Arrow penetration

[MightyWhitey]

If my math is right your 435gr arrow at 53# is 8.2gr per pound
My 665gr arrow at 82# is 8.1gr per pound.

What’s the problem here?

Billygoat, can you make a meme with two guys arguing that both have KoolAid stains on their lips??

 

[Bump79]

“I have shot a compound 1/2 dozen times in 10 years- so right now I wouldn’t shoot over 25 with that compound.”

He also said that. And he’s definitely not a heavy arrow compound guy. So it’s still the Indian.

Have we narrowed this down to a sound, distance, reaction time debate? If so I think that’s the least likely issue anybody has a chance at being accurate about.

Im still curious if your charts are ok with Beendares trad setup. If he said his specs I missed it, but it seems nobody has a problem with a trad guy shooting 550gr at 45#. Is that setup “acceptable” at 30yds or is it “unethical” like my 665gr/240fps at 40yds?

First off - I never called you "unethical" or "acceptable". So go ahead and take of those "quotes" off something you made up. I said many, many, many times now - Shoot what you like. I made no ethical judgements - I just presented math showing the downsides. Real tangible downsides and people should be honest about them and not preach about how great their setup is without accurately weighing the downsides. It's not controversial at all for me to say someone should shoot a normal weight arrow for their setup with a sharp fixed blade and have perfect arrow flight. The burden of proof lies on the feet of the person making the controversial statement that the appropriate arrow weight for a compound should be 665 grains. This is very far off the bell curve of setups.

As far as @Beendare setup goes - I don't think he's unethical at all, nor do I think you are. His setup clearly seems to be working. He's also very transparent about any downsides and is honest about the tradeoffs of a heavier arrow. That is all I'm getting at.

It has always been a sound, distance and reaction time debate. This has been every nearly post I've made. I've said at least 3 time now but will repeat myself again - a heavy arrow penetrates better, will allow for more forgiveness in broadhead flight (given broadhead surface area is equal), but it gets there slower, gives the animal more time to react and if you have a range estimation error then you will hit your target further away from the intended location.

All of this-
You’re blowing through all your animals, but saying bad trajectory is an issue. Why aren’t you shooting a much lighter arrow to improve that trajectory? Your arrow barely slowed down going through a 800# moose. Or hell, use all that extra horse power to use a head with a wider cut, or a mechanical…?

So just to make sure I’m understanding correctly:
- A trad guy can shoot a very heavy arrow out of a slow bow at 30yds with an aiming method that is only slightly better than having your eyes closed, and he gets a pat on the back?
- But if a compound guy with a more efficient bow, front sight, rear sight, release, and range finder shoots an equivalent TAW/ per pounds of draw weight he’s a Kool aid drinker?
Are you guys really drying to justify that double standard all with bow noise? If so, the compound guy is usually farther away, which you already said helps the situation. And if he’s closer, he’s way faster.


And Beendare can handle that poor trajectory at 30yds and kill that efficiently but it’s just downright impossible for a compound guy with every mechanical and digital advantage under the sun to handle at his max range??

I haven't heard anyone say this. He's the problem - Your logic is circular. @Beendare trad setup is passing through nearly everything with less energy/momentum including a large moose. Ashby at 650 grains demonstrated that he's lethal. Given that information we can gather something very important - that level of momentum and energy is sufficient to kill reliably. Why does one "need" to increase momentum past what has been demonstrated over and over again to be lethal? What is it that you're tangibly gaining? This is the weighting I keep talking about. What is it that you're gaining by shooting so much more momentum and KE than Ashby?

It just seems like standard simple cave man thought process. More bigger = more gooder. More gooder = me better. It's just to opposite end of the spectrum of the guys shooting super light arrows with massive mechanicals. More faster = more better. More bigger = more better. Ugg ugg.

While imperfect and I learn more everyday, I'm progressing down a path as follows to increase my lethality:

1. Baseline: I have more KE & M than Ashby ever did.
2. We know for a fact that a faster arrow has a flatter trajectory and has less range error.
3. We know for a fact that all things equal (noise, distance) the animal can move more if it takes less time for the animal to get there.
4. We know for a fact that as velocity increases broadhead (given equal surface area) flight goes down. The path forks here: You've got reduce to surface area or decrease velocity. This means that in order to shoot super fast like 300 fps+ you've got to go mechanical, reduce velocity to below 300 fps to shoot a smaller or vented fixed, or reduce velocity a lot to shoot a large fixed.
   1. Given that I still want good penetration on an elk and most likely put two holes in it - that rules out the mechanical leaves two paths for elk.
   2. The data on 3:1 is questionable - Even in the updated Ashby testing a .8:1 fixed head still penetrated better than some other "more mechanically advantaged heads".
   3. Knowing that I have energy and M over Ashby - I can reduce my length to get flight. This lands me between 280-295 fps with a excellent flying fixed blade.
5. We know for a fact that all things equal (sharpness, materials, etc) that reducing the cutting area of the broadhead increase penetration. Another fork - how much penetration do we need?
   1. We also know that based on the data provided in the Barnette arrow flight report (provided to Ashby) that a 3 blade has better flight characteristics than a 2 blade.
   2. Given that a 3 blade is easy to sharpen, better balanced and has better flight characteristics - arrow flight is number one. 3 blade it is.

Is this thought process perfect? No. But at the end of this logical path - what do we see? It's nearly EXACTLY what nearly everything on the compound market is selling, if you walk into a bow shop this is what you'll see, and is what 90% of all hunters are using. Moderate weights and 3 blade decent cut size vented fixed blades to reduce area. Again, it's not a conspiracy. While there is madness in crowds - there is also wisdom.

Again, shoot what you like - but let's be honest about the tradeoffs. I have no problem with the guy who says I like to shoot heavy arrows because I like them and it give me confidence. So long as they know that it has tradeoffs. Same as a guy shooting a 350 grain with a rage on it. I'm not going to tell that guy he shouldn't hunt or he is unethical. But his scenarios of things going wrong are a different profile.

 

[Bump79]

If my math is right your 435gr arrow at 53# is 8.2gr per pound
My 665gr arrow at 82# is 8.1gr per pound.

What’s the problem here?

Billygoat, can you make a meme with two guys arguing that both have KoolAid stains on their lips??

The grains per pound rule doesn't make much sense. It doesn't take into account draw length or bow type which both can increase penetration. A grain per KE would make more sense as that would effectively give a recommended momentum. Or just using momentum as a recommendation.

No, I know you don’t NEED a heavy arrow to kill things. I think it’s pretty hard NOT to kill something when you hit it in the vitals with nothing hard in the way.

But I do think (and it seems like we agree) that a heavier arrow increases your lethality when you do have something hard in the way.

Agreed and agreed. The question is why if Ashby and everyone is demonstrating that you have enough energy and momentum - if you're past it why is it logical to increase your momentum further and sacrifice advantages of velocity? Which are well known, demonstrated and based in physics. It's an acceptable answer to just say - I like it. It's not necessary at all but it's a comfort blanket. Perfectly fine.

 

[Billy Goat]

Go shoot a target at 20yrs with your 600g bare shaft with your target set at eye height. Then post pictures of your arrows with a level on them. Do the same with a 450g arrow and then we can debate

Depending on my nock point, I can have arrows that are in a target nock high or nock low.

You really want to debate that?


You want me to shoot through paper at 20? That's going to be a better indication of what the shaft is doing at that point.

 

[MightyWhitey]

First off - I never called you "unethical" or "acceptable". So go ahead and take of those "quotes" off something you made up. I said many, many, many times now - Shoot what you like. I made no ethical judgements - I just presented math showing the downsides. Real tangible downsides and people should be honest about them and not preach about how great their setup is without accurately weighing the downsides. It's not controversial at all for me to say someone should shoot a normal weight arrow for their setup with a sharp fixed blade and have perfect arrow flight. The burden of proof lies on the feet of the person making the controversial statement that the appropriate arrow weight for a compound should be 665 grains. This is very far off the bell curve of setups.

As far as @Beendare setup goes - I don't think he's unethical at all, nor do I think you are. His setup clearly seems to be working. He's also very transparent about any downsides and is honest about the tradeoffs of a heavier arrow. That is all I'm getting at.

It has always been a sound, distance and reaction time debate. This has been every nearly post I've made. I've said at least 3 time now but will repeat myself again - a heavy arrow penetrates better, will allow for more forgiveness in broadhead flight (given broadhead surface area is equal), but it gets there slower, gives the animal more time to react and if you have a range estimation error then you will hit your target further away from the intended location.


I haven't heard anyone say this. He's the problem - Your logic is circular. @Beendare trad setup is passing through nearly everything with less energy/momentum including a large moose. Ashby at 650 grains demonstrated that he's lethal. Given that information we can gather something very important - that level of momentum and energy is sufficient to kill reliably. Why does one "need" to increase momentum past what has been demonstrated over and over again to be lethal? What is it that you're tangibly gaining? This is the weighting I keep talking about. What is it that you're gaining by shooting so much more momentum and KE than Ashby?

It just seems like standard simple cave man thought process. More bigger = more gooder. More gooder = me better. It's just to opposite end of the spectrum of the guys shooting super light arrows with massive mechanicals. More faster = more better. More bigger = more better. Ugg ugg.

While imperfect and I learn more everyday, I'm progressing down a path as follows to increase my lethality:

1. Baseline: I have more KE & M than Ashby ever did.
2. We know for a fact that a faster arrow has a flatter trajectory and has less range error.
3. We know for a fact that all things equal (noise, distance) the animal can move more if it takes less time for the animal to get there.
4. We know for a factthat as velocity increases broadhead (given equal surface area) flight goes down. The path forks here: You've got reduce to surface area or decrease velocity. This means that in order to shoot super fast like 300 fps+ you've got to go mechanical, reduce velocity to below 300 fps to shoot a smaller or vented fixed, or reduce velocity a lot to shoot a large fixed.
   1. Given that I still want good penetration on an elk and most likely put two holes in it - that rules out the mechanical leaves two paths for elk.
   2. The data on 3:1 is questionable - Even in the updated Ashby testing a .8:1 fixed head still penetrated better than some other "more mechanically advantaged heads".
   3. Knowing that I have energy and M over Ashby - I can reduce my length to get flight. This lands me between 280-295 fps with a excellent flying fixed blade.
5. We know for a fact that all things equal (sharpness, materials, etc) that reducing the cutting area of the broadhead increase penetration. Another fork - how much penetration do we need?
   1. We also know that based on the data provided in the Barnette arrow flight report (provided to Ashby) that a 3 blade has better flight characteristics than a 2 blade.
   2. Given that a 3 blade is easy to sharpen, better balanced and has better flight characteristics - arrow flight is number one. 3 blade it is.

Is this thought process perfect? No. But at the end of this logical path - what do we see? It's nearly EXACTLY what nearly everything on the compound market is selling, if you walk into a bow shop this is what you'll see, and is what 90% of all hunters are using. Moderate weights and 3 blade decent cut size vented fixed blades to reduce area. Again, it's not a conspiracy. While there is madness in crowds - there is also wisdom.

Again, shoot what you like - but let's be honest about the tradeoffs. I have no problem with the guy who says I like to shoot heavy arrows because I like them and it give me confidence. So long as they know that it has tradeoffs. Same as a guy shooting a 350 grain with a rage on it. I'm not going to tell that guy he shouldn't hunt or he is unethical. But his scenarios of things going wrong are a different profile.

Second off- Quit it, I was mocking the Ashby chart you pointed out that used those terms saying your weight was unethical, acceptable, etc. and applying it to your chart that you used as an example for me to keep my shots at 20yds and under because I’m too slow.

All these high weights (650gr+) that Ashby recommends or calls acceptable by their chart has nothing to do with soft tissue or rib bone hits. Those high numbers are all heavy bone breaking thresholds for different sized animal's. So when somebody shoots a moose between rib bones with 450gr that’s not disproving anything. I don’t think Ashby ever said that couldnt be done. I do understand that when their chart just uses a blanket statement saying that a weight below the heavy bone breaking threshold is unethical or whatever, it pisses people off. Bad on Ashby for lack of clarification on that chart.

Like somebody said earlier, that 650gr is way down on the order of importance on Ashbys list. Until you hit heavy bone, then it’s way up there. But a lot of guys want to use their rib cage, soft tissue kills as proof that Ashby is a wacko.

As far as what’s being sold at the bow shop, 90% of it looks like a bunch of light weight vented junk that doesn’t do very well in the structural integrity category, which we agree is way up at the top of the Whats most important list. When you remove material, you loose durability.

But yeah, to each their own and pic your poison.

 

[Bump79]

Second off- Quit it, I was mocking the Ashby chart you pointed out that used those terms saying your weight was unethical, acceptable, etc. and applying it to your chart that you used as an example for me to keep my shots at 20yds and under because I’m too slow.

All these high weights (650gr+) that Ashby recommends or calls acceptable by their chart has nothing to do with soft tissue or rib bone hits. Those high numbers are all heavy bone breaking thresholds for different sized animal's. So when somebody shoots a moose between rib bones with 450gr that’s not disproving anything. I don’t think Ashby ever said that couldnt be done. I do understand that when their chart just uses a blanket statement saying that a weight below the heavy bone breaking threshold is unethical or whatever, it pisses people off. Bad on Ashby for lack of clarification on that chart.

Like somebody said earlier, that 650gr is way down on the order of importance on Ashbys list. Until you hit heavy bone, then it’s way up there. But a lot of guys want to use their rib cage, soft tissue kills as proof that Ashby is a wacko.

As far as what’s being sold at the bow shop, 90% of it looks like a bunch of light weight vented junk that doesn’t do very well in the structural integrity category, which we agree is way up at the top of the Whats most important list. When you remove material, you loose durability.

But yeah, to each their own and pic your poison.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across wrong, PM Responded too. I'm not trying to be a dick but just to present the other side of the story to the best of my ability. I'm not a wordsmith.

Just to clarify - what I mean was considering limiting to 20 yds when you presented the 30 on a quartering to shot scenario. It's absolutely not a problem for other opportunities. There's a lot of animal movement that plays in to already the 2nd most controversial shot opportunity. That depends on the angle its quartering to you though. I wouldn't take a hard quartering shot at 30 with my setup either. Nor a frontal at 30. A heavier arrow increases the opportunity animal movement as far I can tell. It's a risk assessment for me and that's personal preference. I don't think the weight of your arrow should change your decision about a shot. If I'm saying anything about ethics that would be it.

There used to be an app where you could spin a deer or elk around and see where it went. But you can picture it on this deer. Right out the gate your planning on likely one lung hit. If he spins around his center of mass - somewhere just forward of the center of his legs - our aim point now becomes maybe the back of one lung and liver/diaphragm/guts. I lost a doe this year in this scenario at 15 yards low hagning in a tree. Whether she moved or I just her further back than intended. It yielded no recovery.


Low odds quartering shots hasn't panned out for me. As I said earlier - I'm like 1/5 on quartering to shots and that one was pure luck. I've learned that I'd rather just pass on them or wait a few seconds and a better shot usually presents itself. In the moment it usually seems like you don't have the time.. but most of the time you actually do. I had to pass on 4 bulls this year and went home empty handed. But I don't regret it. Way better than looking for the bull I lost the year before that from a quartering to shot I botched and hit slightly too far back when he was waking to me.

I just ordered a cheap decibel meter. I'll get some testing done with my bows on sound. Tough to believe it hasn't been done yet. I only found one from Afflictor with a crossbow and it showed no discernable difference.

 

[Beendare]

Now my head is starting to hurt-grin

my posts were meant to communicate that;

‘Its pretty simple’

but that didn’t go well- grin

 

[5MilesBack]

The thing about archery is that there are tradeoffs with every decision you make. Minimize what those are for best performance, tune your setup, and get proficient no matter the situation.......then go and kill stuff. That is pretty simple.

 

[MightyWhitey]

No sweat, a lot gets lost or misunderstood in text.

In all honesty, I’m waiting for that deer to keep coming. I like em at 12yds. I’ve killed 2 of my better bucks at that angle. One was this year at about 18yds if I remember right. The shot looked slightly more forward than I wanted so I was a little nervous as he left, but he ran 80yds and fell over. I quartered him with the gutless method so I can’t tell you what I hit.
An elk like that at 30? I’ll have to play that one by ear and try to judge his attitude. Not saying I wouldn’t shoot.

It’ll be interesting to see what the decibel meter says. I’m not convinced recurves are all that quiet.

 

[AkRyan]

Depending on my nock point, I can have arrows that are in a target nock high or nock low.

You really want to debate that?


You want me to shoot through paper at 20? That's going to be a better indication of what the shaft is doing at that point.

If your knock point is to high or low then your bow is out if tune..

 

[Billy Goat]

We are talking about rotation. If your knock point is to high or low then your bow is out if tune..

I'm not following.


I was saying exactly that, where in this thread has rotation been talked about?


This was about the idea than an EFOC arrow Flys point down for some reason because the front is heavier than the back.

 

[AkRyan]

I'm not following.


I was saying exactly that, where in this thread has rotation been talked about?


This was about the idea than an EFOC arrow Flys point down for some reason because the front is heavier than the back.

I tried to edit that out but nogo for some reason. I was also in discussion on a vane thread.

 

[doc holiday13]

..............................

1. The data on 3:1 is questionable - Even in the updated Ashby testing a .8:1 fixed head still penetrated better than some other "more mechanically advantaged heads"

3:1 idea is actually completely incorrect for the application. The only "work" that the broadhead is doing, is the displacement of the thickness of the blade. IE. a .09" thick blade is displacing more flesh than a .06" thick blade The length of the cutting surface really improves the longevity of the cutting edge. But the longevity of the cutting surface can be improved through material selection, which can in turn allow you to use a more acute angle of attack( IE. shorter OAL of broadhead)

 

[Beendare]

This same guy has a vid out stating light fast arrows are better.

Personally, I think a bow hunter needs to take these videos with a grain of salt and use some common sense. Math doesn’t tell the whole story when it comes to penetration….or string jumping.

 

[roosiebull]

This same guy has a vid out stating light fast arrows are better.

Personally, I think a bow hunter needs to take these videos with a grain of salt and use some common sense. Math doesn’t tell the whole story when it comes to penetration….or string jumping.

Archery hunting is not a math equation or a scientific hypothesis, but it seems like many try to turn it into both to feel smarter while performing a caveman activity… I don’t know what else it could all be.

The whole “plan B” arrow concept is dumb considering nobody knows where a poor shot will land, and building your whole arrow system around maybe hitting a very small area on an animal.

I was going to buy a semi truck for my daily driver because it probably will work well when I crash

A durable arrow setup that doesn’t have any obvious weaknesses (broadheads with horrible blade retention, soft aluminum half outs, super light gpi shafts that are really brittle, etc) a broadhead that matches the animal you’re hunting with the equipment you have… the most basic of basics paired with good arrow flight, and your equipment should be pretty much drama free.

From there, people can refine from there to better suit the hunting they do.

I prefer the heavier side of the middle ground with my compound because most of my shooting is sub 25yds, so I prefer a slower and more forgiving arrow, because that suits my hunting style best

My recurve, I like a lighter arrow relatively, both very similar weight (500-ish gr) because my brain likes the trajectory better than a really heavy arrow, and it matches my 22yd point on really well… the most important aspect of choosing both is accuracy, I want as forgiving as possible within the range I hunt… extremely caveman stuff

I have spent enough time in the weeds to know I don’t care to be in the weeds, and arrows aren’t magic. The one rule that rarely changes is when you hit stuff well, it dies fast… if you don’t hit them well, regardless of what you are using, it’s a crap shoot at best.

 

[Beendare]

A durable arrow setup that doesn’t have any obvious weaknesses (broadheads with horrible blade retention, soft aluminum half outs, super light gpi shafts that are really brittle, etc) a broadhead that matches the animal you’re hunting with the equipment you have… the most basic of basics paired with good arrow flight, and your equipment should be pretty much drama free.

Yep

 

[Bump79]

 

[MattB]

If your knock point is to high or low then your bow is out if tune..

Not true, got to love the internet.

 

[AkRyan]

Not true, got to love the internet.

Please explain why you would want you knock point t high or low causing knock high or low inpact?? Do we not put bows in vices and attach levels to them to ensure everything lines up for perfect arrow flight? Why would we want a high or low knock point??

 

[Marble]

Please explain why you would want you knock point t high or low causing knock high or low inpact?? Do we not put bows in vices and attach levels to them to ensure everything lines up for perfect arrow flight? Why would we want a high or low knock point??

I don't know the mechanics of why, but I do know it is not always a given a bow will tune with an arrow exactly level with the rest. I have had plenty bows tune nock high and level, but never low. Different arrows, draw weights and lengths, variations in limbs, along with various grip positions, make archery tuning difficult at times.
I don't think anyone wants to be nock high, but if that's how it tunes, then let it be.

I'm sure someone else with more technical knowledge will chime in to explain.