Extreme f.o.c or heavy arrow

[Duckologist]

nice animal but I would say, and as a science guy you will agree, that one example does not meet the burden of proof in a scientific experiment. I would also say that across a large data set what Ashby studies recommend will be incredibly more reliable than than this setup on large game. there is no question.

I wonder what the native's arrows weighed say 4 or 500 years ago.

[enewman]

I wonder what the native's arrows weighed say 4 or 500 years ago.

heavy

[enewman]

I wonder what the native's arrows weighed say 4 or 500 years ago.

i don't know if this is correct just googled. "The length of the draw, also determined by the body of the archer, determines the length of the arrow. The maximum cast of the bow determines the maximum weight of the point. This is how we know that certain "arrowheads" can not really have been used on an arrow, at least not to any good effect. A general rule of thumb is that a stone arrowhead will be less than 1 1/2-x-3/4-inch in dimensions and will generally weigh less than one ounce. Larger "arrowheads" probably would have been spear, dart, or knife tips"

1 ounce is 437gr.

[Beargrasstx]

I will be drinking whiskey and hunting next month. I do not shoot 3d.

I do apologize. I forget on certain sites people do not care nor want to learn about physics of archery. They just like to be told what to shoot, not learn why. That is why I don’t come to this site much anymore. Years ago this was the only site To come to and we had great post. Some that lasted for weeks. We got into the deep of things. Problem today is people don’t want to take the time to learn. They want instant gratification. Truly sad. This is why our country is changing and one day we will be a social country.

People want to know what kills the fastest or is the most lethal. Your studies aren't relevant to archers. We want to know the best setup for our bow and our hunting style or quarry. Which is an individual preference. What you have proved along with others is that the heavier arrows will penetrate thicker hide, bone etc compared to lighter arrows. So if a person is wanting to kill quarry, especially big game then maybe they will look at adding some weight to their 400 grain arrow setup to ensure penetration.

You get in these arguments with several posters on here and then just go to insulting someone's intelligence as they are too simple to understand. You keep throwing out studies that involve in some magical universe where a hunter will shoot the same KE or have the same momentum with arrows 200 grains different (400, 600).

I am glad you are passionate about proving whatever it is you are aiming to prove. The one thing you have proved is mass is the difference but any Joe shooting their bow in the backyard at a target knows that. Insulting and throwing your little remarks just comes off as petty and doesn't win you any favors.

What do you hope to prove with your studies? What will change in the archery world if you prove it? How are you making a positive difference with what you are doing?

The best thing an archer can do is learn about their tool and go shoot. Not read someone throw out scenario's that cannot exist in this universe and gets all high and mighty.

You want to make a difference. Lose the attitude. Show some humility and patience. Clearly state what you believe or your thesis and why this matters to the hunting industry.

[enewman]

People want to know what kills the fastest or is the most lethal. Your studies aren't relevant to archers. We want to know the best setup for our bow and our hunting style or quarry. Which is an individual preference. What you have proved along with others is that the heavier arrows will penetrate thicker hide, bone etc compared to lighter arrows. So if a person is wanting to kill quarry, especially big game then maybe they will look at adding some weight to their 400 grain arrow setup to ensure penetration.

You get in these arguments with several posters on here and then just go to insulting someone's intelligence as they are too simple to understand. You keep throwing out studies that involve in some magical universe where a hunter will shoot the same KE or have the same momentum with arrows 200 grains different (400, 600).

I am glad you are passionate about proving whatever it is you are aiming to prove. The one thing you have proved is mass is the difference but any Joe shooting their bow in the backyard at a target knows that. Insulting and throwing your little remarks just comes off as petty and doesn't win you any favors.

What do you hope to prove with your studies? What will change in the archery world if you prove it? How are you making a positive difference with what you are doing?

The best thing an archer can do is learn about their tool and go shoot. Not read someone throw out scenario's that cannot exist in this universe and gets all high and mighty.

You want to make a difference. Lose the attitude. Show some humility and patience. Clearly state what you believe or your thesis and why this matters to the hunting industry.

" You keep throwing out studies that involve in some magical universe where a hunter will shoot the same KE or have the same momentum with arrows 200 grains different (400, 600)."

I'm sorry you didn't understand The test and how the test has to be done. Scientific testing is very hard. You must remove variables. That is what was done in the testing I provided.

I thought I had explained that. I guess not.



have a good one.

[Beargrasstx]

" You keep throwing out studies that involve in some magical universe where a hunter will shoot the same KE or have the same momentum with arrows 200 grains different (400, 600)."

I'm sorry you didn't understand The test and how the test has to be done. Scientific testing is very hard. You must remove variables. That is what was done in the testing I provided.

I thought I had explained that. I guess not.



have a good one.

I understand...What I don't understand is 'why' you are doing it? What is your end game? Sorry I didn't explain myself better. We all understand now that you took all the real factors that go into shooting an arrow out to test KE, Momentum, Mass, Velocity, etc.... I love how you single one line out but decide to not answer the questions. Why are you doing this? What is your endgame? What do you hope to accomplish? How will this affect the archery industry going forward? What is your hypothesis? What have been your personal results, not other peoples'? Has what you discovered changed how you build an arrow?

Is your biggest gripe with heavy arrow proponents not in that they deliver more penetration but because they (ranch fairy) was wrong in what causes it? The fairy even admitted he was called out by the rocket man in that last video. Basically, the end result was correct but explaining why was incorrect.

I know physics is hard, yada yada. We are too stupid to understand etc. We just don't get it. I really want to have a discussion but it is hard when you bounce around on topics. Seems one minute you are anti heavy arrow and fairy then next you talk about how a heavy arrow will always out penetrate a lighter arrow shot from the same bow...which, ummm is what we hunters do. I want to care about your math project but I need to know how this is going to be relevant to a killing game stand point.

I don't have a dog in the fight either way. I can tell you are passionate about your cause. I want to know your 'cause'. What is driving you to do this? What do you hope to accomplish?

[enewman]

I understand...What I don't understand is 'why' you are doing it? What is your end game? Sorry I didn't explain myself better. We all understand now that you took all the real factors that go into shooting an arrow out to test KE, Momentum, Mass, Velocity, etc.... I love how you single one line out but decide to not answer the questions. Why are you doing this? What is your endgame? What do you hope to accomplish? How will this affect the archery industry going forward? What is your hypothesis? What have been your personal results, not other peoples'? Has what you discovered changed how you build an arrow?

Is your biggest gripe with heavy arrow proponents not in that they deliver more penetration but because they (ranch fairy) was wrong in what causes it? The fairy even admitted he was called out by the rocket man in that last video. Basically, the end result was correct but explaining why was incorrect.

I know physics is hard, yada yada. We are too stupid to understand etc. We just don't get it. I really want to have a discussion but it is hard when you bounce around on topics. Seems one minute you are anti heavy arrow and fairy then next you talk about how a heavy arrow will always out penetrate a lighter arrow shot from the same bow...which, ummm is what we hunters do. I want to care about your math project but I need to know how this is going to be relevant to a killing game stand point.

I don't have a dog in the fight either way. I can tell you are passionate about your cause. I want to know your 'cause'. What is driving you to do this? What do you hope to accomplish?

I wrote three long posts about what the test was about. Now, I understand it is very hard when writing. Part of that is my vault. I see things differently, so I write how I see them. That is not always good.

first. I don't have a problem with ranch fairy on what he is showing in the last couple of videos with darral. I do think they are leaving out things.

Now, what is my goal? People are being taught that momentum is what gives us penetration. Not KE. Some are even teaching that once we have an impact that KE is gone and momentum takes over. Some even try including Ashby to show that KE is nothing because it's scalar.

There are several people in the archery world that think it's time to get some of the bad information corrected. I have joined in with them.

Now, I have been posting and writing about KE for several years now. Showing and using physics to support the claim. But people have a hard time including me without visuals.

I posted three tests, one done by Dave Holt. and two from Joel Maxfield. My test is coming but with a different test media. What that will be is IF my test correlates to there's then we have a test that I would consider quantified.

The test is to show if it's KE or momentum That gives us the capacity to penetrate. Now, physics already tells us. "two objects with unequal mass, but equal momentum the object with the highest KE will be harder to stop"

now, this is the one test Joel did and one of the tests I will be repeating. Now since I'm a bow hunter and I'm looking at these for hunters, is why I will be using a bow as the shooting device and arrows as the objects.

To be able to test what physics already tells me I have to come ob with two objects of different weights. This means I will test with a 400gr +/- and 600gr for sure. now if another test shows what I'm looking for I may test with a 400,500,600, 700, and 800gr. The reason to use so many instead of just two is so I can show a trend. This was told to me by a professor. The more data the easier it is to understand.

so, to show if it's KE or momentum that causes penetration, I must first match momentum at a target between all arrows. what that means is as I add weight I have to adjust the velocity to match momentum.

Next, I need consistent test material. I need an equal retarding force.

now what we will see based on the test already done and what physics tells us. with matching momentum as the weight is added the penetration will decrease. (my test is just to quantify their test) If the test is quantified it will show that momentum is not what causes penetration. it will also show that momentum built on mass doesn't outperform momentum built on velocity. again physics already tells us this. The test of matching momentum has shown that KE is what gives us the capacity to penetrate. If it was momentum and momentum built on mass then as he added the weight the penetration should have increased.

next test, matching KE at target. now this one bothers me. but I have now seen two tests and researching physics. Their test showed again what physics tells us. That KE is what gives us the capacity to penetrate. If it was momentum then without a doubt in the matching KE at target the heavier arrow should have out penetrated. It did not.

so, what is my goal? to use physics to show that KE is what gives us the capacity to penetrate not momentum.

now in the real world. When we shoot two arrows of unequal weight from the same bow, what happens. The heavy will out penetrate. why is that? Because the heavier arrow will have more KE at the target than the lighter arrow. Remember in the two test matching KE that matched in penetration. Why did that match because we increased the KE of the heavier arrows.

all I'm doing is teaching physics for archery. I'm trying to make a correction in the information given out. that is it. some will believe some will not and most will not give a rat's *** either way.

does momentum have a part in this. absolutely. when we hit a hard object like bone, we need momentum. we need mass because we need the inertia to help keep that arrow moving through the bone. we need the impulse to be short.

now some are going to say well trads penetrate and don't have much KE, it has to be momentum. Two things most not all but most use mass. mass is still what we need to look at. But it also shows you that it doesn't take much KE to get the job done.

[critter69]

It’s amazing any of us kill anything, not understanding the “ math”. I have shot very light to very very heavy arrows and killed a lot of animals with all of them. And I nor the animals cared if it was KE or momentum. I have hit animals poorly with very heavy set ups and it didn’t work out any better then the lightest arrows. I have killed many with light and heavy arrows placed in the correct spot, and it works great, but I guess there is no mathematical equation on shot placement to try and act superior or teach us all something. You were just as persistent a short time ago, on the Ashby theory as you are now. So were you wrong then ? I remember arguing with you over it, and placed you on my ignore list. In fact I am not sure why I can read your posts now, as I didn’t change it.

[enewman]

It’s amazing any of us kill anything, not understanding the “ math”. I have shot very light to very very heavy arrows and killed a lot of animals with all of them. And I nor the animals cared if it was KE or momentum. I have hit animals poorly with very heavy set ups and it didn’t work out any better then the lightest arrows. I have killed many with light and heavy arrows placed in the correct spot, and it works great, but I guess there is no mathematical equation on shot placement to try and act superior or teach us all something. You were just as persistent a short time ago, on the Ashby theory as you are now. So were you wrong then ? I remember arguing with you over it, and placed you on my ignore list. In fact I am not sure why I can read your posts now, as I didn’t change it.

was I wrong then, yes.

some will believe some will not and most will not give a rat's *** either way.
You fall under this category. My post is not for you.
What I post and test are just for a hand full of people that look at the physics of it. you are not one of those people. It is not for everyone.

to try to act superior is not my goal at all. if you feel this way that is on you. Nothing I can do about that.

[Jboehle21]

So I’ve settled around the 509 grain weight just because I get a compromise of speed and penetration I personally like to spot and stalk hogs and being able to reach out to extended ranges if need be is nice I understand shooting a 600 plus grain setup if you are hunting over a feeder at a known distance

[Bigdaddy]

450 grain arrow at 280 FPS will kill anything in the north and south america

[Tom]

So I’ve settled around the 509 grain weight just because I get a compromise of speed and penetration I personally like to spot and stalk hogs and being able to reach out to extended ranges if need be is nice I understand shooting a 600 plus grain setup if you are hunting over a feeder at a known distance

There is no correlation between weight of arrow, speed and misjudging distance. ;-)

if you hunt with a bow you have done this!

[lovemylegacy]

I agree with critter69 in part, about the arrows weight, not necessarily about the rest of his comments. I started out with heavy arrows and never killed anything, basically because they were SLLOOOOWWWW. The animal wasn't there when the arrow showed up. When I went to faster, lighter arrows, I started killing animals and been killing them with the same setup ever since I started using it. He is right, the animals didn't care, because they were dead
I have read Ashbys stuff and it has its own level of merit and interest, I have no idea why you jumped ship on his research, but hey, Im not judging. Whether KE or momentum is your method measuring arrow lethality, it matters not.
It is however interesting.

[enewman]

I agree with critter69 in part, about the arrows weight, not necessarily about the rest of his comments. I started out with heavy arrows and never killed anything, basically because they were SLLOOOOWWWW. The animal wasn't there when the arrow showed up. When I went to faster, lighter arrows, I started killing animals and been killing them with the same setup ever since I started using it. He is right, the animals didn't care, because they were dead
I have read Ashbys stuff and it has its own level of merit and interest, I have no idea why you jumped ship on his research, but hey, Im not judging. Whether KE or momentum is your method measuring arrow lethality, it matters not.
It is however interesting.

I got into the physics of it in 2018 or 2019 don’t remember. That caused me to get back into ashby. I started taking his data and putting it into tables and charts.

By putting in to charts I saw things that made me get deeper into his testing. I saw lots of testing that made no since as why he would test this way. What I saw was he did lots of things to prove KE was nothing and momentum was everything. But this goes against what the professor I had been working with on physics had been teaching me.

Then I met a few other people that had done test to show what causes penetration.

Other than that I haven’t changed to much of my thinking. Other than FOC. I still teach about FOC for arrow stabilization. But I do lean more into center of gravity and center of pressure. As far as penetration I no longer talk about that other to say, there is no quantifiable data to show FOC does anything for penetration on a compound bow. For a trad bow, I do think FOC helps in penetration.

I still teach the first 6 of the ashby 12 penetration factor. I think the other 6 are just sub categories. I still look at mass of the arrows, but the type of broadhead is more important than mass for penetration. I do not teach that you need a 650gr to hunt whitetail deer. I believe for the average hunter 450gr +/- 25gr is more than enough. I do not believe we need a 650gr to hunt elk. I don’t believe there is any animal in North America that we really need a 650gr arrow.

I shoot 500gr +/-25gr

I believe that shot placement is what we should be teaching and stressing how important it is.

I guess the big change is I do not teach, to build arrows on purpose to aim at the leg to break the animal down.

[Beargrasstx]

Thanks for the breakdown. My theory....a wild guess. Is 75% of bowhunters would benefit from a 470 to 525 grain arrow. I think the shorter the draw length, the more benefits for going heavier unless shooting pronghorns. Those with 29 in and longer draw lengths produce enough KE with their 400 gr set up to not matter as much.

I would like to see some studies comparing a sharp fixed broadhead from a well tuned bow versus mechanicals. I know that there was a study done a few years ago showing mechanicals led to more recoveries but I would like to more tests.