his arrows and the 3 1/2" inches that Jacks arrows showed from a bow 7 lbs. lighter?

Does any of that help Van?

One might assume that OSB's arrows should have shown 3 1/2" inches difference in penetration as well, light vs. heavy...but it didn't turn out that way. My question is Why? Is it perhaps that the testing medium may possibly matter? I don't know.

If by chance Jacks testing was done at closer range say 10 yds. then we might assume, since OSB's arrows only showed 3/4" inch difference, that the reason may be because the arrows are losing energy at longer distance. That said, I still don't think the assumption is a safe one.

I haven't read Mr. Lefemme (spelling?) studies but it seems he's showed the opposite.

Dr. Ashby's work shows heavy being better as well.

So we have some tests opposing each other. To me, the best explanation is the testing mediums themselves, as the greatest variable.

That said, I feel it's irrational for any of them to lay claim to WINNING the arguement.

There are too many perameters at play here, too many variables,as different test are showing...too different of results as well.

Controlled tests "work great" IN a controlled environment, as in OSB's work and Mr. Howards work. All that has been shown with either is that when anything besides the bow and arrow changes, as the mediums have here, the results are going to be different. IMO vastly different.

Hunting IS NOT A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT...therefore, excluding the EFOC/UEFOC studies...speaking specifically of light against heavy arrow only...Dr. Ashby's work IS being done in the only ENVIRONMENT that IS SUITABLE TO the HUNTER. He wasn't satisfied with light vs heavy either, so he began to test EFOC/UEFOC and surpised himself. An animal is as consistent as it gets folks...for a hunter...it CANNOT be duplicated.

Sure, one may ask; "How can he duplicate a shot into an animal?" I ask any of you out there in ciberland "Can any of you duplicate a shot on an animal?" I say your a fool if you think it's ever been done, and I'm sure Dr. Ashby is quite well aware of this too...but he's doing it as closely possible as can be duplicated.

You can use wood, you can use carpet, you can use sand, you can use plywood, you can use gelatin, you can use whatever you please, but unless it's an animal is isn't duplicate. PERIOD!

All these other tests do is give us indication of what might be...doesn't anyone think Dr. Ashby thought of Jack Howards work, or using gelatin? I bet he did!

You folks do what you wish. I'll keep shooting my light arrows(because that's all I had, and I think it gives me an edge on distance...no more, no less) and in the mean time I'll keep an open mind about an opposing view...like Dr. Ashby's work, while others keep insisting he's a fool. He's done the ONLY EXTENSIVE WORK on the REAL DEAL. Duhh...We all know, including Dr. Ashby, that his findings aren't necessary to kill a measily deer. Neither is Jack Howards work or anyone else's.

From: David Alford
Date: 06-Feb-11




Butch, I C, no worries at all. Van, right on bro'. And I'll say this, you have been open minded about the STAR Method. I really don't recall those who are negative to me for the most part, as I pay attention to content more than names. But anyway, it seems to me fron the vid. that OSB is, in person, a likeable guy. Too bad we can't all sit around the ol' campfire and get to know each other better. But likeable or not, it a positive to have personalities that challenge what we think is true.

I guess that is my last comment other than noting in general the middle of the road is better than the extremes in so many areas of life, I would be surprised to find it any different with arrow weight. In general, I like medium wt. arrahs...

From: specklebellies
Date: 06-Feb-11




OSB usually the one who gets jumped on for sayn anything.

From: ButchMo
Date: 06-Feb-11




TRS, "You see OSB type of statement from online/text every few months in the news leading to violent acts. Condone him I do not think so! " Sorry. This doesn't make any sense what so ever. If you'll read my posts, you'll see that I never condoned these tests. I normally shoot almost 11 GPI. I just thought he shouldn't be judged on personality differences.

Butch

From: Bill Stapleton
Date: 06-Feb-11




In fact, according to Jacks own words his arrows were identical in every aspect except weight.

I'm sure this would lead some, including me, to ask how were they tuned? He used 3 arrows idenctical arrows, except in weight...for get this...3 different poundage bows.

Van, I didn't talk much about the comparison of his lightbow/lightarrow vs his heavybow/heavyarrow difference in penetration above. Jack explained there was only 1/2" difference in penetration depth, average, between the two set-ups...meaning why shoot the heavierbow/heavierarrow combination vs the lighter set-up. Make sense?

From: Van/TX
Date: 06-Feb-11




I believe Easton made them especially for the test. Same diameter different wall thickneses and possibly different point weights. In any case I'm sure Jack had them tuned. From what I've read he was one particular dude.

Who knows. Jack said a 2114 would shoot out of any bow well. It was his favorite arrow. He was a strange one ;-)...Van

From: Bill Stapleton
Date: 06-Feb-11




Yep, he said Easton made them "identicle in everyway" point weight, arrow length, feathers, diameter, except total weight.

Now get this; With the arrow perameters above how did Easton accomplish this for him? How then did they increase weight? Internally? If so, how did Jack tune them, if at all?

OSB tuned his as best as he could. Anyone raising an eyebrow about Jacks work now? Understand the variables that's being dealth with? Many details exist, but do all the details exist about Jacks work?

Lost's of question and conjecture huh?

One last question. Isn't it just easier to forget about this and have fun shooting our bows? I think so.

From: buster v davenport
Date: 07-Feb-11




If you use a lite arrow, you may be more careful with your shot placement.

If you use a heavy arrow, you may take a more riskier shot.

For all of you that WANT to see different tests done, invest some of your own time and money. Use what works best for your set up and let others do the same.

Sixth posst Leon.

From: Stan
Date: 07-Feb-11




If you use a heavy arrow, you may take a more riskier shot. Buster// I hope you are kidding right?

From: Van/TX
Date: 07-Feb-11

Van/TX's embedded Photo



Bill, Easton made the different weights by using different wall thicknesses. They were experts in matching arrows to bows and he was an expert bowyer and bow tuner. From you can see for this pic Jack endorsed Easton arrows so I'm sure they didn't mind the extra work. His test results have come up in forums over the years and the same heavy vs light arguments follow.

"One last question. Isn't it just easier to forget about this and have fun shooting our bows? I think so."

I agree! ;-)...Van

From: buster v davenport
Date: 07-Feb-11




If a person has the notion that a heavy arrow will Blast thru where a lite arrow won't, that person may just take a riskier shot. Not that anyone here on the wall would take such a shot, but there are "others" beyond the wall that might.

Eighth post Leon.

From: Sapcut
Date: 07-Feb-11




I think shot choices can be based on your knowledge of your equipment limits. (And that line of thinking isn't for everyone and not saying it should be.)

Like David Alford has posted, he smoked that mulie with a frontal shot. A lot of hunters would never conceive of that shot placement.

I wouldn't hesitate taking that shot on a bull elk if given the chance, just like Mr. Alford.

From: buster v davenport
Date: 07-Feb-11




A friend of mine made a frontal shot on a nice eight point white tail in 1963 during the regular gun season, but lost it to a gun hunter. The deer was down when the gun hunter came along and kicked it up. He told my friend that he probably wouldn't have gotten it if it didn't have the arrow in it.

Ninth post Leon.

From: umich1
Date: 07-Feb-11




So many variables to take into account. Here's a bit more to throw into the equation:

"What do an arrow and a missile have in common? The answer lies in "spinning mass" The greater the mass the greater the angular inertia.

To compensate for yaw, pitch and roll, a missile's orientation with respect to external co-ordinates is maintained by a gyroscope. Instead of tipping over it moves forward in a circular motion, in a fixed direction given by its spin axis.

Rotational Inertia is the rotational counterpart of Newton's First Law of motion, "An object will continue to spin in a given direction unless acted upon by an external unbalanced torque."

In a missile, if an unbalanced force is applied the gyro will begin to move the missile at right angles to the force. This motion is called precession.

When a football flies through the air its natural tendency is to tumble (rotate end over end) icreasing air resistance.

If the thrower puts spin on the ball (hence giving the ball angular momentum) the ball behaves much like a missile with a gyro and an arrow with feathers does that even better, giving it spin, hence keeping its point axis always in the direction of motion, reducing resistance and increasing the distance travelled.

Hence, the Turks shooting toothpicks have never been equalled pound for pound.

In an arrow this angular momentum caused by spin pushed by the Ek of the bow is critical in its path through the atmosphere and the deer's flesh.

If the thrower puts spin on the ball (hence giving the ball angular momentum) the ball behaves much like a missile with a gyro and an arrow with feathers does that even better, giving it spin, hence keeping its point axis always in the direction of motion, reducing resistance and increasing the distance travelled.

Hence, the Turks shooting toothpicks have never been equalled pound for pound.

In an arrow this angular momentum caused by spin pushed by the Ek of the bow is critical in its path through the atmosphere and the deer's flesh.

If the thrower puts spin on the ball (hence giving the ball angular momentum) the ball behaves much like a missile with a gyro and an arrow with feathers does that even better, giving it spin, hence keeping its point axis always in the direction of motion, reducing resistance and increasing the distance travelled.

Hence, the Turks shooting toothpicks have never been equalled pound for pound.

In an arrow this angular momentum caused by spin pushed by the Ek of the bow is critical in its path through the atmosphere and the deer's flesh."...continued in next post

From: umich1
Date: 07-Feb-11




"A heavy arrow has greater angular inertia, therefore requiring greater Ek from the bow. It follows then that a lighter arrow with the same Ek, out of the same bow will have a much higher angular momentum and hence will travel farther and straighter. Thus requiring a very stiff shaft for a proper horsebow which at full draw is 9/10's broken.

It also follows that instead of large feathers which are utlized by stick bow shooters a proper horsebow shooter uses very low profile feathers. The large ones create a tremendous amount of drag and this creates an even greater increase in angular inertia. Thus requiring heavy poundage to create equivalent forward motion.

The earth spinning on its axis acts much like a 'gyro'. The point, N-axis always aims at Polaris, inspite of the much heavier gravitational pull of the Sun, the moon and all the other celestial bodies in the universe. Unlike very stiff carbon horsebow shafts the slight precession of the earth is caused by the unequal distribution of mass.

A heavy arrow will hit with a higher force but much more Ek is necessary to drive its rotational momemtum. Whereas, a very LIGHT STIFF arrow with equal Ek will fly better, do to its much higher "angular momentum and can get the job done better with even less poundage. Not to mention the fact that less poundage equates to a better bowman. As long as we are not hunting Tyrannosaurs.

Arrows are not bullets and do not kill by expansion and crushing. It takes very little force for a two blade titanium broad with molecularly sharp edges to go through flesh.

In Physics this problem requires many and varied formulae to prove, some 18 altogether.

The basic one's being.

Ek = 1/2mXvsquared (linear) Ek(rotational) = 1/2I(w)squared (angular)"

Interesting read taken from Spitfire Horsebows website. Something to think about.

From: umich1
Date: 07-Feb-11




Sorry for the repeat in the first post. Was copying and pasting!

From: Bill Stapleton
Date: 07-Feb-11




Van, wall thickness is correct. By asking the question; "How did Easton increase the weight, yet maintain otherwise identical arrows?", there are only two possible answers. Inernally weighting the arrow, or wall thickness as you've mentioned here.

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 07-Feb-11




All the testing in the world is not going to make me change my 8gpp with 3bld muzzy set up. My experience hunting has taught me what works for me. My arrow/BH combo is not singled beveled, not increased FOC and less than 10GPP but I'm able to attain complete penetration from bison to small game.

I do not need a heavy shatf with increased FOC and a very expensive BH that is suppose to twist through bone. I'll just stick my setup that blows through femurs, scapula's and humerous like a hot knife going through butter for a fraction of the cost.

The point is! Keep what's working and change what's not! KISS!!!

From: Slayer
Date: 07-Feb-11




I can't help but think that butcher might not like you shooting arrows into his shoulder! That would hurt, I think!

From: David Alford
Date: 07-Feb-11




I don't recommend frontal shots, my last one was a long time ago. The only relevant point was that a very light arrow got nearly full deer length penetration. Great arrow flight and a cut on impact bh is what really helps penetration. I want my bare shafts to be flying well out to 20 at a minimum (with field tips!).

From: PineLander
Date: 09-Feb-11

PineLander's embedded Photo



There is talk about frictional forces at work on the shaft that make shooting plywood a poor penetration test. Yes, the medium isn't as consistent as water or gelatin...

... but what about Pat. L.'s lighter arrow not penetrating enough to go through the wood to even cause frictional force on the shaft?

If the faster lighter arrow did not have enough energy to get the broadhead through the wood, doesn't that show it had less energy than the slower heavier arrow?

655 gr. at 215 fps

980 gr. at 186 fps

From: Stan
Date: 09-Feb-11




Onesharp...Your bow imo.. Is a different bird than an average bow or of bows of tests gone by.. Some bows cast a heavier arrow better than yours? not arguing his test result . just throwing it out there..

From: cjgregory
Date: 09-Feb-11




Actually the flight charachteristics of an arrow is the same for any bow. A true contrast will not show on your test because at ten yards theres little or no variation due to the fact that you tried to make all things equal. Theres over 300 gr. difference between the two shafts above.

From: Stan
Date: 09-Feb-11




Not talkin bout the compound.. Different bows period.. Some older tests were done with self bows for instance, I know first hand light arrows don't cut it in that scenario..

From: PineLander
Date: 09-Feb-11




Don't care what kind of bow was used and wasn't comparing between the compound and the recurve. The fact remains that the faster lighter arrow did not get through the plywood (on every shot), but the slower heavier arrow did get through the plywood (on every shot).

From: Purdue
Date: 09-Feb-11




Any test of penetration in wood is fraught with potential error.

Note in the top picture that the heavy arrow appears to have passed through 3 plys of wood with the grain whereas the light arrow passed through 3 plys against the grain.

Which arrow hit knots or knot holes in the hidden plys?

After the heavy arrow broke through there is very little resisting force (mostly side friction) to stop the arrow, yet it only traveled about 4 or 5 inches further. Any test medium that allows either sample to exit the medium will yield misleading and inconsistent results.

From: PineLander
Date: 09-Feb-11




Don't care what happened after exiting the back side. The heavier arrow's broadhead always exited the other side. The lighter arrow's broadhead never exited the other side. What does that mean??

From: BOW-HO
Date: 09-Feb-11




Many folks like lighter arrows so they have a longer "kill" range. Might be relevent to do penetration tests at 25-35 yards as well.

From: Van/TX
Date: 09-Feb-11




"Stan - he shot a compound and I shot a recurve - no comparison - a vast difference on how these two bows will cast an arrow - as can be seen by the different percentage of speed loss/gain when one changes arrow weight."

Actually if you do the math there is not a "vast" difference percentage wise. There is little difference...Van

From: Van/TX
Date: 09-Feb-11




"After the heavy arrow broke through there is very little resisting force (mostly side friction) to stop the arrow, yet it only traveled about 4 or 5 inches further. Any test medium that allows either sample to exit the medium will yield misleading and inconsistent results."

I believe he was testing penetration of the overlaping ribs of a buffalo. Once you bust thru that there is very little resistance. So, looks like the test medium for that application would work pretty good. The rib would be inconsitent also so it's apples to apples...Van

From: Purdue
Date: 09-Feb-11




"The rib would be inconsitent also so it's apples to apples...Van"

So using an inconsistent test medium to measure penetration makes sense to you if the eventual game might be inconsistent in its resistance to penetration.

It's hard to argue with logic like that.

So if the lighter arrow had blown through the plywood because it happened to find some voids, it would have been an equally valid test ... right?

From: Njord
Date: 09-Feb-11




The launch platform don't mean didley, it's speed and weight period.

Someone brought up angular momentum on one of these threads, it's only impact on penetration is weather or not there was enough to stabilize the arrow in flight. The arrow quits spinning the moment the broadhead enters the target, unless it's a single bevel

From: Van/TX
Date: 09-Feb-11




Purdue, it seems to me if you are testing for penetration in an inconsistent medium that you would use an inconsistent medium (apples to apples) or one as close as possible. My logic may differ from others. No big deal.

"So if the lighter arrow had blown through the plywood because it happened to find some voids, it would have been an equally valid test ... right?"

Wrong. When testing with an inconsistent medium such as plywood or an actual animal, many shots are needed to reveal a logical conclusion. JMO...Van

From: Stan
Date: 09-Feb-11




Please fellas.... Multiple shots through plywood would be a pretty good test.. You folks are way over thinking this one..

From: cjgregory
Date: 09-Feb-11




Multiple shots would be satisfactory. That would end this debate soundly.

From: Van/TX
Date: 09-Feb-11




OSB, you left out the weight % change which makes things look a bit differently.

In Pats test the weight increase was 38% and the speed decrease was 19%.

In yours the weight increase was 31% and the speed decrease was 13.5%.

Unless I fat fingered something in my math that's pretty close. Not VAST by any stretch. That bow of yours is very efficient...Van

From: Van/TX
Date: 09-Feb-11




Oops. I fat fingered the post.

Reverse Pats figures with yours. Would be almost identical (not vast difference) if the percentage of weigh change was the same. I think...Van

From: Van/TX
Date: 09-Feb-11




In fact you bow is extremely efficient!...Van

From: Stringham
Date: 09-Feb-11




One of the issues that was hinted at above, but not really dealt with, is that some bows impart more energy into heavy arrows and other bows impart more energy into light arrows. That is why a Turkish bow could shoot "soda straws" so much further than an English longbow could, but that same Turkish bow could not shoot a 1000 grain arrow through as thick of an oak board that the longbow could.

Shooting a range of different weighted arrows through a single bow, recording the speed and weight of each arrow and then calculating the KE and P will tell you what weight arrows leaves that particular bow with the most energy. However, that test will not answer the argument as to whether a light arrow penetrates better than a heavy arrow or vise versa.

Just as the weight of a gun will affect its kick as well as the speed of the bullet, so also will the weight of the limbs determine how much energy is passed on to the arrow-- long heavy limbs will put more energy into heavy arrows but at a loss in speed. Light limbs respond more quickly, but their lower mass means they can effectively shoot a light arrow at high speeds but may not be able to overcome the momentum of a heavy arrow and therefore transfer proportionately less energy into the heavier arrow. So out of that bow, the lighter arrow may penetrate better because more of the bow's available energy has been transferred to the arrow. However, a light arrow shot from a longbow might penetrate less than a heavy one because a higher percentage of the available energy has been transferred to the heavy arrow because of the extra mass of the limbs. This is why some longbows kick like a mule when you shoot light arrows but are much more pleasant to shoot with heavy arrows--more of the energy is transferred to the arrow and less is left in the bow in the form of handshock (or noise in the case of recurves and compounds).

A heavy arrow traveling the same speed as a light arrow has more KE & more P, therefore it will penetrate more deeply than the light arrow. But that doesn't necessarily mean that every heavy arrow shot from every bow will penetrate more than a lighter arrow shot from the same bow.

From: Ravenhood Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 09-Feb-11




I agree , OSB's bow shoots a light arrow very fast.

From: buster v davenport
Date: 09-Feb-11




When shooting broad heads thru plywood, how do you get them to hit at the same exact angle every time?

From: David Alford
Date: 09-Feb-11




Some of what I have posted added support to OSB's argument, but to round things out let me mention I've heard Pete Shepley was more or less kicked out of one African country after he supposedly wounded 3 Cape Buffs using light arrows/obtaining insufficient penetration. And I think we can be pretty sure the arrows were well tuned and really zipping along ...

From: Van/TX
Date: 09-Feb-11




I got the same results that you did on the math pertaining to speed. You just didn't do the part concerning weight. Your math is pretty good for and old guy ;-)...Van

From: cjgregory
Date: 09-Feb-11




"plywood will give a different result with every shot - so it is pretty much useless for testing arrows. " OSB

As long as it shows the same arrow penetrating the furthest every time it's good to go.

From: BAbassangler
Date: 09-Feb-11




Stan-I agree. Shooting through plywood should be enough, but "scientificly speaking", phonebooks are more homogeneous. Blah,bla,blah!

The bottom line is OSB established validity and accuracy in his test. Yes there are some grey areas, but until I have to worry about piercing plate armor @ 100 yds, I'm happy to know that 7 or 10 g/# doesn't make much of a difference.

OSB-You need govt. funding to further your research. You can do arrow diameter vs. arrow wt. vs. bow type vs. tip design as your next test. Have fun with that one! After you calculate all of the drag coeficients you might be tired so I'll shoot for ya.

I'm so glad I don't have to work with stats, sometimes it's just easier to argue.

From: Njord
Date: 09-Feb-11




The verneers in plywood are cross layed one to another for strength, as long as it's an even ply count should be pretty consistant. OSB(oriented strand board) might be better

From: Van/TX
Date: 09-Feb-11




LOL! Pat's plywood was 5 ply. Nullifies the whole test. I'm crackin' up ;-)...Van

From: cjgregory
Date: 09-Feb-11




This is an absurdity at the fundamental level. lol It has to be 6 ply.

A phone book is denser the closer it gets to the binding. That's a truth, take a look at one. Thus the arrow closest to the binding is being unfairly evaluated and a new test must be devised. I need an aspirin.

From: Van/TX
Date: 09-Feb-11




Maybe OSB should have used OSB?...Van

From: BAbassangler
Date: 09-Feb-11




Van/TX-LOL! Now that's funny!

From: bowhunt
Date: 10-Feb-11




I think the only medium worth testing and that really means anything for a bowhunter is what happens when the broadhead strikes bone on entry and exit.

Say you center punch a rib or maybe on a steep angle shooting down you hit the spine.Guts,skin,or muscle are not gonna cause too much of a problem when it comes to penetration.Its what happens when you hit bone and what your arrow does in regards to penetration when you hit bone.

The plywood tests above thats illustrated shows a clear winner when striking a hard solid medium as long as the arrows both struck straight on and not at an angle.

I think the light arrow may wuss out on bone hits and the heavy arrows powers its way through.

Once again the mushy stuffs not really a good test for bowhunting where bone is the # one thing that will thwart penetration on an animals body.

I would like to see tests with bone as the medium for testing light and fast vs slower and heavy arrows!

From: PineLander
Date: 10-Feb-11




Slower/heavier went through, faster/lighter got stuck.

But, that plywood test could have been "flawed". Crappy ol' 3/4" thick plywood anyway. :-)

From: Dugga Bull
Date: 10-Feb-11




The biggest difference between the two test is in one broadheads where use in the other fieldpoints were used.

OSB, did you also do your plywood test with fieldpoints?

OSB, your gellatin test was concise but, it only proves that a lighter faster arrow with a fieldpoint will penetrate gellatin futher.

We are not shooting big game animals with fieldpoints.

From: Njord
Date: 10-Feb-11




Come on, surely your guys realize that with an even ply number how the broadhead entered the facing ply would be equalized. Odd ply counts could have a broad head either penetrating 2 or three verneers at 90deg to the grain, which could skew the penetration 50%

If your gonna test stuff you need to control as many of the variables as posible or the results are useless, exception being if there is a huge sample size.

From: Greg Professional Bowhunters Society - Associate Member
Date: 10-Feb-11




Stringham makes a very good point regarding the difference between a recurve and a long bow and the way each handles different weight arrows. The Hill bows that I prefer to shoot just don't get peak performance with light arrows. The other factor that comes into play is the shooters draw length. With my 26 1/2 inch draw length there is a definite limit to how much speed I can get from any bow of a poundage I can shoot accurately, even with a light arrow. Testing to see what performs best in any given bow is more meaningful than arguing endlessly about which is better, fast(light) or slow (heavy), and since the speed I can achieve is limited, I have to opt for the only other way to increase efficiency, namely weight.

This thread is about fast and light vs. slow and heavy and I think OSB demonstrated rather well that his bow can shoot a light arrow fast enough that he gets great penetration in the mediums he tested. I see no point in arguing that.

I personally shoot a Hill bow better than the recurves I have shot, so heavy and slow works for me. One of these days when I am totally bored and have nothing else to do I might try some penetration tests with my Tembo and different weight arrows, but checking different weight arrows through the chronograph tells me pretty much what is most efficient out of that bow - heavy is still best.

From: Dugga Bull
Date: 10-Feb-11




OSB,

I understand your position but, you are missing the point (pun intended).

The arrow is usless without the broadhead in killing game just like the shovel handle is usless without the shovel head.

You can address your broadhead sharpness concerns by using the same broadhead with the edge filled flat. This would eliminate the change in sharpness factor.

As it stands, you've only proved your point with fieldpoints in gellatin; that's it!

You cannot make a direct translation to arrows tipped with broadheads and different mediums.

From: Stan
Date: 10-Feb-11




Either way, everyone who this really bothers should actually do their own testing, as it stands, we are taking folks at their word on such results.. Funny, some folks didn't give Ashby that courtesy.. The vid onesharp put up although well done, really proves nothing in the sense, we have to take him at his word that he did indeed come to the same draw length each time and at the same distance away etc. The camera shows none of this at all.. Not knocking any of his work it is just a fact I am surprised nobody brought it up before..

From: Dugga Bull
Date: 10-Feb-11




Wait a second!

Didn't your friend shoot a broadhead into the gelatin and did it not have less penetration then the fieldpoint?

You are assuming that a broadhead offers less resistance than a fieldpoint.

YOu say the arrow with the most penetrating energy; by the conclusions you've made with the outcome of your test that indicator would be arrow speed alone.

Further more your test does nothing to identify what criteria constitutes a well designed broadhead.

From: badger
Date: 10-Feb-11




I have never read Ashby's report but some real simple math can be applied here. a well designed 50# bow storing about 50# of energy will shoot a 500 grain arrow about 185 fps.A 700 grain arrow about 162 fps and a 350 grain arrow about 211 fps

500 grains@185= 38#KE 350 grains@211= 34#ke 700 grains@162= 41#ke,

Bows become more efficient when they shoot heavier arrows and less efficient with lighter arrows, all bows have a fixed# built in that will give you something called virtual mass which stays consistent with various arrow weights. So if ashby used the same bow with different weight arrows the heavier arrows would simply carry more energy to the animal he was aiming at. I think the momentum vs Ke thing doesn't mean anything.

From: badger
Date: 10-Feb-11




I have no explanation, were the arrow sizes the same diameter? Were the field points the same size? I don't know how you did the tests, I just know that bows deliver more energy with heavier arrows every time and in all cases with every bow compound or trad. Not talking penetration here just energy delivered.

From: Stan
Date: 10-Feb-11




Either way, everyone who this really bothers should actually do their own testing, as it stands, we are taking folks at their word on such results.. Funny, some folks didn't give Ashby that courtesy.. The vid onesharp put up although well done, really proves nothing in the sense, we have to take him at his word that he did indeed come to the same draw length each time and at the same distance away etc. The camera shows none of this at all.. Not knocking any of his work it is just a fact I am surprised nobody brought it up before..

From: Dugga Bull
Date: 10-Feb-11




OSB, there you go...the only way to test your hypothesis is to actually shoot the broadheads into the gellatin.

Regardless of your results; you are still only going to prove which arrow will penetrate gellatin further.

If i ever go huntin gellatin blobs/phone books your test will be the first one that i consult to optimize my setup (do you think fieldpoints are the best head choice when it comes to clean kills on gelatin and phone books? 8^)and i will say the same for Pat's test; if i ever go hunting sheets of plywood (do you think braodheads are the best choice on plywood or would field points be more lethal?) 8^).

If i'm hunting big game i will look at Ashby's tests. 8^)

...but, you didn't do your test to prove anything to me anyway. 8^)P

From: badger
Date: 10-Feb-11




I like OSB and always enjoy his posts. I do a lot of testing on my own and have discovered myself many times conducting faulty tests due to some factor I was ignoring. I was just adding a fact about bows in general.

From: Stan
Date: 10-Feb-11




Yeah..... He kinda grows on you...lol

From: bowhunt
Date: 10-Feb-11




These gelatin tests are interesting.

But it really is not a good test for bowhunters shooting at real animals with real BONES.Especially larger animals with bigger rib bones and scapulas.

Ashbys data comes from dead animals and I am sure he has tested pentration on bone hits.I have not read the report in awhile.

Once again its really all about what happens when a broadhead tipped arrow strikes bone.Not gelatin or foam or phonebooks.

Not picking sides.Just think a more real world test would be much more benificial than these tests though mediums that do not approximate the real world of bowhunting.Where bone is the main thing to consider with your hunting arrows in regard to whats best for penetration.

I would not base my choice of a hunting arrow based on a gelatin tests.

If I was hunting gelatin I would pay closer attention to the merits of OSBs results though.

Will the gelatin penetration results transfer over equally to penetration tests done on bone with broadheads?

Probably not based on pics I have seen of heavy vs light arrows tipped with broadheads shot into hard solid mediums.

From: Stan
Date: 10-Feb-11




Don't get your panties in a bind bud.. I never said I didn't believe you at all... The way everyone is bickering about test medium, they must have overlooked the camera angles not present in your own testing, would you believe the testing if it was someone else? Like I said Ashby sure as heck didn't get the same treatment now did he? And once again onesharp...Your tests are meaningless to me... I shoot selfbows..

From: bowyer45
Date: 10-Feb-11




interesting reading, You know Fred Bear lobbed a medium weight arrow out of his 65# recurve from half draw and killed his record stone sheep ram with a frontal hit, Blew a hole the size of an orange into the lung area he claimed? So much for not getting to full draw. Test all you want but there are bones and flesh in most animals I've butchered. Heavy shafts out of heavy bows break bones, and continue on through. I'm sure I could get both lungs half drawing my 70# longbow on any elk. Half drawing a 50# bow probably won't gitter done. I believe for every bow design ther probably is a perfect combination of arrow weight v.s. pounds pull that will give max penitration. It will differ from bow to bow somewhat. It is not any new revelation to say this as it has been known as long as I can remember.

From: badger
Date: 10-Feb-11




Test looks pretty good, the most logical thing I can think of is that the medium itself might have become more efficient at stopping the slower moving arrow because it had more time to react to the friction between the two surfaces, I think this would make a valid arguement. Your heavy arrow did hit the medium with more energy but very possibly the energy had more time to spread out in a wider area.

From: cjgregory
Date: 10-Feb-11




"Probably not based on pics I have seen of heavy vs light arrows tipped with broadheads shot into hard solid mediums."

Agreed.

From: cjgregory
Date: 10-Feb-11




"and anyone making sweeping generalizations like "a heavy arrow will always penetrate better" is mistaken."

Now this I agree with. The diminishing returns equasion. For a particular weight and draw length there is a self evident curve. The longer the effective range the more the heavier arrow benifits...to the point where it is beyond the shooters accuracy range.

That being said, 10 yards is not very indicative of the curve. Speed is still the dominant factor. This of course is short lived and quickly diminishes. This is also self evident in the curve. Two arrows of the same weight...the FOC factor enters into it.

From: George D. Stout Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 10-Feb-11




And in all of this, the guys who bow at the feet of the Ashby report, couldn't care less what has worked for eons; what other tests have shown, or any other history that happened before they came into the sport. Nothing else will work because they were told it wouldn't work, and OSB's test must be flawed...as is Jack Howard's tests from the 70's.

Carry on OSB....you're like the Energizer Bunny dude. 8^)))))). I'm thinking all of my experience doesn't mean anything either, even though it worked greatly. Look at the African Arrows thread.

From: badger
Date: 10-Feb-11




OSB, the explanation would apply to any material and very well explain the results. We know 100% sure the heavy arrow is hitting with more energy. Your test showed that regardless of having more energy it penetrated less. The only explanation I can think of for this is that the medium which is also doing a job of stopping your arrow is more effient at stopping slower moving objects because of side friction and simply more time to disipate energy outward away from the hit. This agrees with your test.

From: Stan
Date: 10-Feb-11




Interesting..

From: badger
Date: 10-Feb-11




OSB, did you read the first sentence in my post or the whole last post? I have a feeling you only read one sentence.

From: Ravenhood Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 10-Feb-11




I think this discussion will evetually go to individual bow and arrow weights and thier performance. A heavy arrow will always out penetrate a lighter one if they are are traveling at the same speed, the speed differance between bows and thier arrow weigts is the real debate.

From: badger
Date: 10-Feb-11




You have got one hard head, I am agreeing with you 100%. I am agreeing with your tests. I don't care what you say you are not reading my post. I bet if you used you rhead for a medium the arrows would break!!!

From: cjgregory
Date: 10-Feb-11




lol

From: Van/TX
Date: 10-Feb-11




You used my joke. I'm suing ;-)...Van

From: Jeff Roark
Date: 10-Feb-11




Which one of these can you throw the furthest the fastest?

1)Ping pong ball 2)Baseball 3)Bowling Ball

Just what I thought, something right in the middle of two extremes will probably work best for everything from speed, penetration, and quietness of the bow.

Now is the middle in the 9-10gr per inch range?

From: Jeff Roark
Date: 10-Feb-11




I was meaning to say 9-10gr per pound of draw weight.

From: PineLander
Date: 10-Feb-11




As far as GPP, somewhere around there. For stickbows, I regard 6-7 as light, 8-10 mid, 11-12 heavy, and 13+ rebar/boat anchor category.

From: buster v davenport
Date: 10-Feb-11




A. C. Doyle wrote about an old English penetration test in his book the "White Company" over 100 years ago. Seems like there was a bunch of archers laying about, long bowmen and cross bowmen, waiting for the next big shoot em up. About the same as leather wallers today. The top cross bow guy out shot the long bow guy by a good 90 yards for distance. Like 420 paces to 510 paces. They were not exactly kids bows. Then they got down to it and shot at a 1" thick elm shield, covered with bull hide, at 100 paces. The cross bow bolt did not penetrate tru the shield. The long bow guy "cheated" and greased the head of his arrow and sailed completely thru the shield. Things ain't changed much over the years.

From: ButchMo
Date: 10-Feb-11




The only problem with "The White Company" is that it's fiction. Butch

From: buster v davenport
Date: 10-Feb-11




In his companion book, "Sir Nigel", he lists over 20 reference books that he garnered his information from. But being English, he may have been predjudiced.

From: DenTradshooter Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 11-Feb-11




The Arrow does not even finish occilating / making a revolution until at least 20 yards ,meaning its not even at its fastest yet . When it comes to Penetration , use what you are experianced with and Never change ( Oh wait Thats the Good ol boys club Never mind) seriously Shoot what you are comfortable shooting . Decent sense Should Dictate, Shoot the Flattest,Fastest Trajectory Projectile you can .

Some of these Posters/Professional Comedians we have on here Should take thier acts on the Road! ( No Sir Not the Thread Author I like Speed! its why I shoot Heavy!)

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 11-Feb-11




I couldn't agree more with George! Keep at it OSB!!!

From: PineLander
Date: 11-Feb-11




OSB, if you want to disprove some other type of testing method (such as Pat L.'s test).... don't you think it would be reasonable to provide some basic information about your test? You seem to be implying that his test is wrought with inconsistency based on the medium utilized.

Were you shooting into 3/4" thick plywood and were you shooting 2-blade broadheads?

You said it yourself... if one could get a bow to shoot a heavier arrow at the same speed as the lighter arrow, the heavier arrow would penetrate more.

Based on that and the results of Pat L.'s test where his 655 gr. could not get through the board.... are you suggesting that your 350 gr. arrow (with 2-blade broadhead) could blow through a 3/4" thick plywood board?

From: Stan
Date: 11-Feb-11




I would be curious to see an arrow in about the 440 range and how it performed next to the others..

From: Sapcut
Date: 11-Feb-11




The blind is leading the blind.... in retardation justification.

From: Sapcut
Date: 11-Feb-11




George,

"And in all of this, the guys who bow at the feet of the Ashby report, couldn't care less what has worked for eons; what other tests have shown, or any other history that happened before they came into the sport."

I do... tell me...

What has worked for eons when hitting large bones? What other tests have tested bones hits and what were the results?

"I'm thinking all of my experience doesn't mean anything either, even though it worked greatly."

Are you referring to your experiences when hitting a shoulder bone or soft rib cages?

Seriously, not being argumentative, just curious as to specifics, thanks.

From: cjgregory
Date: 11-Feb-11




lol nice one sapcut

From: GLF Professional Bowhunters Society - Associate Member
Date: 11-Feb-11




Ballistic gel puts so much friction on the shaft that no arrow penetrates it well and thats also the reason for the very minute difference in penetration. It also causes shaft diameter to be the most important part of the test.

Van if you remember we tuned our bows back then, not arrows, so yes a 2114 could have been shot out of almost any bow weight within reason by thickening the side plate n moving the nock.

From: GLF Professional Bowhunters Society - Associate Member
Date: 11-Feb-11




I've never kept a record or done any tests but I've shot quite a few animals of all sizes over 45 years. To be honest I've never seen a measurable difference in penetraion for different arrow weights on flesh. Where arrow weight comes into play is when you hit bone. Thats where the testing should be done, on heavy ribs and scapulas. I'd be hittin the slaughter house n collecting heavy bones. Ballistic gell shows what friction can do is all.....jmho Gary

From: upnorth
Date: 11-Feb-11




all you need to do is . just using a deer as an example . is get 1 each 1 1/2 years to 8 year deer in 1/2 year age groups all will have different bone mass. then get them going from 100 lbs to 300 lbs all will have different muscle mass . then shoot them in the exact same place with each arrow ( but you can only shoot each deer once so you would have to have allot of the same deer so you could try different arrows ). forgot you need to have enough so you can shoot them i 1/2 degree angle changes . OR YOU COULD JUST SHOOT THEM IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND NOT WORRIE ABOUT IT .there is no test that all will agree on so like i said best way to win is not to play .see you in another 100 posts when you all get it figured out .

From: Sapcut
Date: 11-Feb-11




"OR YOU COULD JUST SHOOT THEM IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND NOT WORRIE ABOUT IT"

And shoot them in the wrong place and not worry about it.

From: Stan
Date: 11-Feb-11




Yes it would to you onesharp...He probably thinks the same about your phone book killing... But apparently, he has too much class to dog you on an open forum.. Maybe you could learn something from him after all.........I doubt it..

From: Jeff Roark
Date: 11-Feb-11




OSB, wouldn't one have to stand the animals back up for the test be accurate? If not all the organs and possibly the bone structure will not be the same as when standing.

Sapcut, Was the Ashby tests performed over all these years to determine what penetrated bone the best?

From: Sapcut
Date: 11-Feb-11




Jeff,

From the way I understand it his tests began to determine the best bow/arrow setup to allow for the greatest penetration due to a rise in unrecovered animals in Africa.

Major bones were a very significant part of the animals hunted and included in the research.

His tests show what the best setup will be when big bones are hit.

From: Sapcut
Date: 11-Feb-11




http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/PR/Ashby_Ultimate_Hunting_Arrows.pdf

From: Jeff Roark
Date: 11-Feb-11




Sapcut,

I find the example of the string on the table interesting. An arrow is not pulled, it is pushed by the bowstring is it not? Wouldn't EFOC cause more oscillation due to this?

I also find it interesting that Arrow mass and FOC are at #4 and #5 as far as importance.

From: cjgregory
Date: 11-Feb-11




First time I've read that article Sap. Very enlightning because it falls along my experiences. The section on Bone threshold was very good.

Another part that I found interesting was that with high FOC the only shaft material he has ever achived perfect flight with was carbon.

there was the section on short ranges vs. ranges after the paradox equalization. This is why a 5 or 10 yard test is insignificant. But I already knew that. A tapered arrow will stop oscilating much quicker than a parallel shaft.

From: ButchMo
Date: 11-Feb-11




Why aren't people allowed to have their own opinions? Some folks believe in heavy arrows. Some believe in light arrows. They're all opinions. Informed or not. Just use what works good for you & don't try to shove it down everyone's throat. It just degenerates a discussion when people name call & accuse other of not doing tests fairly. I don't believe Ashby or OSB would purposely skew their results. Use what works for you. It would sure be dull if we all believed the same way. Butch

From: cjgregory
Date: 11-Feb-11




"Wouldn't EFOC cause more oscillation due to this?"

Go back and read that section again. Just the opposite. Good stuff.

From: Sapcut
Date: 11-Feb-11




Jeff,

"Wouldn't EFOC cause more oscillation due to this?"

I can certainly say NOT based on my experiences with 32+% FOC

"I also find it interesting that Arrow mass and FOC are at #4 and #5 as far as importance."

It is interesting to me too but it goes back to ....as soon as any part of the arrow breaks down in anyway, the penetration is drastically decreased.

I think what you have to remember is that so many of the tests shots are with heavy arrows.

I think that a heavy arrow hitting a very hard bone is much more likely to break down in some way compared to a lighter arrow due to its lack of fondness to stopping. The lighter arrow is going to stop quicker upon big resistance impact thus decreasing the chance of damage and of course penetration.

When the arrow wins that initial microscopic battle AT impact, you have given your arrow a chance to keep on keepin on through the big resistance and then through the animal.

Just my opinion..IF we are still allowed to have our own.

From: Jeff Roark
Date: 11-Feb-11




OSB,

Why don't you do it with a single bevel and double bevel broadhead in one of the shoulder blades?

From: Van/TX
Date: 11-Feb-11




To hell with penetration testing. Send me the recipe for vension bacon. Never heard of it. Thanks...Van

From: paul craig
Date: 11-Feb-11




Go for it, OSB! Interesting and informative experiments you're doing. At the very least, you're sure stimulating some good discussion.

From: badger
Date: 11-Feb-11




These are good threads, get everybody thinking. Steve

From: bwshooter
Date: 11-Feb-11




OSB please if you test again state ahead of time what you will be testing and the controls. Your test was a starting point, but unless everything is exactly the same within whats humanly possible the test results will be suspect regardless if they are valid.

I would not test with broadheads unless there is some way to make sure they are the same sharpness for all arrows. I think you would have to pull them out of package and shoot dull. No way to get two broadheads the exact same sharpness. Thats why I would just use field points.

From: Sapcut
Date: 11-Feb-11




To whom it may concern,

http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/PR/Ashby_2007_Update_1.pdf

http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/PR/Ashby_2007_Update_2.pdf

From: ButchMo
Date: 11-Feb-11




Sapcut, "I think that a heavy arrow hitting a very hard bone is much more likely to break down in some way compared to a lighter arrow due to its lack of fondness to stopping. The lighter arrow is going to stop quicker upon big resistance impact thus decreasing the chance of damage and of course penetration.

When the arrow wins that initial microscopic battle AT impact, you have given your arrow a chance to keep on keepin on through the big resistance and then through the animal.

Just my opinion..IF we are still allowed to have our own."

Sounds right to me. Everybody should have their own opinion. Butch

From: badger
Date: 11-Feb-11




Butch I kind of agree with you, I think the heavy arrow will punch through heavy bone better. Looking forward to the results of the test.

From: Dugga Bull
Date: 12-Feb-11




As far as broad head sharpness and penitrating gellating goes; i wouldn't think it would be a major factor. I think surface area and blade angle would be the two most significant features.

I would just file the edges blunt; you are not concerned with max penitration you are looking for which penetrates more; well at least in the objective that OSB has set out to prove.

This is the greates flaw in OSB testing, the use of fieldpoints offers the least amount of pentitrating resistance. The importent thing to show is what happens when the resistance to penitration increases and how arrow weight affects this performance. This resistance value isn't only in the media shot into but also the projectile itself; there are two R values OSB's test only focuses on one R.

From: Dugga Bull
Date: 12-Feb-11




OSB,

The point you are failing to grasp is the fact that a broadhead has a greater R value than a field point.

When the R value of the arrow/material goes up i think you will find that the penitration advantage goes to the heavier shaft.

Part of good investigative science is that if you are getting different test results than someone else you try to determine why you are getting different test results.

From: Purdue
Date: 12-Feb-11




I think the different results are due to the fact that OSB tested in a consistent media, Ashby did not.

In a consistent medium a normal distribution will result (a bell curve). In an inconsistent medium a more random distribution results (a wavy or flat line).

Testing with both types of media may result in the same average and/or mean values, but it is unlikely. However, a normal distribution from consistent media will yield values that are much better at predicting future results.

From: Purdue
Date: 12-Feb-11




Maybe you guys can figure this one out.

IF heavy arrows are generally considered to more efficiently capture the KE from the bow and retain that KE better down range, why do distance shooters (flight archery) alway use the lightest arrow that gives good flight? Why do light arrows go further?

Is not the air a sort of medium too. So why do light arrow penetrate the medium of air better than heavy arrows?

From: badger
Date: 12-Feb-11




Purdue, good question. The answer is that lighter arrows will simply travel faster out of your bow and thus travel further. The consensus is that their is no practical pint of deminishing returns. The lighter the arrow you can shoot from your bow the further it wil go. But speed is the entire reason why. Lighter arrow require a lot less energy to propel them at much higher speeds. They also have a much smaller diameter and a lower drag co efficient.

From: Purdue
Date: 12-Feb-11




"The answer is that lighter arrows will simply travel faster out of your bow and thus travel further."

Is that always true?

Will a light flu-flu arrow travel further than a heavy flu-flu arrow when shot out of the same bow at the same angle?

From: cjgregory
Date: 12-Feb-11




no. the lighter arrow with the same drag will slow down faster with flu-flus. I can attest to that one.

From: badger
Date: 12-Feb-11




The lighter flight arrows also have tiney stiff thin fletches.

From: Purdue
Date: 12-Feb-11




So there must be a point where weight switches from and advantage to a disadvantage in obtaining maximum distance (penetration of air) and that point seems to relate to the amount of resistance to forward motion that the arrow sees.

From: badger
Date: 12-Feb-11




Purdue, other factors come into play before that happens. Such as spine becomes too weak or arrow becomes too short. The furthest shooting arrows, about 1 mile or so are tiny solid carbon rods, very stiff and very dense. Not sure what they weigh but I would guess about 40 grains or so.

From: English Setter
Date: 12-Feb-11




OSB; Good field point test. Next try using broadheads of different styles into your medium, this might start to be of some relevance. I will agree that a faster arrow is flatter shooting & a better scoring arrow for those that shoot 3-under & look down the arrow shaft. IMHO shooting field points into ballistics gel is of little value for bowhunting! Try for example shooting your fast arrow with a 2-blade cut on contact broadhead & a 3- blade cut on contact broadhead. Also read again Dr Asby's tests. I have a question for another study...if a deer can drop its full body width in 3/10 of a second, how close will an arrow traveling at 217 ft. sec. be to that deer if shot from 20-yrds? another question...has a bow been made that can shoot faster than the speed of sound? also is there a bow made today that is silent when shot?

From: English Setter
Date: 12-Feb-11




Then the 2- blade broadhead test through the plywood above must have been over your head? Why don't you try the same test & replace the plywood with ballistics gel & identicle cut on contact 2- blade broadheads? Also lubricate the arrow head & shafts. IMHO this is a more realistic test.

From: ButchMo
Date: 12-Feb-11




Man oh man. This horse is nothing but tatters!

From: PineLander
Date: 12-Feb-11




"It seems to me that the guys who think heavy arrows penetrate better - are really digging to find a reason why that is not the case in consistent mediums that anyone can easily test at home." - onesharpbroadhead I don't see it that way OSB, at least not for the most part.

Your gelatin/phone book tests were relatively accurate tests, no disagreement there. They were informative and educational. But I think it is unfair and misguided of you to use those tests as creedance in discounting others' tests that utilize completely different types of mediums.

You appear to be placing a high level of emphasis on the consistency of testing medium, while ignoring the obvious differences between the types of medium and how they are related to hunting scenarios.

Gelatin is a firm mush medium, phone books are a thick-padded medium, and plywood and bone are splittable/breakable mediums. And not to mention that field points are quite different than broadheads.

There is nothing "flawed" about Ashby's tests or Pat L.'s tests. Those tests were aimed at understanding penetration into hard splittable/breakable mediums using broadheads, while assimilating that of hitting animals' bones when hunting. Your gelatin/phone book tests do not take that into account. When hunting... sometimes we hit nothing but mush, but sometimes we do hit bone.

I have no underlying agenda to disprove your specific tests, just pointing out the irrelevance of discounting others' tests based on the result of your tests... different types of tests altogether!

From: PineLander
Date: 12-Feb-11




And one another note (to beat the horse a bit deader) -

If everybody were buy into "super fast is better because it penetrates about the same and provides more accurate shooting"....

... there will probably be an increased demand for camo ear plugs and super-duper bow silencing methods. Although, that in itself will probably need more testing to verify. :-)

From: Dugga Bull
Date: 12-Feb-11




"The answer is that lighter arrows will simply travel faster out of your bow and thus travel further." Is that always true?

Will a light flu-flu arrow travel further than a heavy flu-flu arrow when shot out of the same bow at the same angle?"

This is what i'm talking about when i refer the R value of an arrow.

A flight arrow has a very low R value; thus it favors speed.

A flight arrow with a high R value (flu flu) will favor shaft weight.

Another interesting thing to not based on Badger's flight arrow feedback. The long distance flight shaft that he describes also has a high cross sectional density and this is altogther another matter.

From: Dugga Bull
Date: 12-Feb-11




typo not should read note.

From: cjgregory
Date: 12-Feb-11




"It seems to me that the guys who think heavy arrows penetrate better - are really digging to find a reason why that is not the case in consistent mediums that anyone can easily test at home."

The term "heavy" that you use is too general. Are you talking a 600 gr. class arrow at 30 yards as "heavy" and a 300 gr. as light? Both tipped with a broadhead into a phone book? already did it in my basement silly. Arrow design also comes into play. An Arrow Dynamics arrow against your 300 gr parallel arrow? Or against a 2219? I have one more place to check for a video campra. Would love to show you.

From: David Alford
Date: 12-Feb-11




If someone just had an old cow they don't want...

From: FishHead
Date: 12-Feb-11




I can't believe this is still going....

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 12-Feb-11




There are flaws in most tests and Dr. Ashby's is no exception. I do not care how many different arrows you shoot,there is no way they you can reproduce the exact shot. There are sooo many variables to deal with. What OSB did is do the best he could and I happen to agree with his findings.

I found no need to use a heavy arrow with increased FOC and a very expensive BH to get the job done. IMHO

From: badger
Date: 12-Feb-11




Something very interesting came up here in this thread that I have never heard discussed before. I think it may be very significant in this arguement. The fact that a heavier arrow makes your bow more efficient at transferring energy into the arrow also very well might mean that that same heavier arrow makes the medium more efficient at slowing it down. At a microscopic level things will happen to a slower moving arrow that don't quite have enough time to happen on a faster moving arrow. Probably not a lot of difference but never the less measurable. Steve

From: Van/TX
Date: 12-Feb-11




badger, Jack Howard referred to that as the "binding effect of the carboard against the shaft." He used compressed cardboard for his test and found that the fastest arrow penetrated best.

Ashby referred to that as shaft drag. "Shaft drag is one major reason that arrow penetration test into artificial test media often differs from actual results derived from testing on real animal tissues."...Van

From: English Setter
Date: 12-Feb-11




I wonder if OSB light fast "ipifini" can be used in water shots like in carp shooting? Makes me wonder why fish arrows are so dang heavy. H20 must have a different affect on a arrow shaft than ballistics gel? Makes me wonder how far a solid glass "wet" fish arrow would penetrate that same ballistics gel with a 2- blade broadhead on the business end.

From: PineLander
Date: 13-Feb-11




Sure enough... if gelatin/compressed cardboard/phone book testing indisputably shows that arrows of different weight have very similar energy-penetration capabilities across the board regardless of medium, then I can't wait for the ice to thaw and use those lightweight arrows for bowfishing. :-)

From: cjgregory
Date: 13-Feb-11




Water has the same pressure completely around the shaft. The arrow is more quickly driven to a "static" state.

From: David Alford
Date: 13-Feb-11




Actually, a water penetration test is a great idea. Some out there has got to have a swimming pool...may need to wait for the ice to thaw, however.

From: Sapcut
Date: 13-Feb-11




"It seems to me that the guys who think heavy arrows penetrate better - are really digging to find a reason why that is not the case in consistent mediums that anyone can easily test at home."

I am digging to find real information that shows what will penetrate better into real animals and real bones. I can't seem to find it. I have seen arrows shot into Jello Gelatin in Hell's kitchen that is no comparison to animals.

But wait there's more....It can easily be done at one's home. Now that is something to hang your hypotheses on!

And I repeat....

George,

"And in all of this, the guys who bow at the feet of the Ashby report, couldn't care less what has worked for eons; what other tests have shown, or any other history that happened before they came into the sport."

I do... tell me...

What has worked for eons when hitting large bones? What other tests have tested bones hits and what were the results?

"I'm thinking all of my experience doesn't mean anything either, even though it worked greatly."

Are you referring to your experiences when hitting a shoulder bone or soft rib cages?

Seriously, not being argumentative, just curious as to specifics, thanks.

From: upnorth
Date: 13-Feb-11




question was looking at momentum charts . and most are saying heavy arrows carry more momentum so penetrate deeper . on the chart lets say both these arrows are identical except for weight . a 700 grain arrow going 250 fps has .777 momentum a 500 grain arrow going 350 fps has .777 momentum . they both have the same momentum .so what you guys are telling me is they both should do the same evan though theres 39 lb ke difference because ke has little to do with it .

From: Van/TX
Date: 13-Feb-11




upnorth, that scenario has been studied and results published by at least one individual. This particular person concluded that when momentum is equal then weight (mass) wins.

From: badger
Date: 13-Feb-11




If you go to an extreme, a 2000 grain arrow going about 105 fps would be about the same momentum as a 500 grain arrow going 400 fps. I haven't tested this scientificaly but I do use very heavy steel arrows on occassion for measuring bows stored energy potential and they don't penetrate the target noticeably more or less than the 500 grain arrows going about 180 fps, at far less than 1/2 the momentum. I find momentum very confusing??? I did check and see if it was an accepted mathematical equaion and it sure is but I can't seem to make any logical sense out of it. Does anyone have a good example that might make it clear?

From: Van/TX
Date: 13-Feb-11




badger, start cooling a 6 pack, dig out those pork rinds. It will take a while to read but the example is here below ;-)...Van

Momentum, Kinetic Energy, and Arrow Penetration (And What They Mean for the Bowhunter) By Dr. Ed Ashby Prologue To understand the relationship between an arrow’s kinetic energy, its momentum, and their implications towards the ability of a hunting arrow to penetrate tissues, one must rely on the laws of physics. This discussion cannot be made totally uncomplicated. The following is an attempt to impart a fundamental understanding of the applicable principles of physics, as simply as I can, and relate them to the results from actual field data. Before delving into the deep abyss of the physics involved in arrow penetration, it is appropriate to first take a few moments to discuss the field data, and the logic behind why it is collected in the manner that it is. Judging from questions I receive, this appears to be a very misunderstood aspect of the study of terminal ballistics. It is, in many aspects, more akin to forensic medicine than to laboratory science. The aficionado of the many forensic medical shows, now so popular on television, will recognize the methodology. One starts with a real event, something known to have occurred, and then uses pure science to determine and explain the “how and why’ of the incident. Penetration data collected from real shots, into real tissues, is not a static measurement. Outcomes differ from shot to shot, as the uniformity of tissues encountered change. In the real world it is impossible to control all the variables, and one does not wish to do so. Those variables do exist. They will be encountered. The scholar of abstract science will cite that this testing methodology includes too many variables, but it is precisely because of the multitude of variables that it is necessary. When dealing with infinitely complex variables, only ‘outcome driven’ information analysis, from a multiplicity of data, provides usable results. This is why the medical community commonly uses ‘outcome driven’ studies. A commonplace example of these differing test approaches occurred with the development of automobile air bags. Engineers did enormous static testing with crash dummies, controlling all variables, before air bags were introduced.

After the introduction of air bags into production automobiles, outcome driven analysis showed that significant numbers of adult humans were being injured, and sometimes killed, by air bags during their deployment. An even larger number of children were being injured or killed. Static testing had indicated the deployment force would be safe. The ‘reality’ outcome was not as the static testing had predicted. Outcome studies of air bag performance, in real automobile crashes, with real people on board, pinpointed the incidences where both serious and fatal damage was caused to humans by the air bag. It delineated the tendencies; when the events were likely to occur. The static test standard was a male, of 160 pounds weight, seated normally within the car. Observed injuries and deaths occurred when occupant size was below the ‘average size’ that had been used in the static studies to determine the safe force levels exerted upon the various parts of the body during air bag deployment AND when the occupant was located closer to the air bag at time of deployment than the ‘static testing standard’ (as with persons using a cushion or pillow behind their back while driving or riding). The frequency of occurrence of these events was tracked in the outcome studies, and found to have a significant prevalence. Then researchers turned to the pure sciences to find the explanations for the events, which had now been shown to occur in the real world. Force of impact, in relation to both occupant size and position at time of impact, was the culprit. The force of air bag deployment was simply too violent for human tissues, under particular sets of circumstances, which did occur in the real world application of the air bags. The force of air bag deployment was modified. Outcome analysis of air bag deployment force continues today, and the regulations and guidelines are still being modified, based upon outcome driven studies. The above example pinpoints the major differences in methodology between the measurements of pure laboratory science and the outcome driven method of deriving conclusions. In laboratory science, one starts with pure measurements and tries to predict future events. Outcome driven studies start with events known to occur; then looks for the scientific explanations of how and why it occurred.

Outcome driven studies factor in the probability of occurrence when a large number of independently acting variables are randomly introduced into the observed results. Another way of saying this is that outcome driven studies include the Murphy Factor; to find out what can happen; when it is likely to happen; and how often it actually happens. Another major difference between laboratory science and outcome driven studies is that outcome driven results have an ‘acceptability level’. Their validity does not have to meet any level of ‘engineering credibility’; the ability to be repeated at will, each and every time. For example, how many ‘unsuccessful outcomes’, deaths or injuries, caused by an air bag’s failure to perform as intended, are required before it is deemed as ‘unacceptable performance’ under the real conditions of use? This question is even more valid when the identified cause of the incidences is easily preventable. The gravity of an incident; the tendency for it to occur under particular circumstances; the frequency with which its actual occurrence is observed; and society’s morals all determine the level of acceptability. So, one has to ask, “What is the acceptable level of failure for a hunting arrow to perform as expected in tissues?” As a bowhunter, I am interested in outcome; outcome in tissues, not in a homogeneous test medium. I think most bowhunters are! For many years I tried to find a test medium that would give results which correlated to the observed incidents which occurred under field conditions, as a hunting arrow penetrated real tissues. Such a test medium would make the investigation of terminal ballistics of hunting arrows very much simpler, and far less time consuming and expensive. Ballistic gel, covered with a suitable elastic outer covering, gives a reasonable correlation to tissue hits in which no hard tissues are encountered, but I have found no combination of materials that will correlate with the multiplicity of resistance forces encountered in penetrating real tissues. This past year, a European forensics team also tried to find a synthetic testing medium that would give results comparable to that seen in real arrow wounds. They also found none.

An absolute ‘predictor’ of arrow penetration, on every shot, is impossible. Outcome driven analysis from real shots, into real tissues, does, however, give a definitive picture of any given arrow’s incidence, tendency, and frequency of occurrence of events during tissue penetration. Testing in a uniform medium does not. Having tried both approaches, I feel certain that it is only through the use of outcome driven results that reliable indicators of an arrow’s likelihood of performance under real hunting conditions can be developed. Before launching into the physics of arrow penetration, we first need some basic definitions. Those not ‘technically predisposed’ will find the first part tedious, but it is necessary groundwork for one to understand the propositions that follow. It is important for one to know that the recommendations are grounded in both the coherent logic of physics and the empirical facts; facts confirmed through nearly a quarter century of intensively collecting and collating detailed field measurements of the terminal performance of hunting arrows in real animal tissues. [NOTE: For the benefit of those who find the ‘highly technical’ difficult, some of the more ‘technically precise’ clarifications and information has been set aside in text boxes, and denoted as a “Nerd’s Note”. (Nerd: Defined as an enthusiast whose interest is regarded by others as too technical or too scientific. Somehow, I think I resemble that remark!). It is entirely acceptable for those ‘mathematically challenged’ to omit reading the Nerd’s Notes! Their omission will not affect the reading of the other text.] The Laws of Physics FORCE: Force is defined in physics as that which tends to change the momentum of a body containing mass. Force is proportional to the rate of change of momentum. Nerd’s Note: Force (lbf) = [mass (lbm) times the acceleration (expressed in ft/sec²)] divided by the gravitational constant. The gravitational constant is 32.174 lbm-ft/lbf-sec2, and is abbreviated as ‘gc’. In English units, the gc is used anytime one goes from pounds mass (lbm) to a force, (lbf).

MASS is a quantity of matter, and is expressed in ‘pounds of mass’, (abbreviated as lbm). Weight is the force exerted on an object due to the gravitational field, and expressed in pounds of force (abbreviated as lbf). In physics, mass (‘lbm’) is expressed as the weight of the object (in pounds force) multiplied by the gravitational constant and divided by the force of gravity. Though the numerical value of an object’s mass and weight can be the same, the units of measure and theory behind them differ. Nerd’s Note: Weight (or the force as a result of mass) has the following equation when using English Engineering Units: W(lbf) = [mass(lbm) * g (32.174ft/ sec2)/gc (32.174 lbm-ft/lbf-sec2 ), or, to conform to the above, Mass (lbm) = W (lbf) * gc/g Note: The factoring in of the g and gc does not change the resultant value; it just makes the units consistent. This becomes a factor anytime one talks about, or calculates, “force” and its effects, as it distinguishes clearly between the mass of an object and the force applied by the mass. MOMENTUM: The unit of measurement for momentum is slug-feet per second. A slug is a portion of the subset of coherent units known as the gravitational foot-pound-second system. The physical weight of one slug of mass equals 32.174 pounds. One slug of mass will acquire an acceleration of one foot per second per second when acted on by a one pound force (at sea level). Nerd’s Note: Momentum can also be expressed in lbf-sec, if one is not using the slug as the unit of measure. The slug has units of lbf-sec2/ft. It is essentially mass (lbm) with the gc already divided into it. A body of mass (M) moving at a velocity (V) has a momentum equaling M x V. This says, “The momentum equals the mass of the object [expressed in pounds of mass (lbm) and divided by the pull of gravity, which will result in the mass of the object in slugs], times the velocity [expressed in feet per second] at which the mass is moving”. Momentum has both amplitude (an ‘amount’ value) and a direction. Because any measurement of momentum has a specified direction it quantifies the net force acting in that single, straight line, direction. Momentum is, therefore, known as a linear function, and is a measurement of the force of forward movement of an object. Nerd's Note: While there are situations where momentum can also be angular, in dealing with penetration the use of linear momentum is the simplest and most applicable method.

VELOCITY is defined as the change in position divided by the time period during which the change occurs. It is expressed in units of distance per unit of time - or, for our purposes, in “feet per second”. ACCELERATION is the rate of change of speed, or how much the velocity of a body in motion changes during a specified period of time. Consequently, the acceleration of gravity is expressed in “feet per second per second”. This quantifies how many feet per second the velocity changes as each second passes. IMPULSE: Force (in our case, the momentum) applied over a unit of time creates an impulse. The concept of impulse is extremely important in the study of momentum, and to the understanding of arrow penetration. Time passes as a force is applied to an object. When this happens we say that an impulse is applied to the object. When a bow launches an arrow, an impulse is applied to the arrow. The bow applies a force on the arrow for a short time period. According to Newton's third law of motion, forces always come in pairs. Thus, the arrow also puts a force on the bow, and the bow, therefore also has an impulse applied to it. NET FORCE is the total amount of force exerted by a body in motion. It is the change in momentum divided by the change in time. When the mass of a moving object remains constant, as with an arrow in motion, the net force equals the mass (in slugs) times the change in velocity divided by the time period over which the change occurs. By definition, the change in velocity divided by the change in time gives the acceleration of a moving body. Therefore: when the mass of a moving body remains constant the force will equal the Mass (in slugs) times the Acceleration. (Force equals mass times acceleration. In equation form this is expressed as: F = ma). Nerd's Note: When using English units, rather than slug mass, this equation would be expressed as F = ma/gc or, if one prefers, F = (m / gc) * a. This is necessary to convert from lbm to lbf.

It is essential to understand that any reference to the net force of a moving object is specific to the specified time period being referenced. In one set of circumstances, net force can equal the total disposable force of an arrow in motion. In another reference, net force can imply the remaining force after deductions, as in calculating the net force remaining after an arrow completely penetrates an animal. When an arrow’s net force after penetration (at the time of exit) is deducted from the (total disposable) net force of the arrow at the time of impact it equals the amount of the arrow’s disposable net force that was required for the arrow to completely penetrate the animal on that particular shot. That amount of the disposable net force available to the arrow at impact was expended over the time period required for the arrow to pass through the tissues. IMPULSE: An impulse is equal to the net force of the object times the time period over which the force is applied. The impulse equation is mathematically derived from the equation F = ma, which comes from Newton’s Second Law of Motion. Study the following. It shows the derivation of the impulse formula. Line 1: Force equals mass times acceleration. Line2: Substituting the definition of acceleration for “a” in the equation. Line 3: Algebraic rearrangement. The force multiplied by the change in time equals the mass multiplied by the change in velocity.

The first line is our familiar equation F = ma. The second line expresses the acceleration by its basic definition, a change in velocity divided by the change in time. The third line is arrived at through algebra, by multiplying each side of the equation by delta t (which is the symbol for change in time), canceling it on the right, effectively moving it over to the left. Nerd's Note: If working in English units, one must not forget to factor in the gc constant to change from pounds mass (lbm) to pounds force (lbf) in the above equations, When doing so, the first line of the equations above would be: F=ma/gc

The left side of the third line is called the impulse on the object. That is, impulse is equal to the net force times the length of time over which that force is applied. The right side of the third line is called the change in momentum. Thus, the impulse equals the change in momentum.

The Impulse equals the change in momentum An arrow in motion has a mass of M and is moving at a velocity of V. As a result the arrow possesses a predetermined momentum (mass times velocity) at the instant of impact. When the arrow strikes an animal it will decelerate (a negative acceleration value). If the arrow stops in the animal it will have expended the entire disposable net force available to it at the instant of impact over the time period required for it to come to a full stop. A resistance impulse force equaling the arrow’s disposable net force at impact will have been applied by the tissues upon the arrow, and it will have occurred over the exact same time period. In this situation the arrow’s velocity change is 100%. The momentum of the arrow at impact, divided by the time period required for the arrow to come to a complete stop, will equal the impulse of the arrow upon the tissues. The resistance force of the tissues to the arrow's passage during the time required for penetration represents the impulse of the tissues upon the arrow. The two impulses will be equal. The time factor will be equal between the two impulses. The force of momentum and resistance force will be equal. If the arrow passes completely through the animal, the applied impulse equals the arrow’s momentum at impact minus the arrow’s retained momentum at exit, for the time period required for the arrow to pass through the tissues. As the mass of the arrow remains constant during the entirety of its passage through the tissues, the arrow’s net force decreases only in proportion to the amount of velocity loss during the course of penetration.

Given two arrows of equal momentum, but with one deriving a greater portion of its momentum from mass than the other, the heavier arrow will change velocity (decelerate) at a slower rate as it passes through the tissues. In other words, the heavier arrow will retain a higher percentage of its impact velocity at any given time period during its passage through the animal’s tissues, thus it also retains a higher momentum at any given point during the time required for the arrow to penetrate. Another way of saying this would be that, though the heavier arrow is traveling slower, it takes a longer time to stop. The result is that the heavier arrow will have a greater impulse of force than does the light arrow. It is momentum that gives an object in motion the tendency to STAY in motion. The greater the contribution of the object’s mass is to the resultant momentum the harder it will be to stop the forward progression of a moving object. Anyone who has pushed a car in neutral and then tried to stop it will understand this. The more of a moving object’s momentum that is derived from its mass, the more TIME it takes to stop it with any given resistance force. It is common for proponents of light and fast arrows to counter that the faster arrow will have traveled a greater distance through the tissues in the same time period than will the heavier, and slower, arrow. This would be valid were it not for the nature of resistance forces. As the arrow’s velocity is increased the resistance does not increase equivalently. The resistance increases exponentially. The resistance of a medium to penetration is reliant on the square of the object’s velocity (assuming objects of a given coefficient of drag; i.e., using arrows with the same external profile, material and finish). In other words, if the arrow’s impact velocity doubles, the resistance increases by a factor of four. If the impact velocity quadruples, the resistance to penetration increases 16 times! The effect of exponentially increasing resistance is easy to experience. Try holding a hand out the window of the car, while the car is going at a velocity of 30 miles per hour (which is only 44 feet per second), and feel the air’s resistance against your hand. The resistance is very slight. Now accelerate to 60 miles per hour (a mere 88 feet per second). The velocity has only gone up by a factor of two, but the air’s resistance to your hand passing through it is now four times greater.

Now imagine the effect on an arrow passing through tissues. Tissues are more solid than air. They have a greater density. Their resistance to an object’s passage is higher. Visualize the effect as an arrow’s velocity increases from 150 feet per second (a fairly typical velocity from a mid-draw weight traditional bow) to 300 feet per second (as from a top line compound bow). Let us now assume an arrow weighing 700 grains for the slower bow (150 fps is easily achievable with that weight arrow and a ‘traditional’ bow) and a 390 grain arrow for the faster bow (the advertised velocity rating for one of the newest compound bows on the market, using that weight arrow). The slower arrow has 0.466 slug feet per second of disposable net force. The faster arrow has 0.519 slug feet per second. Lets also assume these two arrows are of same materials, have equal physical external dimensions (easily achievable), and both have perfect flight characteristics. The tissue’s resistance increase is totally dependant upon the velocity of the arrow. The lighter arrow has 10.22 percent more disposable net force (and 123.2 percent more kinetic energy) than the heavier arrow but, because of its higher velocity, it is met by four times the resistance to penetration. Which arrow will penetrate further in real tissues? Empirical evidence from the outcome studies provides an overwhelmingly definitive answer. Both the frequency and degree to which the heavier, slower, arrow out-penetrates the lighter one is of such a magnitude that it must be viewed as the norm. ALL MOMENTUM IS NOT THE SAME Given two arrows, identical in shaft and broadhead materials and profile, and having EQUAL momentum, but possessing UNEQUAL mass, the arrow deriving the greater portion of its momentum from its mass will penetrate better. The Laws of Physics requires this to be true, and ALL of my field test data validates this to be the case. To say this in another way, arrow momentum derived through increasing arrow mass results in a greater gain in penetration than does momentum gained by increasing an arrow’s velocity. This is true because the tissue’s resistance is increased by the square of the velocity.

Let’s look at two arrows of equal momentum, but unequal mass, both of which expend all their available net force in the tissues. If the momentum is equal between two arrows at impact, the one with the greater mass has to be traveling at a slower velocity. As shown above, the slower arrow will be met by a lower resistance force than the faster arrow. With the momentum of the two arrows equal at impact, their disposable net force will be equal, but the resistance force will be greater upon the faster arrow. Because of the higher resistance force, the faster/lighter arrow will lose velocity more rapidly, and its momentum will diminish at a faster rate than that of the heavier arrow. It will stop in a shorter period of time, thus it will have a lower impulse of force than the heavier arrow. To quantify the potential for penetration we must first quantify ALL the directional FORCES involved. KINETIC ENERGY: When an object is in motion, it has kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is defined as the total energy of a body in motion. Kinetic energy is scalar, or non-directional, in nature - it is the TOTAL energy, of all types, in all directions. That is: kinetic energy has magnitude, but it does not have direction. (Note that kinetic energy is defined as ENERGY, not as FORCE.) Kinetic energy includes all the types of energy of a body in motion, and is very dependent on the object’s velocity. When a moving object with mass strikes something, the kinetic energy is transferred, as one or another form of energy. An arrow’s kinetic energy at impact is the basic ‘potency’ of the collision - how hard the arrow strikes the target. Kinetic energy is measured in "foot pounds". A 'foot pound' is the amount of energy needed to exert a one pound force for a distance of one foot. (Note that foot pounds is a measure of the energy required, not a measure of the force itself). Force is a portion of the arrow’s total energy. The formula for kinetic energy is: Kinetic energy equals one half the mass (lbm) times the velocity squared and divided by the gravitational constant (gc). Kinetic energy is often cited by the advocates of light weight, high velocity, arrows as the standard for predicting an arrow’s ability to penetrate. But consider a baseball.

A baseball weighs 5.12 ounces (that’s 2240 grains) and can be thrown in excess of 95 mph (which is 139.33 feet per second). It has 96.5 foot pounds of kinetic energy. It actually strikes much harder than a heavy hunting arrow at ‘traditional bow’ velocities, but I can't really see hunting buffalo with a fast ball! Kinetic energy determines how hard the baseball strikes; it has no direct bearing on how well it penetrates. As with the baseball, a tuning fork, once struck, has high kinetic energy (it can shatter a crystal wine glass), but has almost no momentum. It would make a darn poor weapon against an animal of even modest size! The kinetic energy of a moving arrow includes ALL the energy, of all types, inherent to the arrow. This includes such things as the flexional energy; vibrational energy (some of which is transformed into the sonic, or sound, energy); all of the rotational energies; gravitational energy; potential energy; and the heat (frictional) energy generated by its passage. An arrow’s momentum is also a part of the arrow’s kinetic energy - the only part that relates to its ability to penetrate. Some of an arrow’s kinetic energy is dissipated as other forms of energy during flight and on impact. Even the ‘sound’ of a hit is derived from the arrow’s kinetic energy. As shown above, the Laws of Physics dictates that momentum, and not kinetic energy, is the correct unit of measure to quantify the linear (straight line) "potential disposable net force" that is available to an arrow. Momentum determines THE AMOUNT OF FORCE which an arrow has available to it for penetration. (Perhaps this is a good point at which to digress for a moment. Kinetic energy is frequently used as a guide to the potential lethality of a high speed bullet. This is because a bullet can cause tissue damage in ways an arrow can not. Bullets carry massive amounts of kinetic energy, relative to an arrow. Much of a bullet’s kinetic energy is transferred through the tissues as a ‘shock wave’, caused by the rapid compression of tissue fluids. As the bullet strikes, a ‘hydraulic force’ is transferred, through the tissue fluids, over a wide area. This causes histologic tissue shock, disrupting tissue functions. It is this hydraulically induced ‘shock wave’ that causes the ‘bruising’, or ‘blood-shot’ tissues surrounding a bullet induced wound channel.

If one researches the literature of terminal ballistics and killing power of firearms, they will find that, even there, the use of kinetic energy as an indicator of bullet lethality falters badly as the size of the animal increases. Its usefulness also diminishes with firearms producing low (by firearms standards) kinetic energy, as with handguns. This is the reason that such other ‘indicators’ of bullet lethality as “Taylor’s Knock-Out Value”, the “Optimum Game Weight” and the “Power Factor” find their way into firearms literature, all of which place more emphasis on the bullet’s momentum and/or impulse of force. Studies conducted by the U. S. Army’s Ballistics Research Facility indicate that tissue shock from hydraulic compression becomes a significant “wound factor” only at impact velocities around 2500 feet per second, or greater. Creating ‘hydraulic shock’ is not an option with an arrow). Kinetic energy is NOT the correct unit of measure for calculating ANY of the forces relevant to penetration. It is applicable for calculating neither the force of a moving object; the disposable net force at impact; the net force at exit; net force consumed during penetration; the applied impulse; nor the resistance impulse force affecting penetration. With a given arrow, if its kinetic energy is increased, there will be a measurable increase in its penetration, but only because the velocity increase necessary to achieve more kinetic energy has also increased the arrow’s momentum. The increase in penetration will not be proportional to the increase in kinetic energy. It will be proportional only to the resultant increase in the arrow’s momentum (with the increased resistance created by the higher velocity also factored in). Kinetic energy IS applicable for calculating the mechanical efficiency of one’s bow. Efficiency is defined as the ratio of the amount of energy (Ah, now we get to use ENERGY) used by a machine to the amount of useful work done by it. A “machine” is defined as a device with moving parts used to perform a task. Work is defined as the transfer of energy, measured as the product of the force applied to a body multiplied by the distance moved by that body in the direction of the force. Work is force times a distance. Work can also be defined as being equal to the change in kinetic energy.

For a bow and arrow system, the bow’s efficiency is defined as the proportion (percentage) of the bow’s stored energy that is transmitted to the arrow when it is fired. The more efficient a bow is the higher will be the amount of its stored energy (i.e., the potential energy that is stored in the limbs of the drawn bow) which is transferred to the arrow when the bow is fired. The arrow’s kinetic energy is derived directly from the ‘output kinetic energy’ of the bow, and represents the useful work performed by the bow. The arrow’s momentum will be a function of the bow’s output kinetic energy and the arrow’s mass, but it is not the product of them. (In mathematics a “function” is a quantity whose value depends upon the varying values of other quantities, while the “product” is the result of the multiplication of two or more quantities.) When one looses and arrow, a portion of the bow’s stored potential energy is used to apply a force upon the arrow. The applied force acts upon the arrow over the time period during which the arrow remains on the string. This force, applied over this time period, will be the impulse of the bow upon the arrow. It is this applied impulse which causes the movement of the arrow’s mass. In other words, it changes the velocity of the arrow, and the arrow’s mass times its launch velocity determines the arrow’s momentum at the instant it departs from the bowstring. A bow’s output kinetic energy allows one to estimate the bow’s ability to cast an arrow. The greater a bow’s output kinetic energy, the more capable it is of casting a heavy arrow with acceptable levels of velocity and trajectory for ethical hunting ranges. Thusly, the output kinetic energy OF A BOW is a useful INDICATOR of how much arrow momentum it can produce. Impulse is the FORCE applied by a body in motion, over a period of time, upon the object it hits. Momentum has FORCE. Kinetic energy has ENERGY. An arrow’s net disposable force equals its momentum at the instant of impact, and must be met by an equal resistance force, acting over the time period of the impulse, for the arrow to come to rest. Kinetic energy does not enter directly into any of the calculations relating to penetration. THE KINETIC ENERGY CARRIED BY AN ARROW AT IMPACT HAS NO DIRECT BEARING ON ITS ABILITY TO PENETRATE.

If one fills a 5 gallon plastic pail with sand and fires both a .357 magnum and a heavy hunting arrow at it, the bullet will be stopped by the sand, while the arrow will penetrate the pail completely. The .357 magnum handgun has a 158 grain bullet traveling at 1250 fps, for a momentum of 0.83 slug-feet per second, and a kinetic energy of 520 foot-pounds. A 710 grain arrow at 183 fps has only 0.57 slug-feet per second of momentum, and a mere 52 foot-pounds of kinetic energy. These are actual combinations I have used to demonstrate the penetration power of a heavy hunting arrow. Our baseball, with 96.5 foot pounds of kinetic energy, and 1.39 slug-feet per second of momentum, will simply bounce off. What makes the difference? A major factor between the bullet and the arrow is the increased resistance force met by the higher velocity bullet. While the bullet has ten times more kinetic energy, and 37.5% more momentum, than the arrow, its almost seven times higher velocity causes the bullet to be met by nearly fifty times as great a resistance force as that encountered by the arrow! Another major factor between the handgun’s bullet and the arrow (yes, we will get to the baseball shortly) is the longer time period of the arrow’s impulse; which results from its higher mass. Though the arrow is traveling much slower than the bullet, and has less momentum than the bullet, it derives a greater percentage of the momentum it does possess from its mass. It is ‘heavier’. The heavier (and lower velocity) arrow “decelerates” more slowly than the bullet or, if one prefers, it has a longer time period over which the force acts. Remember? Force multiplied by the time it acts equals the impulse. The heavier arrow retains a higher percentage of its force for a longer period of time than does the bullet. The bullet’s total net disposable force, though very high relative to the arrow, is entirely dissipated in milliseconds. Now, to our baseball. Our pale of sand also has a differing resistance to the passage of projectiles having differing cross sectional areas and profiles. The baseball has a much larger surface area presented to the bucket, in relation to its mass, than does the bullet. The bullet presents a larger surface area per unit of mass than does the arrow. In physics this difference in the ‘penetration ability’ is defined by the sectional density of the object.

The SECTIONAL DENSITY of an object of round (cross sectional) profile is defined as the mass of the object divided by the square of its diameter. The heavier the object is in relation to its cross sectional area, the higher its sectional density. The higher the sectional density, the less the amount of frontal surface area (per unit of its mass) that is presented to the target, and the less of the target’s ‘matter’ (relative to the penetrating object’s mass) that will be displaced by the passage of the object through the target. This translates into a lower level of resistance on the frontal area of the projectile. If the mass of an arrow is increased without changing its external dimensions, it will weigh more per unit of cross sectional area. Its sectional density will be increased, and it will penetrate farther with any given applied force. Note that the sectional density refers only to the resistance on the penetrating object’s frontal area and the amount of ‘matter’ displaced in relation to its mass. In tissues, an arrow’s “shaft drag” is also an important feature influencing penetration. Shaft drag results from the frictional forces between the arrow shaft’s surface and the substance being penetrated. Shaft drag is one major reason that arrow penetration test into artificial test media often differs from actual results derived from testing on real animal tissues. Most ‘target materials’ rely heavily on shaft drag to stop the arrow. They are made from materials specifically chosen and designed to ‘close down’ around the shaft, exerting the maximum possible shaft drag. Muscle fibers, on the other hand, tend to retract, actually spreading apart, when cut by a sharp broadhead. When cut, muscle tissues also release blood, which lubricates the shaft, reducing the coefficient of friction between the arrow shaft and the tissues. This reduces the drag on the shaft. These biologic reactions are a major reason why accurate and reliable measurements of hunting arrow penetration can only be achieved through testing conducted on live (as when actually hunted) animals, or VERY freshly killed animals. Even when testing on freshly killed animals, physiological tissue changes occur rapidly, and testing must be done within minutes of death. If the time lag is longer, results become erroneous, due to changes in tissue resistance forces encountered.

Yet another difference in the ability of hunting arrows to penetrate tissues, as opposed to bullets, is that they are tipped with a broadhead. Yes, the broadhead slices through tissues, rather than having to ‘push’ through them, but there is more. A broadhead is a “simple machine”, a series of inclined planes. These inclined planes allow the arrow to accomplish more work with any given applied amount of force. The profile of the broadhead offers a mechanical advantage. MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE: Mechanical advantage is defined as the improvement gained by use of a mechanism (machine) in transmitting force (There’s that word again!). Specifically, it is the ratio of the force that performs the useful work of the machine to the force that is applied to the machine. In other words, broadhead design can multiply the force of the arrow, increasing its ability to do work. Not all broadheads offer an equal mechanical advantage. As with any inclined plane, the longer the slope of the plane in relation to the rise of the plane, the higher will be the mechanical advantage. A long and narrow single blade (2 cutting edges) broadhead will have a higher mechanical advantage than one of equal length and width, but having more blades. Also, as the profile of a broadhead’s blade(s) becomes shorter and/or wider the mechanical advantage becomes lower. Having either a convex or concave cutting edge profile, rather than a straight taper, also lowers a broadhead’s mechanical advantage. Any abrupt rise in the contour of a broadhead results in a profile which lowers the broadhead's mechanical advantage. This is why a very smooth and gradual fade-in of the broadhead’s ferrule into the blade is important in broadhead design. It detracts less from a broadhead’s mechanical advantage. In trying to maximize arrow penetration, there is also the efficiency of the bow/arrow system to consider. Up to the limits of the bow’s ability to move the arrow, bows become more efficient as the mass of the arrow increases. A heavier arrow causes a bow to shoot more quietly than with a lighter arrow. This is because of the increased efficiency. More of the bow’s stored energy is transmitted to the arrow and less is ‘wasted’ in the form of bow vibration, which causes increased hand-shock and noise. Increasing bow efficiency through the use of greater arrow mass results in both a quieter shooting bow and one which imparts more force to the arrow. A win-win situation for the bowhunter. For almost a quarter century I have been actively collecting terminal arrow performance data from shots into real animal tissues, and have the world’s most extensive ‘real tissue’ arrow wound database from which to extract comparative outcome information. All empirical data supports the conclusion that the above laws of physics apply to hunting arrow penetration in tissues. In real tissues, it is easy to get a very light, very fast, arrow combination, generating high amounts of kinetic energy, which averages significantly less penetration than an appreciably heavier arrow producing only one third as much kinetic energy. A high frequency of this outcome is demonstrable; with both arrows having identical broadheads and the same shaft materials and dimensions. What does all this mean for the bowhunter? Let’s try to put everything into context. Relative to virtually all big game hunting weapons, hunting arrows have a very low amount of force available with which to do their job - penetrating animal tissues. Lack of penetration is the number one cause of a hit being non-lethal. The terminal arrow performance data from each and every one of my studies overwhelmingly verifies that fact (and the data is of sufficient magnitude that it must viewed as fact, at least until data of an equally substantive nature, derived from outcome testing on real animal tissues, demonstrates any reason to believe otherwise). If one wishes to maximize the hunting arrow’s ability to penetrate then consider the following. (1) Maximize the bow’s efficiency. That means shooting the heaviest arrow one can while still maintaining a trajectory that is adequate for ethical bowhunting ranges. Most bows show a rapid increase in efficiency with increasing arrow mass up to the point of approximately 12 to 14 grains of arrow mass per pound of bow draw weight. (The exact point where the rate of efficiency increase begins to decline varies from bow to bow and shooting style to shooting style. There are many variables, and the value of a chronograph to the shooter should not be underestimated.) Beyond this point of arrow mass per pound of bow draw weight a bow’s efficiency will still increase as the arrow gets heavier, but the rate of efficiency increase slows down.

(2) Use broadheads of high mechanical advantage. This becomes increasingly important as the bow’s draw weight becomes lighter, or the size of the animal being hunted becomes larger. Use of a high mechanical advantage broadhead also becomes increasingly important as the power stroke (the distance the arrow travels before it leaves the bow string) becomes shorter. A shorter draw length gives a shorter power stroke, which also means that, regardless of the amount of force stored in the bow’s drawn limbs, that force will be exerted upon the arrow for a shorter period of time. For any given amount of applied bow force, the longer one’s draw length, the more time the bow has to exert its force upon the arrow; i.e.; the bow’s impulse upon the arrow will be greater, and the bow’s efficiency increases. (Force applied over time equals the impulse.) (3) Use broadheads with a cut-on-impact tip. Broadheads of a cut-on-impact tip design penetrate soft tissues with less resistance that other broadhead tip designs. The various tip designs, and their effects on penetration in bone, are still under investigation in the current study. (4) Accept nothing less than perfect arrow flight in your hunting arrows. It minimizes energy loss during the arrow’s flight, and reduces resistance forces on entry (due to less shaft flexion), which results in the arrow retaining more force to apply directly to penetration. Achieve perfect arrow flight through wise selection of arrow shafting materials and spine, perfect broadhead-to-shaft alignment, careful bow tuning and the use of sufficient fletching to stabilize the arrow in flight. Start with a really good broadhead and then set your hunting arrows, and your bow, up around the broadhead. In testing I have used a couple of hundred different types and designs of broadheads. As long as the broadhead is aligned so that it spins in precise balance, on a straight shaft, I have yet to meet ANY broadhead that I cannot get to fly perfectly. This applies even to stone points! The ‘balance’ of the broadhead does not have to be perfect. The ‘balance’ of the arrow system does!

[Tip: If the broadhead spins true, and the shaft is correctly spined to the bow (for that weight broadhead), and it is straight, yet the arrow still ‘wind planes’, there is not enough fletching to overcome the wind shear effect created by the broadhead’s blades as they rotate through the air. To stabilize the arrow in flight, use more fletching surface area. This is especially important when the broadhead itself is not well balanced; presenting surfaces with varying shear angles to the air, such as with a stone point.] Once you have your hunting arrow flying perfect, make your practice arrows (be they for target, field, small game, roving or stump shooting) shoot just like your hunting arrows, not the other way around! It is foolish to sacrifice good broadhead construction, profile and mechanical advantage just to get one’s hunting arrows to ‘shoot just like a target arrow’. [Tip: A well tuned bow/arrow combination will shoot ALL equal weight broadhead/field tip/target points into the same group at any range. If the point of impact is different between field tips and broadheads of matching weight, there is a ‘tuning’ problem.] The hunting arrow is the single most important piece of equipment that the bowhunter carries afield. The broadhead chosen is the most important part of the hunting arrow. A hunting bow merely launches the hunting arrow. The arrow delivers the broadhead. When the broadhead hits it must perform, without failure, each and every time. To do otherwise risks a wounded animal and failure of the entire hunt. A perfectly placed hit can frequently be non-lethal when there is a failure of the broadhead tipped hunting arrow to perform its task; penetrating and disrupting the body’s life support functions. (5) Mechanical Broadheads. Mechanical broadheads have become very popular in recent years. Mainly this has occurred because it is extremely easy to get them to shoot much like a target or field point of equal weight, even when the arrow’s fletching area is insufficient to stabilize a fixed blade broadhead. In flight, mechanical broadheads present less surface area to the air. They have a lower wind shear effect.

Mechanical broadheads do, however, encounter significant resistance upon opening in tissues. Outcome studies show that they require a substantially higher level of impact momentum to achieve the same amount of penetration as a broadhead of a more ‘traditional’ design. This needless loss of disposable net force reduces penetration. Remember? Outcome studies show that lack of penetration is the number one cause of a hit being non-lethal and, in all testing to date, mechanical broadheads average less penetration, on an arrow of a given mass and momentum, than does either a replaceable blade broadhead or a more 'traditional' broadhead of comparable mechanical advantage. In addition to their needless loss of disposable net force during blade deployment, mechanical broadheads pose some other penetration problems. All of the many mechanical broadheads thus far examined in field testing have a low mechanical advantage. As the field data shows, this further inhibits penetration capability when tested on real animal tissues. In all testing to date, mechanical broadheads have also suffered by far the highest damage rate of all categories of broadheads tested. The outcome data manifestly shows that a broadhead which becomes damaged during the course of penetrating an animal causes a dramatic increase in resistance, and penetration is severely decreased. It is highly likely that the high damage rate to the blades of mechanical broadheads results from the abrupt increase in resistance encountered at the time of blade deployment. Though the total amount of resistance force encountered by the blades may not be any greater than that encountered by a fixed blade broadhead, a major portion of the resistance force is encountered over a very short time period; abruptly upon deployment. This ‘spike’ in resistance force must be met by utilization of a higher proportion of the arrow’s disposable net force; reducing the arrow’s retained disposable net force, which, in turn, lowers the arrow’s overall impulse of force upon the tissues. Fixed blade broadheads enter the tissues with blades fully deployed. They can utilize any mechanical advantage they do have from the instant of impact, i.e.: the mechanical advantage is available to them in penetrating the very elastic skin. Mechanical broadheads cannot use the mechanical advantage of their blades until after the blades are deployed.

The skin’s property of elasticity imparts a ‘give’ to them as the arrow hits. This can drain off substantial amounts of an arrow’s disposable net force. This ‘give’, when an arrow impacts, is why a loosely hung carpet makes a pretty fair arrow backstop. More ‘work’ is required of the arrow to penetrate the carpet. Remember? Work is force times distance. The resistance force has to be moved over a greater distance by the arrow’s impact force before the arrow penetrates. It is because less work is required for them to penetrate the skin (and the other soft tissues) that broadheads with a cut-on-impact tip penetrate better in soft tissues than do broadheads having other tip configurations. The bevel of the tip’s cutting edge is also an inclined plane - a simple machine. It, too, offers a mechanical advantage. The longer the bevel (the lower the sharpening angle), the higher the broadhead tip’s mechanical advantage will be. But there is a lower limit. The tip MUST be strong enough to resist damage upon impact with hard tissues (bone). A broadhead that becomes damaged during penetration dramatically increases resistance, and overall penetration suffers. Though mechanical broadheads having a cut on impact tip permit easier penetration through the very elastic skin tissues, thus far there has been little outcome difference, on comparable shots, in the measured overall penetration (relative to mechanical broadheads having other types of tips and offering a similar mechanical advantage). This is suggestive that energy loss at the time of blade deployment is a major factor in the reduction in tissue penetration measurable with mechanical broadheads. (6) Arrow Shafts. With any given shafting material and shaft finish, the larger a shaft’s diameter the greater will be the resistance to its penetration. It will present a larger frontal area to the tissues, displace a greater volume of tissue as it penetrates, and present more total surface area to the tissues (which results in a higher drag factor). As a general rule, the arrow’s shaft should have a diameter that is less than the broadhead’s ferrule diameter. In testing with parallel shafts (as opposed to tapered or barrel tapered shafts), outcome data shows that when a shaft’s diameter is greater than the broadhead’s ferrule diameter the arrow’s penetration is reduced by and average of 30 percent, as compared to a situation where the shaft’s diameter equals the diameter of the broadhead’s ferrule.

If the shaft’s diameter is less than that of the broadhead’s ferrule, the penetration increases by an average of 10 percent. That can equate to as much as a 40 percent difference in measurable penetration between two arrows which are equal in all respects except for the diameter of the shaft. This is not theory. It is what average outcome measurements from comparable shots into real tissues show. It is a graphic demonstration of the importance of shaft drag as a factor in the overall resistance force when penetrating real tissues. It is tempting to advise that one use as small a shaft diameter as possible, but recent testing is highly suggestive that other factors may also be at play. In the recent tests, shafts of identical materials and nearly equal mass, but of various profiles, were tested. All were tested at the same distance (20 yards), from the same bow, and with the same broadhead. The results were, to say the least, of interest. Averaging the results from all comparable shots, the frequency of shafts with a tapered profile out-penetrating those with either parallel or barrel tapered profile was extremely high. A definite tendency was manifest. Of note, the tapered shafts averaged about 50 to 70 grains less mass than either the parallel or the barrel tapered shafts. They also had a larger diameter at the point just back of the broadhead’s ferrule than either the parallel or tapered shafts, though ALL the shafts still had a diameter (just back of the broadhead) which was less than the broadhead’s ferrule diameter. What the tapered shafts did have was a significantly higher percentage of weight forward of center (high FOC) and a shaft profile that became steadily smaller in diameter towards the rear of the shaft - a ‘reverse inclined plane’ which, in theory, might result in a lower overall shaft drag factor. It is also a feasible hypothesis that the lower mass towards the rear of the tapered shaft arrow may cause less shaft flexion, reducing resistance. A new series of study ‘focal points’, designed to isolate only the FOC as a variable between the arrows physical structure, are planned. How much of the (consistently significant) difference in outcome penetration was due to the high FOC and how much to shaft profile or reduced flexion of the shaft? Only time will tell.

(8) Shaft and Broadhead Finish. Test data indicates that both a shaft’s finish and a broadhead’s ‘finish’ has a noteworthy effect on penetration. A very 'slick' finish on a shaft increases penetration, as it reduces the ‘coefficient of friction’ between shaft and tissues. In soft tissues, recent test data is also highly suggestive that such metal finishes as Teflon coating aids a broadhead’s penetration through soft tissues, though a broadhead's finish appears to have very little, if any, significant effect on an arrow’s (or broadhead’s) ability to penetrate hard tissues (bone). Undoubtedly, as terminal arrow performance is tested further, new information will be learned. As it stands now, the forgoing is the best I can recommend, and be assured it correctly reflects the outcome results relative to arrow penetration. All of the above factors are things over which the bowhunter has control. The field evidence clearly shows that wise equipment selection does result in increased lethality of the hunting arrow. All that remains for the bowhunter to do is sharpen his or her shooting and hunting skills! I hope the forgoing provides some insight into the penetration characteristics of arrows, and provides some practical applications for the bowhunter. For those interested in calculating the momentum and/or kinetic energy of their own arrows, here are the formulas in a simple to use format: Formulas: Momentum = Mass x Velocity 225218 In other words, momentum equals the arrow’s mass, measured in grains, multiplied by the arrow’s velocity, expressed in feet per second, and then divided by 225218. The resultant answer will be expressed in slug-feet per second. Kinetic Energy = ½ Mass x Velocity2 225218 This says, the kinetic energy equals one-half the arrow’s mass, expressed in grains, multiplied by the arrow’s velocity (expressed in feet-per-second), then multiplied by the arrow’s velocity again, and all of that is then divided by 225218. The answer will be expressed in foot-pounds.

The denominator in the above equations, 225218, converts the arrow’s physical weight, measured in grains, into pounds, and also factors in the gravitational constant (gc). There are 7000 grains per pound. The gravitational constant is 32.174 feet per second per second. Thus, 7000 x 32.174 = 225218.

From: badger
Date: 13-Feb-11




Interesting ifo their, I found myself skimming a bit and plan to go back and read it in more detail once I take a couple of aspirin and down a couple more beers. I get the impression here that mainly momentum is totally directional and kinetic energy can send it's energy any direction as long as it is used up. So I would say the sharper the broadhead the more momentum would benefit. Makes very good sense when looked at it like this. The KE would have more impact when blunt force was needed. Steve

From: Purdue
Date: 13-Feb-11




"Ballistic gel, covered with a suitable elastic outer covering, gives a reasonable correlation to tissue hits in which no hard tissues are encountered,..."

From Ashby himself, for what it's worth.....???

From: Van/TX
Date: 13-Feb-11




But Purdue there was more after the ... ;-)...Van

"Ballistic gel, covered with a suitable elastic outer covering, gives a reasonable correlation to tissue hits in which no hard tissues are encountered, but I have found no combination of materials that will correlate with the multiplicity of resistance forces encountered in penetrating real tissues. This past year, a European forensics team also tried to find a synthetic testing medium that would give results comparable to that seen in real arrow wounds. They also found none."

From: David Alford
Date: 13-Feb-11




Yes it is interesting to a point, but unless you are going for Cape Buff, I wouldn't be overly concerned. It's kinda' the same in bullets. The best overall performance is usually achieved by mid wt. bullets, although in some specific circumstances very light or very heavy bullets are warranted.

From: Sapcut
Date: 13-Feb-11




Thanks Van,

Taking information out of context is exactly why Dr. Asbhy has decreased the ease of copying and pasting, according to Dr. Ashby.

You may have heard of him before. He has year and years of experience in doing real field testing by shooting 1000's of arrows into real animals to predict what would be the best penetration arrow combination. :)

From: cjgregory
Date: 13-Feb-11




Long but a good read Van. I feel like I'm back in engineering school. The is also the variable of friction that was self evident in OSBs test.

I'm going to continue to shoot a 600-650 gr. arrow 200 fps. The elk will continue to fear me this way. I get to leave for anchorage on the 20th and will be there at least a year. The moose are calling for me in my dreams. The grizzly are waiting.

From: Sapcut
Date: 13-Feb-11




"I'm going to continue to shoot a 600-650 gr. arrow 200 fps. The elk will continue to fear me this way."

Yes...I have no doubt that your 650 gr. arrow at 200 fps will have a MUCH greater chance of breaking a real bone, if impacted, than a 350 gr. arrow at 300 fps.

From: Van/TX
Date: 13-Feb-11




650 gr @ 200 fps! Most wheel bow shooters would be envious ;-)...Van

From: Sapcut
Date: 13-Feb-11




The lightest arrow I have chrono-ed was 755 grains. It carrys out rib cage missions at only 177 fps.

The heaviest has been 1100 grains at 153 fps.

I am afraid there would be no Jello to be found after the goo settled. :))

From: cjgregory
Date: 13-Feb-11




31.25" stroke at 60# will drive close to 650 gr. to 200 fps. works for me. ;)

From: buster v davenport
Date: 13-Feb-11




I can see you fellers now, sitting around the old tepee, argufing heavy or lite while the geezers, women and kids run the herd over a cliff.lol

From: 808grapplemonkey
Date: 14-Feb-11




http://www.huntingfortomorrow.com/women_files/You%27re%20hunting%20with%20THAT.doc

From: 808grapplemonkey
Date: 14-Feb-11




I was just noticing how those who used lighter weight bows suggested the use of heavier arrows... and from noteworthy hunters no less.

From: Sapcut
Date: 14-Feb-11




"look at sapcut over here - the biggest loudest keyboard warrior and advocate for the heavy arrow - by his own admission just stated that the lightest arrow he has ever chronographed was 755 grains!

Obviously this guy has NEVER tried a light arrow - sure now he will say he has, but he just never chronographed it - yea - right."

With my current 71 lb. Widow, 755 gr. is the lightest I have chrono-ed. Years ago with my 73 lb. Bear takedown I chrono-ed it with a 500ish gr. arrow at 200 fps. That bow has since exploded in my hand.

That 500 gr. arrow hit a whitetail doe scapula at Willow Point Island in 1993. That arrow stopped immediately. Zero penetration. Zero recovery.

Light fast arrows ARE NOT the way to go when a real bone is hit.

OSB,

If you want to continue to equate gelatin to a real world bone hit you are very foolish and it is obvious. You are also biasedly and blindly trying to lead the blind in trad archery. So sad.

From: Esquire
Date: 14-Feb-11




Wow. Too many posts to read. My own experience is almost all traditional equipment on whitetail deer. Shot from the ground with the lightest, flattest shooting arrow that my bow will shoot well.

Range of shots is from 2 steps to 35 yards. Except for one shoulder bone hit, I have had no problem with passthrough shots.

I shot a buck and the doe he was traveling with, two years ago. The buck I got a complete pass through broadside, low chest. The doe I shot at 18 yards, an extreme quartering away shot. The arrow went in just in front of the right hip and exited the left front chest cavity.

It passed through, all but the fletchings. This was light carbon shaft, .500, from my DAS Master, 52 lbs. at 30". It had a 100 grain broadhead, magnus stinger.

That was a diagonal pass through the body.

All of my field experience encourages me to believe that - for whitetail - OSB is dead on.

FWIW,

Mike

From: JRW
Date: 14-Feb-11




500 grains @ 200 fps? That's the same arrow weight and speed I've shot for the past several years on everything from hogs to moose. I couldn't begin to recall off the top of my head how many heavy bones I've shot through on the exit side of mature midwestern whitetails with that setup. :)

From: upnorth
Date: 14-Feb-11




one thing that always amasses me is . when a person looses a animal . they always know exactly what happened . they know exactly where they hit it they know why they failed and so on . its never the fact that they just made a bad shot .i have a customer that it took 3 hunts to get his costal grizzley . he lost the first two . was talked into shooting a 80 lb bow with heavey arrows. which was fine but . he came in my shop and askd me if i could help him figure out what was going wrong . had him get his bow and shoot .he was just way overbowed which made him not accurate. set him up with a 70 lb bow and a 373 grain arrows with montec 100 heads .and worked on his shooting . he took a 7 1/2 ft costal grizzly . the bear was facing him at 35 yards he took a frontal shot which i wouldnt recemmend but it worked the animal went 40 yards and was done . the arrow entered the chest went the whole lenght of the animal and was sticking 18 inches out of his butt .when it comes down to it just because you have extra heavey equip its not always going to be a given.since then hes taken a mountain lion , 300 lb hog , alaskin billy goat , finished his grand slam of turkeys, and a few others all with the lighter set up .

From: 808grapplemonkey
Date: 14-Feb-11




So what are you guys considering a "light" arrow? 8-9gpp is not what I would consider light... some bowyers won't warranty their bows if you use anything below that.

From: Stan
Date: 14-Feb-11




Guys....For the sake of this debate.. We are not talkin white tails here.. They are pretty easily killed-penetrated..

From: Stan
Date: 14-Feb-11




Forgot to add......jmo.. Man we need an edit option..

From: JRW
Date: 14-Feb-11




Stan,

I agree with what you said about whitetails. In terms of big game animals, they're among the easiest to penetrate. But for whatever reason, some folks seem to think they have Kevlar hides and rebar for bones.

From: bowhunt
Date: 14-Feb-11




You should always use the best penetrsating arrow possible whether hunting whitetails or Cape Buffalo.

Thiers gonna be times even on whitetails when your gonna want all the penatrating ability you can possible get.All shots are not gonna be at a relaxed animal perfectly broadside at 15 yards from the ground.

The buck I killed 2 years ago was at about 12 yards.I was hunting out of a tree stand about 18-20 ft up.It was kinda a steep angle.I shot the buck through the top of one lung and broke a rib on entry.The arrow went down through the center of the body cavity at a sight angle and punched through the bottom of the brisket where all the ribs come together.Thats a pretty dense area on the deer with all bone pretty much.If that arrow doent penetrate out the bottom of that deer I have a potential loss of that deer and or alot tougher recovery.Hunting in thick cover you need all the blood on the ground you can get.Without the arrow penetrating through that brisket I get very little to no blood.With the blood petering out as is typical with no exit wound and a high to low entry on the deer.

I got a desent blood trail and was able to track that deer about 200 yards and found him in a thicket.

Bow as 50#s at 30 inches draw.Arrow was a CX Heritage 250 with 200 grains up front 50 grain brass insert and a 2 blade 150 grain Stinger was the head.Honed razor sharp.Close to a 600 grain arrow finished out.About 12 grains per pound.

I believe that arrow with its descent overall weight,well tuned to the bow and the razor sharp head allowed me to pop that arrow out of the bottom of the deer where all the ribs come together.I split bone on that buck on the entry and exit.

Would I have the same luck with a light arrow set up with the same head and tuned right.I dont know for sure.But that setup did the job on a shot that was gonna test my rigs ability to get that arrow all the way through.The head barely punched through the brisket.The head was sticking out like 2 inches from the bottom of the deer brisket.

Anything retarding penetration on that particular kill may have cost me the chance to recover that animal.

Choose the best penetrating arrow possible on whitetails and every other animal you hunt is the moral of the story.Thier may a moment when you will be glad you did.Possibly on the buck of a lifetime after years of sweating,working hard and planning for that seminole moment.I want the absolute best penetrating arrow for when that moment comes if it ever does.In the meantime I want the best arrow possible for putting meat on the pole and for the animals sake as well most importantly.

From: Henry McCann
Date: 14-Feb-11




I'm glad for OSB's testing. It all adds to our knowledge. But to say his simple test trumps all the testing and hundreds of animals shot by Ashby seems ludicrous.

I go to Africa and shoot one elephant. My one time experience, and the equipment I used, then trumps all those that have hunted or culled hundreds of elephants?

As far as whitetails, a kids bow and plastic rubber tipped two fletched arrows will kill one.

From: bowhunt
Date: 14-Feb-11




Yaa the testing is interesting and proves a point about gelatin and phonebooks and such.

I am and have always been more concerned about bone hits when I got really serious about bowhunting.Its the single most important and relevent factor in an animals body that retards penetration and causes loss of animals that might have otherwise been recovered if the bone was penetrated better.

Thats really what its all about for me when making my hunting arrows.How well will the arrow deal with bone.How well will it penetrate through the bone.How well will the broadhead stand up to bone,etc etc.

Have fun,play hard and shoot straight!

>>>------->

From: upnorth
Date: 14-Feb-11




one of my customers shot a pretty good bison(1800 lb)12 yards this last year . when he was here he went strictly by ashby report . he ended up 52 lbs , ashby 300 grain broadheads and st. criox arrows . right at 800 grains . his arrow hit one rib dead on . he said he had a total of 8 inches of penetration.animal went down in just over 100 yards. if he was farther foward or a little farther back he more then likely wouldnt of taken the animal . from the penetration he got from only hitting a rib id bet the if it was a larger bone it would have not done much at all other then make the animal really angry.i also took a large bufallo with my bow with a totally different story but because it was with a onedia i wont get into it here .

From: Njord
Date: 14-Feb-11




OSB you really need to lay off the terms "fact", and "proof". Your one shot test is neither, especially since the lowest ke lowest momentum arrow penetrated slightly further. That in of itself should have you thinking ERRONEOUS.

From: PineLander
Date: 14-Feb-11




Getting pretty cocky now...

... about ready to go kill some Caped Buffalo with his 350 gr. arrow.

From: bowhunt
Date: 14-Feb-11




My brother killed a mature bull Bison with a 53 # at 27 inch Shrew.Alaskan Grizzly stick carbon arrow and 225 grain 2 blade head.Thats a heavy arrow.Got complete penetration and a dead bull in short order.Broke a rib upon entry.

If the arrows frying straight on impact it should not be an issue.Arrows not flying straight wont even penatrate a small whitetail well.

From: cjgregory
Date: 14-Feb-11




"Ashby's tests are proven flawed by the millions of large game animals that have been harvested with light arrows (much lighter than I even tested with) since the introduction of carbon arrows almost 20 years ago. " OSB

Oh come on Ken, you obviously did not read the article that sapcut linked concerning arrow leathality. Asby soundly wrote that the ONLY arrow constuction material that he could get perfect flight with HIGH FOC was the modern carbon shaft material. He is well up on modern materials for crying out loud. lol

So it is not Ashby that is pontificating.

From: buster v davenport
Date: 14-Feb-11




I like an arrow somewhat lighter than the ones OSB uses. I got hit in the chest with a metal tipped, 3 fletch, light target arrow when I was a kid. If I had been hit with one of those plastic, rubber tipped, 2 fletch arrows mentioned above, I probably wouldn't be here today to tell about it.

From: Sapcut
Date: 14-Feb-11




OSB,

You are all about justifying what you prefer to shoot.

Listen you what you are saying. You are saying that in "a couple hours total" you have shot a phone book and jello to DISPROVE 27 years of real animal testing.... to find out what penetrates real animals. Huh?

Would you please, for the sake of all the new potential trad guys that you care so much for, stop repeating this horribly wrong information.

It's fine to brag about how well your arrows penetrate jello but stop directly correlating the jello tests to real animals.

I keep trying really hard to believe you are smarter than that.....but I'm failing miserably.

Retardation justification is the only way I know to describe what you're really about.

From: 808grapplemonkey
Date: 14-Feb-11




"I like an arrow somewhat lighter than the ones OSB uses. I got hit in the chest with a metal tipped, 3 fletch, light target arrow when I was a kid. If I had been hit with one of those plastic, rubber tipped, 2 fletch arrows mentioned above, I probably wouldn't be here today to tell about it."

You sir have just made my day! lol

From: Onesock
Date: 14-Feb-11




A well known scientist was trying to prove a point. He had a frog jump on a piece of paper so he could measure the distance the frog jumped. With four legs the frog jumped 4 inches. He cut 1 leg off the frog and made it jump again. Frog jumped 3 inches. Seemed logical. Cut another leg off and the frog proceded to jump 2 inches. 2 legs 2 inch jump. logical. Cut 1 more leg off, made frog jump again. Frog jumped 1 inch. 1 leg 1 inch jump. Logical. Scientist cut the last leg off and told the frog to jump. Of course the frog didn't /couldn't jump at all. Conclusion frog with no legs are DEAF!!! Sounds like some of the experiments done around here.

From: Van/TX
Date: 14-Feb-11




"I have to really wonder why a guy that has hundreds of thousands of dollars like Ashby to test arrow penetration could not afford $200.00 camcorder to record at least some of his tests - but anyhow - here it is - believe it or not - I know what I know:"

That's pretty low OSB. You could have left that statement out. It's obvious you have something personal against the man. Can't figure that part out. Ashby has been testing since the early '80s. Back before video games. The word "camcorder" had not yet been invented. And back when a man's word could be taken at face value.

I enjoyed your test and think it was on the up and up. Would not have had to see the videos to make me believe you were telling the truth. Same with Jack Howard. Same with Pat Lefemane.

Yep, you know what you know. Good for you. When your reach the age of 65 report back with your experiences. Good luck...Van

From: Van/TX
Date: 14-Feb-11




I wasn't going to post on this thread again until I read a post above.

"Ashby's tests are proven flawed by the millions of large game animals that have been harvested with light arrows (much lighter than I even tested with) since the introduction of carbon arrows almost 20 years ago."

That's about the dumbest statement I have ever read. I'm gone...Van

From: GLF Professional Bowhunters Society - Associate Member
Date: 14-Feb-11




Osb has something personal against anyone who disagrees with him n doesn't change their mind. I often wonder if he badgers his wife till she agrees with everything he says or if she just aqrees right off to shut him up. At least this thread kept him off baiting,lol. Sorry osb but you got some serious issues bud.

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 14-Feb-11




Van, it does not appear that OSB has anything against the good Dr. I believe OSB would like to see how Dr Ashby performs his testing. I would love to see it myself.

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 14-Feb-11




GLF, are you for real! Not cool my friend!

From: David Alford
Date: 14-Feb-11




Well, here's a video...I'd really like to see a 390 gr. arrow side by side...

http://tiny.cc/49vb9

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 14-Feb-11

Dream Catcher@work's embedded Photo



How about a few pictures showing what a 65#@31" recurve using 3bld muzzy heads can do to bone. Here is an exit shot blowing through the opposite humerous.

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 14-Feb-11

Dream Catcher@work's embedded Photo



Here is one of my own tests. A deflected shot going through both hind quarters and femurs. A bad shot turned into a very short recovery. I forgot! The total arrow wt is 530gr

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 14-Feb-11

Dream Catcher@work's embedded Photo



Here is the other side!

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 14-Feb-11

Dream Catcher@work's embedded Photo



From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 14-Feb-11

Dream Catcher@work's embedded Photo



This 3bld head shot with a light arrow of 8gpp has no problem going through a whitetails thin scapula!

From: DenTradshooter Compton's Traditional Bowhunters
Date: 14-Feb-11




Heavy Arrows are Propelled by Heavy Bows .

From: David Alford
Date: 14-Feb-11




Yes, it is an elephant penetration test. Zip! Zip! Zip! http://tiny.cc/49vb9

From: 808grapplemonkey
Date: 14-Feb-11




Everyone agrees that deer isn't an issue with a lighter arrows and penetration.

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 14-Feb-11

Dream Catcher@work's embedded Photo



808, how about Elk or Bison. Here is a Bison that was around 1200#. Same setup and same results without expensive BH's, increased FOC or heavy arrows.

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 14-Feb-11




David, I would love to see how my setup would perform on that elephant!

From: Sapcut
Date: 14-Feb-11




Listen to yourself again....OSB

You are saying that if you don't develop some sort of arrow testing that anyone can do at home AND film it....it can't be true or valid. It is automatically flawed.

I must have missed Jack Howard's videos. Could you post Mr. Howard's video documentation of his arrow lethality test shots..."for the world to see"?

From: David Alford
Date: 15-Feb-11




Dream, in lieu of an elephant how about putting 3 cows side by side? hehe.

From: GLF Professional Bowhunters Society - Associate Member
Date: 15-Feb-11




You're absolutely right Dream Catcher. That was uncalled for, my apologies to OSB n everyone else.

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 15-Feb-11




I don't know about all of you but this penetration thing is a mystery to me. There are so many variables that come into play in a hunting senario. Was the animal relaxed or tense? How far was the shot and what angle? What's the poundage of the bow, BH, arrow? What is the draw? What is the spine of the arrow? What is the diameter and texture of the arrow? What type of fletching, inserts, BH construction, number of blades, single or double bev'ed. Was the release smooth and at full draw? The list can go on...

No two animals are exact. For that matter, how do we know if both sides of an animal are the same. I treat patients daily that demonstrate this! Why not animals! I see repeated shots into the scapula of animals. In my view, once the bone is shot through it is compromised and making all other shots useless for experimental purposes.

We all know and read threads right here on our LW of hunters using fairly heavy setups that always seem to have issues with penetration on deer size animals. I find deer thinned boned compared to others but I'm amazed at how some hunters seem to question how complete passthroughs are attained. In fact, I know of hunters using much lighter setups that are able to blow through animals that others using heavier fall short. Bill C is one such example!

For people to get mad at OSB is crazy. He is simply demonstrating what many of us experience and read about. The work that Dr. Ashby is great but hunting is not a science despite the laws of physics! IMHO

From: upnorth
Date: 15-Feb-11




heres one thing most wont think about between target shooting and actual hunting . just because a bow is tune well during practice it doesnt mean that thats the way a person is going to shoot it in a stressfull situtation . watch some of the tv shows you see a arrow come out of a bow like a corkscrew . almost bet you that if he was on a target he would get perfect arrow flight . some hunters get so excited during a shot that when the arrow leaves theres so much tork on the bow that its hinders the arrows penetration . i have a moose hunter that will tell you this. he says every time he gets a shot at a bull he sees his arrow zig zag on its way and gets very little penetration . but he usually ends up getting the animal with his second or third shot .just allot of people like to blame it on the equipment not shooter .if a person comes in and swears he made a perfect shot and didnt get the animal more or likely he didnt make the shot he thought.

From: Henry McCann
Date: 15-Feb-11




For acolyte Dream Catcher and OSB, light arrows are guaranteed to blast through elephants and Cape Buffalo, all because OSB's one test extrapolates out to all hunting, all animals, in all situations, and thus will out penetrate any other possible combination.

With this information our boys in WWII, only needed a warf bow and light arrows to completely penetrate and destroy every Panzer thrown at them.

The above; any more ludicrous than saying OSB's one test should now be accepted as the final word on arrow penetration?

New testing and study is always fun, but to trumpet this test as THE answer, is just a little pompous!

From: Slowtacktoo
Date: 15-Feb-11




Interesting....

From: Murphy's Law
Date: 15-Feb-11




UpNorth,

I made on of those "perfect shots" with 3555's and a 44 lb-at- my-draw-Redwing; swear by what I saw with binos a few seconds later...but, no deer. Still sort hurts....

I apprectiate your reiteration of how hard it is to say what occured without a body. And, still flinging some 2315s at targets, with my wife NAILING the target with some 3555, including my old ones, until I fully decide where to go with weight, spine, BH, etc...

Too much fun.

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 16-Feb-11




Henry, no one is preaching to use a light arrow on a panazer. I'm sure it would take a very heavy arrow with extreme FOC and a very expensive BH to make it through a panzer and that very thick head of yours. Please go back and actually read some of these postings. No one said OSB test is the final word on anything. All I can say after killing hundreds of animals with a bow is that a very heavy setup is not always the answer. There are many varibables that come into play.

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11




Your right Dream Catcher. There are many variables. Here is link to a hog hunt. These are fast compound bows. Faster than our bows. I guarnatee you that I can get a broadhead out the far side of these boars. Just watch the penetration. It flies completely into the face of OSBs testing. This is the real world. His assumption is that speed can kill more efficiently.

Paste it into your browser.

http://www.texashuntfish.com/app/forum/28978/2-huge-hogs-fight-till-they-can-t-stand-up-then-both-are-taken-by-bowhunters-WOW/Let-s-Talk-Texas-Outdoors-Wild-On-The-Web;jsessionid=73850770506956CC8EEB18B7CBD74A90

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11




Who says so? My experience. Like Dream Catcher said. Too many variables. I am a hunter. Actually you need to watch it again. The second pig was a shoulder shot. The first one was NOT. Three times!!! One was less than 10 yards. Don't even think it...those were live animals. Stop the video and look at the shafts. Carbon.

Those pigs are NOT huge animals. They are pigs. That is the real world dude.

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11

cjgregory's embedded Photo



Huge animal!

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11

cjgregory's embedded Photo



Pig!! (medium size)

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11

cjgregory's embedded Photo



Huge animal! Get the idea of a huge animal yet?

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11




Was this not the idea of carbon? Stronger, faster, lighter? I like carbon actually. I shoot aluminum and carbon. You have invalidated a true to life example. Your test was cool. But the transition from the laboratory to the field is a huge contrast...even in engineering and medicine.

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11




It doesn't matter what broadhead they were using. I'm sure you could go to a website and watch a test where it penetrated 20 inches of ballistic gel or 18 inches of homogenous steel or some other such laboratory test out performing the other competitors.

From: Stan
Date: 16-Feb-11

Stan's embedded Photo



Now this is a real world trophy!!

From: Stan
Date: 16-Feb-11

Stan's embedded Photo



ooopppsss wrong one..

From: PineLander
Date: 16-Feb-11




He still doesn't get it. You cannot take the results of field points shot into gelatin or phone books, and then imply that light/fast arrows are great for all hunting scenarios. Well, you can... if you want to show the world how tunnel-visioned you can be.

OSB, your periphery on some subjects is so narrow, that a caped buff could walk right up and blow snot on your bow before you could even say the word youtube. :-)

From: Henry McCann
Date: 16-Feb-11




Dream Catcher,

If you would read what I actually wrote, I called my examples ludicrous. But, OSB has trumpeted his test as all the proof he needs that light arrows are the answer to all of his hunting needs. And that Ashby is crazy, driven by some bizarre agenda, only OSB can discern.

I don't agree with everything that Ashby has written, but his experiences and testing are light years beyond a backyard phone book test.

Who has the thick head to dismiss all of Ashby's work and experience, just because it doesn't agree with your own beliefs, shooting 100 pound whitetails?

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11




"I don't agree with everything that Ashby has written, but his experiences and testing are light years beyond a backyard phone book test. "

I agree Henry. He was paid absolutely nothing and is heholding to no one. Nothing to gain really. I know that I am not going to take a 700 gr. arrow to the field in North America or even Africa unless I'm going to hunt some pretty expensive animals. I would rather spend that money for a Stone Sheep at 12,000 ft.

My real goal is an Alaskan Brown and an Asiatic Buffalo as far as really expensive hunts. If I m going to shoot a 700+ gr. arrow for the buffalo I would be practicing with a heavier bow.

All of this is really a mute point.

From: Sapcut
Date: 16-Feb-11




OSB,

"The first two shots were quartering away and likely hit shoulder - and the last shot definitely hit shoulder.

What does that have to do with anything?

So, are you suggesting that your light/fast arrow jello tests ARE or ARE NOT an indicator of real world penetration?

You have certainly implied it. If you're NOT, say you're not so I and others won't have the wrong opinion about you.

From: Sapcut
Date: 16-Feb-11




So, are you suggesting that your light/fast arrow jello tests ARE or ARE NOT an indicator of real world penetration?

You have certainly implied it. If you're NOT, say you're not so I and others won't have the wrong opinion about you.

From: Sapcut
Date: 16-Feb-11




"....he just assumes they are light because they are carbon - he appearently does not know that carbon arrows can be made VERY heavy."

Sure they can be made heavy but it sure does appear that those arrows were flying pretty stinkin fast and they also stopped pretty stinkin fast.

Both are very common symptoms of a light weight projectile. I think we both know that.

And yes a heavier arrow could have certainly done the same thing in that particular shot. The point is, always has been and always will be, that the heavier of the two will give you the best chance of penetration and recovery.....IN ANIMALS...IN THE REAL WORLD. And, it is OK that it happens to NOT be what you personally prefer.

That is precisely why you would not have won the $1,000,000 purse by sinking...I mean bouncing your light arrow off the cape buff.

From: Sapcut
Date: 16-Feb-11




"The two mediums that I shot into are REAL WORLD and I believe and maintain that between the phonebook and the gel - that I have accurately shown both the light and the heavy arrow have virtually the same ability to penetrate in ANY MEDIUM - including bone - the light arrow is not going to magically be able to penetrate the same as the heavy in both the gel and the phonebook and then suddenly not be able to in bone and flesh."

OK...I was hoping I was wrong, but my opinion stands.

From: Sapcut
Date: 16-Feb-11




OSB,

Sometime when you are just brainstorming like we all do regarding trad archery, remember this critical yet simple fact.

From release to target....the speed decreases but not the weight.

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11




"he just assumes they are light because they are carbon"

No. I was pointing out that the compound is much quicker and yes generally the carbon arrow is lighter than aluminum. I ws not impressed with the penetration from a faster compound.

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11




Beings I do hunt with wheel bow guys as well, I see it. Is shot placement important? Duh. When everything is just right a 30# bow will handle most anything. Duh.

I am not hanging onto a heavy arrow idea because all I shoot is 600 to 650. Thats mid range. With your bow you would be doomed with an arrow that weight past 25 yards. Hey, I get it. You don't need to sell or justify that choice to me. Shoot a pop gun with a cork if you want, fine by me. Shoot a grizzly bear with your bow. Knock yourself out. Like sapcut said...speed dimishes but the weight doesn't.

I don't care what you think...I would have gotten the broadhead out the other side of that hog. A few minutes later that hog was still alive. Thats crazy!

From: cjgregory
Date: 16-Feb-11




That arrow was barely flying in that video. lol Poor deer had a lucky day.

From: Sapcut
Date: 16-Feb-11




OSB,

"were you more impressed by the penetration from the longbow in the video above with heavier arrows?"

What heavy arrow? Did he shoot another one off camera?

BTW, How do you know that arrow was perfectly paper tuned?

BTW again....A heavy arrow would've given him a better chance of killing that deer.

From: PineLander
Date: 17-Feb-11




"I believe and maintain between the phonebook and the gel - that I have accurately shown both the light and the heavy arrow have virtually the same ability to penetrate in ANY MEDIUM - including bone" - onesharpbroadhead

yep, ready to go kill some caped buffalo with those high-speed 350 gr. arrows. :-)

Took you long enough... must've been like walking on egg shells to get there.

From: PineLander
Date: 17-Feb-11

PineLander's embedded Photo



Where's that 3/4" thick plywood and some broadheads when you need it....

655 gr. @ 215 fps couldn't make it all the way through,

think your 350 gr @ 215 fps could?

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 17-Feb-11




I don't think anyone is dismissing what Dr. Ashby is doing. He's a hunter that realizes many things can happen in a hunting situation. I believe he loves archery so much that he simply wants to help and educate us on how to get the most out of our setups for those not so perfect events!

My hunting, as with most of us here on the LW, is limited to the US and not huge African Game. Bison, elk and deer are the largest animals I ever hunted and I killed hundreds of animals with a bow that uses different equpment than what the good Dr. would probably recommend. I was walking around Cabela's the other day and looking at all the mounts and I would not hesitate to use my setup on some African large game.

For US big game we do not need heavy setups that the good Dr is recommending. Perhaps a compromise of both worlds will work like it does for me! Getting to full draw and having an arrow that's flying pure is what matters the most in penetration IMHO. A fast light arrow or a slower heavy arrow is not going to do anything if its not flying straight!

From: cjgregory
Date: 17-Feb-11




Pinelander is right on OSB. If the pentrations were close I sould see your point but the light broadhead didn't even make it through the wood.

Look at that picture. Total disregard for any test but your own. All your arrows were close in weight. That shows nothing of running workable value. Forget the close FOCs, close lengths etc. Forget all that stuff. Lets get real and in the spirit of data contrary to yours. Put some FOC on one of those arrows. Put some broadheads on, back up to 20 yards and fire away.

From: cjgregory
Date: 17-Feb-11




Prove it.

We understand what you are saying perfectly. You are just being challenged just like you challenged Ashby. Now you know what Ashby goes through listening to nay sayers who have killed a handful of animals. You are getting exactly what you gave out. If your going to run with the pack you cant be pissing like a pup. Stop whinning how others do not understand when actually we do we are just challenging your philisophically slanted test. I don't hear Ashby whinning because he is challenged...he just keeps testing. You have rejected any and all other testing. This is a philisophical barrier not a technical barrier. Prove it. Your video was really slanted because you wanted to push your philosophy.

From: Purdue
Date: 17-Feb-11




The light arrow went through 3 plys across the grain whereas the heavy arrow when through 3 plys with the grain. Ever try to split wood with the wedge placed across the grain?

From: cjgregory
Date: 17-Feb-11




Every layer of plywood is layed in cross grain to the previous grain layed down Purdue. Thats what gives it the strength.

From: slade
Date: 17-Feb-11




Plywood has pockets of air space through out the sheet where the veneers do to touch each outher (gaps) someone needs to waste some broad-heads/carbons on some medium density fiberboard.

From: PineLander
Date: 17-Feb-11




Again - onesharpbroadhead (since you didn't answer the first time I asked) - provide info on your past plywood testing. Was it done 3/4" thick plywood and broadheads?

You didn't answer the current question either. If doing a similar test as Pat L.'s with 3/4" plywood and 2-blade broadheads, do you think that your 350 gr. arrows could penetrate completely, knowing that his 655 gr. arrows were traveling at the same speed as yours arrows?

From: sleepyhunter
Date: 17-Feb-11




Isn't their an old saying about arguing with idiots? I need to stop cause I feel that my IQ is dropping the more I try and explain this stuff to these guys!

If you want to argue with an idiot OSB, go look in the mirror. I'll stay with what Dr. Ashby says. I don't think there is anybody on this site that needs you to explain anything to them. Especially me.

From: Savage
Date: 17-Feb-11




It's pretty simple to me. If a Smart car and an 18 Wheeler both traveling 50mph hit a brick wall, which will do more damage to the wall?

From: Sapcut
Date: 17-Feb-11




"- cause both arrows are not going the same speed - the lighter is going 20% faster."

And it is gonna stop 400% quicker!

From: PineLander
Date: 17-Feb-11




Again, were your plywood tests done with 3/4" plywood and 2-blade broadheads?

From: upnorth
Date: 17-Feb-11




wow usually on the compound forums this topic only makes around 100 post . you folks over 400 and there will be no winner . like i said earlier best way to win is not to play . should show pictures of a bullet proof vest we shot . muzzy didnt go through one side .same arrow with 4 blade talon went through both sides of vest and 6 inches into bag behind it .theres like 300+ different broadheads (types and sizes) out there which one is the best (GO).

From: JRW
Date: 17-Feb-11




OSB,

Ever heard a little kid in the back seat of the car ask, "Are we there yet?" every 20 seconds even though you've already said, "No" a dozen times? :)

From: PineLander
Date: 17-Feb-11




Yes, broadheads do not affect the makeup of a medium, but whatever is on the end of our arrow does factor into how it penetrates into various mediums. I would hope you aren't suggesting otherwise.

From: Stik_Bow87
Date: 17-Feb-11




I spent my afternoon reading this thread, doing my best to keep an open mind and perhaps learn something. I mean, I don't even know what my arrows weigh, or how fast my bow shoots, or anything!

People were taking down critters with a stick and string long before they even thought began to wonder about these things.

So I've decided to just continue like I am, not worrying myself with these things.

Does your set-up kill? Good. You get too eat.

From: Henry McCann
Date: 17-Feb-11




Dream Catcher where do you live and what do you do for a living that you have killed hundreds of animals with the bow?

Not saying you haven't, but I could spend several lifetimes hunting in Montana, every big game season, from birth till death and not kill hundreds of deer, elk and bear. Gophers? Sure!

To be honest, I'm jealous. To have hunted enough to have killed 3,4,or 500 big game animals, means all kinds of wonderful time with a bow in the woods.

From: 808grapplemonkey
Date: 17-Feb-11




OSB... to satisfy everyone and convince all the nay sayers... why don't you work with everyone, get their input, and come up with a testing method that will satisfy all those interested?

You have the resources avaiable to you and obviously the desire.

From: Sapcut
Date: 17-Feb-11




OSB,

"funny - if a test supposedly proves what they believe - then it is ok - if a test proves otherwise - well - it is flawed."

That is precisely your motto.

If the results of the Ashby reports went totally against the laws of life and suggested the lighter faster arrow better penetrated the real bones of real animals, there would be no accusations of flawed science, there would be no mention of physicists with questions and videoing the tests would not be given a second thought...because the results would AGREE with what YOU prefer.

From: Van/TX
Date: 17-Feb-11

Van/TX's embedded Photo



From: cjgregory
Date: 17-Feb-11

cjgregory's embedded Photo



I'm with you Henry. I've killed 21 elk and excluding years when I couldn't go it's not a bad record for bowhunting since 1981. Some of these guys can legally kill a deer a day in some states. I'm a bit envious myself. Here in the western states it's a different ball game. If I only hunt my state I get 1 month of hunting and can only take one elk.

Deer are not a really big interest for me but that doesn't mean I don't want to hunt some whitetail. I would in a heart beat. I spent most of my time putting food in the mouths of my 4 children. Now my income and time allow for more hunting and travelling to hunt.

This debate will be an ongoing experience. Heck I didn't even own a camera when I downed my first bow killed elk. lol The 5x5 I downed year before last I'm not even in the picture as I was alone that weekend. I was shooting a wes wallace and the bull was quartered to me. You can see the far side exit wound. In the shoulder and out the cage. This is no accident.

From: PineLander
Date: 17-Feb-11




OSB, I never said that your test was flawed. In fact, I think it was very informative and showed clearly that speed is part of the equation, just as weight is part of the equation.

All I'm saying is that neither of the mediums that you used in your test were a hard breakable medium. I think it is a pretty big stretch to simply say (based only on your test) that both light/fast and heavy/slow arrows will have the same penetration capablities when hitting a hard breakable medium (and with broadheads mounted at that).

I see what's happening with those arrows going into gelatin and phone book, but I don't see anything that assimilates hard breakable bone. Hard mediums create a sudden shock type of stoppage on objects, whereas compressed/padded and gelatin type mediums do not.

Seriously, I wasn't trying to ruin your block gelatin party. Just trying to look at the big picture, and not just the picture frame.

From: Paintedsticks
Date: 17-Feb-11




"I live in Wisconsin and I have killed at least 50 whitetails in the last 19 years with my bow - probably more "...Sounds like BS to me, I bet you havent shot a dozen in your whole life...PR

From: specklebellies
Date: 17-Feb-11




This is old and goofy. OSB, good job with the test. Everybody, shoot what you want and back it up with something dead. THE END. Let's talk important issues, like whether or not we can hunt the "Big Five" in Africa!!;)

From: Sapcut
Date: 17-Feb-11




Get help...soon

From: 808grapplemonkey
Date: 17-Feb-11




So... what would be good mediums and how should this test be run? I'd like a hooter shooter to take out the human factors... not that I don't trust you OSB... it's just that I don't trust humans to be 100% accurate 100% of the time when conducting tests of this sort.

From: 808grapplemonkey
Date: 18-Feb-11




Dude I know what a medium is... I listed hooter shooters as a source of what I'd like to see used to eliminate the possibility of over and under drawing.

From: PineLander
Date: 18-Feb-11




"the heavy arrows broadhead and the light arrows entered the wood at different angles and thus encountered the wood grain and laminations in at different angles" - onesharpbroadhead

Only in the top photo, not the bottom photo.

Those photos are of two different sets of shots, not the same one.

I suspect it would be a major pain doing a test with plywood... having to dig out broadheads buried in the wood.

From: cjgregory
Date: 18-Feb-11




I was happy with OSB draw consistency. A few feet per second is good enough.

From: upnorth
Date: 18-Feb-11




why dont a bunch of you guys decide what you want to test get in a car or bus etc . all come to my shop you can use my hooter shooter , chrono , paper tester , scales , etc and bring what ever you want to shoot at . and have a penetration shoot out weekend . just let me know when you want to do it . then you can all have a indoor 3d shoot out to sees whos the top dog .

From: PineLander
Date: 18-Feb-11




Wouldn't care how far it went after exiting, only if it exited or not.

From: Paintedsticks
Date: 18-Feb-11




OSB, there is a big difference in being a liar and liking to exaggerate a little bit....PR

From: 808grapplemonkey
Date: 18-Feb-11




"I was happy with OSB draw consistency. A few feet per second is good enough."

I'm glad you are happy with it. I, on the other hand, would like to see all variables that can be eliminated be eliminated. One arrow per phone book would be good too since the first arrow to penetrate it weakens it... the second arrow can be shot into a weakened area allowing it to penetrate deeper. OSB already stated he did not video a few shots into the ballistic gel since it was already shot out... same smell different taste.

From: Dream Catcher@work
Date: 19-Feb-11




Henry, I live in CT. It's not too hard to do up here. I had a crop damage permit for at least 12 years and would kill 15-20 deer with a bow each year before our regular season opens. Here in CT, I can shoot 6 deer a year not counting replacement tags that are given out due to the high deer population in the area I hunt. The number of deer you can take is endless in certain areas.

This is not hunting like I do in NW Montana. Since my 4 year old triplets were born I actually only take 4-6 deer with a bow because I can't find the time to get out. I also typically will shoot 6 more with the shotgun/rifle and ML tags.

So, believe me or not it's true! We eat wild game at least 3 times a week! Funny, I have 4 brothers and 3 of them never got a deer with a bow!

From: cjgregory
Date: 19-Feb-11




Well not only that 808 but a phone book is actually denser than wood. It's layered paper and will absorb momentum very quickly. Momentum needs less rigid impact for it's charachteristics to be expressed.

The measure of energy at impact is the correct calculation. energy=mass x velosity sq. It is possible to have a higher velosity to compensate for a lower mass. This however is short lived and the momentum formula takes over. This is the crux of Ashby's assertions. So it is not "everyone" else in the heavy arrow catagory that does not understand. It's OSB who does not understand the concept. A gain in velosity will make up for lower mass at the initial start. At some point the curves cross. Probably less than 20 yards. A close up test will not yield the results unless there is a significant FOC differential between the two arrows.

From: Purdue
Date: 19-Feb-11




"energy=mass x velosity sq."

Actually it's energy = 1/2 mass x velocity sq.

From Easton Archery's site;

"Using an archery example-a 350-grain arrow will be faster out of the bow than a 450-grain arrow, but the 350-grain arrow will lose about 12% of its kinetic energy at 40 yards, were the 450-grain arrow will only lose about 4% to 6% of it energy at the same distance."

From: cjgregory
Date: 19-Feb-11




Acutally both formulas work. lol

E=MC sq.

E= energy M= mass C= velocity

Try it.

From: Van/TX
Date: 19-Feb-11




"The speed of light, one of the most sacrosanct of the universal physical constants, may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago - and not in some far corner of the universe, but right here on Earth."

Who would have thunk it. Ashby will have to revise his studies ;-)...Van

From: Van/TX
Date: 19-Feb-11

Van/TX's embedded Photo



He was just kidding ;-)...Van

From: harlen
Date: 19-Feb-11




Oh, light thinks its fast. In fact light has become quite arrogant about it's speed. Especially with Einstein's formula, and scientist using it for just about everything.

However, light should keep in mind that no matter how fast it is moving when it arrives, darkness is always already arrived and is there waiting for it.

Just sayin'

From: welshman
Date: 20-Feb-11




Just food for thought one of these days we will turn our telescopes to the sky and we will see the earth being born because of the vastness of the universe and the universe is ever expanding and the speed of light .

From: Zipperin'
Date: 20-Feb-11




this is gonna hit 500 posts....go baby, go!!!!!!!!!!!

Zip'

From: ironmike
Date: 20-Feb-11




fffffffffffffpt!!!!!thats all that matters,follow the blood trail.





If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here




Visit Bowsite.com A Traditional Archery Community Become a Sponsor
Stickbow.com © 2003. By using this site you agree to our Terms and Conditions and our Privacy Policy