Wilderlife
WKR
Comparisons with big rifles are certainly interesting but not really in the same ballpark.
An arrow out of a 70# or 80# bow with the same 125gn broadhead is going to leave pretty well exactly the same wound channel - leaving aside things like hitting bone, etc. People might want to shoot a faster or heavier arrow for particular purposes and that's fine, but it's not the same argument where people say "well sure, you can kill a fallow deer with your .300WM, but you won't recover anything off the front third of it."
The bigger you go with rifles, the more potential you have for ruining meat or hide, as well as the difficulty of managing recoil. With the bows, besides having to have the strength to pull it back and shoot it accurately, the difference between the other stuff isn't big enough to justify bringing it up in this sort of discussion. again, there are exceptions, but the sake of discussing things consistently and with general rules of thumb, no one can deny that this isn't the case.
So with a perfect broadside shot on a regular old pig (for example), a 500gn arrow from a 50# longbow, 490gn from a 70# compound, 550gn arrow from an 80# compound, will all leave the same wound if using the same broadhead with the same shot.
The difference in damage on that animal between a .223rem using a 55gn soft point, and a .300wm using a 150gn Interlock, are not even close to being the same thing.
So for the sake of 'summing up' this nonsense I'm carrying on with, the 'because I can' argument isn't the same with big rifles as opposed to 80# compounds. For the most part, within reason and general rules of thumb, the heavier bow you can shoot, the better off you could be. The same can't always be said for rifles, but a lot of that depends on what your goal is when hunting. When culling pigs off quad bikes down here I like to use a big rifle because I can kill reliably with Texas heart shots and we aren't recovering meat so a stack of damage isn't something we care about.
An arrow out of a 70# or 80# bow with the same 125gn broadhead is going to leave pretty well exactly the same wound channel - leaving aside things like hitting bone, etc. People might want to shoot a faster or heavier arrow for particular purposes and that's fine, but it's not the same argument where people say "well sure, you can kill a fallow deer with your .300WM, but you won't recover anything off the front third of it."
The bigger you go with rifles, the more potential you have for ruining meat or hide, as well as the difficulty of managing recoil. With the bows, besides having to have the strength to pull it back and shoot it accurately, the difference between the other stuff isn't big enough to justify bringing it up in this sort of discussion. again, there are exceptions, but the sake of discussing things consistently and with general rules of thumb, no one can deny that this isn't the case.
So with a perfect broadside shot on a regular old pig (for example), a 500gn arrow from a 50# longbow, 490gn from a 70# compound, 550gn arrow from an 80# compound, will all leave the same wound if using the same broadhead with the same shot.
The difference in damage on that animal between a .223rem using a 55gn soft point, and a .300wm using a 150gn Interlock, are not even close to being the same thing.
So for the sake of 'summing up' this nonsense I'm carrying on with, the 'because I can' argument isn't the same with big rifles as opposed to 80# compounds. For the most part, within reason and general rules of thumb, the heavier bow you can shoot, the better off you could be. The same can't always be said for rifles, but a lot of that depends on what your goal is when hunting. When culling pigs off quad bikes down here I like to use a big rifle because I can kill reliably with Texas heart shots and we aren't recovering meat so a stack of damage isn't something we care about.