Meateater: Ashby and Rinella

It was hard to listen to. Rinella and Ashby are both the type of fellers that have to control the conversation...when they think of something to say, they say it no matter who else is talking. Listening to two people with that same type of control over a conversation was like listening to fingernails on a chalk board.

I used to love Meat Eater podcast. It has honestly just gotten to be almost painful to listen to. They almost never talk about hunting anymore. This Ashby episode was the closest thing about hunting Ive heard on there in a long time. I also get this weird “woke” vibe from them nowadays. Maybe Im just reading into too far, but I’m kind of disappointed in those guys. I feel they have strayed far away from what they used to be. But who am I to judge...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I thought it was interesting, but I have the same feelings some have voiced here.

I know very little about physics. I get the momentum thing…a ship will be harder to stop than a speed boat.

As far as an foc arrow vs an arrow that’s heavy thorough-out (like an fmj), What would make the foc arrow the better one? Could one argue that the weight behind the arrow would actually help drive it forward (and actually penetrate better)? I remember my pine wood derby days as a kid. My dad told me the car would be faster with more weight in the back. I said no it will be faster with more weight in the front (in my child mind the weight up front would pull the car down the track faster). We tested it. Weight in the back was by far faster. Not that an arrow and pine wood derby car are the same, but could the principal be the same? By that, I mean the weight in back pushing the arrow forward
 
I see some value in the stuff he is doing. It’s laughable when he tries to take traditional bow results and apply them to compounds. North American animals aren’t hard to shoot through at all. Hitting them in in the right spot is 90% of the game. There’s not a person out there who will be more accurate with an ultra heavy arrow in hunting situations.
 
stonewall said:
I thought it was interesting, but I have the same feelings some have voiced here.

I know very little about physics. I get the momentum thing…a ship will be harder to stop than a speed boat.

As far as an foc arrow vs an arrow that’s heavy thorough-out (like an fmj), What would make the foc arrow the better one? Could one argue that the weight behind the arrow would actually help drive it forward (and actually penetrate better)? I remember my pine wood derby days as a kid. My dad told me the car would be faster with more weight in the back. I said no it will be faster with more weight in the front (in my child mind the weight up front would pull the car down the track faster). We tested it. Weight in the back was by far faster. Not that an arrow and pine wood derby car are the same, but could the principal be the same? By that, I mean the weight in back pushing the arrow forward
Click to expand...

I’m pretty much in the same boat as you and what came to my mind is similar, the idea behind the original Nosler Partition came from the concept of a semi with a trailer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zac
I like Troy, Ed, and the THP. However my issue with all of this testing is just the bias. All the guys involved in the Ashby foundation already buy into the gospel of the 12 rules. They are all actively trying to prove the theories are the divine truth. If they wanted the absolute best scientific results they would take all that donation money and give it to Bill Vanderheyden. They also need to recruit some diversity in order to be taken seriously. Some will think this is a joke, however they need a Tim Gillingham on the board as well. This would be more like a fair jury panel vs a bunch of die hard Ashby cult members. Let the science be what it is, and accept the results.
 
I've got a physics degree. And I say who gives a flying F. Get a friggin good arrow and broadhead, practice shooting alot, get within 30 yards, and take a GD broadside shot to the boiler room. This whole foc heavy arrow stuff is just a way to continue to monetize hunting.

Like someone building a friggin smokeless bolt action muzzleloader. Are you kidding me?

I'm waiting on some damn laundry to be done drying so I can go to sleep. So I'm grouchy.

I haven't listened to this episode yet, but I will.
 
Nick Muche said:
The day I wake up and worry about how much or how little my arrow weighs is the day I stop bowhunting.
Click to expand...
^^^^This^^^^ I had a bunch of buddies tell me to completely redo my setup to shoot heavy arrows with inserts and some massive broad head.

Then I shot a piddly 420gr arrow with a 100gr Montec completely through a moose at 50 yards. Yeah, so much for that idea.
 
stonewall said:
I thought it was interesting, but I have the same feelings some have voiced here.

I know very little about physics. I get the momentum thing…a ship will be harder to stop than a speed boat.

As far as an foc arrow vs an arrow that’s heavy thorough-out (like an fmj), What would make the foc arrow the better one? Could one argue that the weight behind the arrow would actually help drive it forward (and actually penetrate better)? I remember my pine wood derby days as a kid. My dad told me the car would be faster with more weight in the back. I said no it will be faster with more weight in the front (in my child mind the weight up front would pull the car down the track faster). We tested it. Weight in the back was by far faster. Not that an arrow and pine wood derby car are the same, but could the principal be the same? By that, I mean the weight in back pushing the arrow forward
Click to expand...

The proposed idea of heavy FOC vs just heavy arrow is usually illustrated by describing a rock with a string tied to it. The string will follow that rock. And in theory not be affected by the wind that pushes kn that string. The same is at least somewhat true with high FOC arrows. But. Like all things Ashby it’s misleading and poorly explained and jumps to ‘scientific’ conclusions that are only partially true.

For me personally I like the imagery of having weight right behind the broad head acting more like a hammer. But I don’t shoot crazy FOC and I don’t worry about the numbers at all when building a new arrow setup. I get that arrow to fly well and then I typically can see the FOC calculated using Archers Advantage. But I don’t use it as a guide at all when starting out.

I think my current FOC is about 14%. Not positive and don’t care. I like my arrow speed to be about 280. I FEEL like it’s a good balance of speed and overall weight.

Anything past that it’s just on me to be a good shot and a good hunter.

If Ashby wanted to be a real advocate the number one item on his list would be shooting skill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My views are very similar to many others expressed. I’m not overly concerned with weight or foc but do know I would like an arrow that’s somewhere between 430-500 grains, flies well and is tough. The podcast was interesting and I took some good ideas from it. It kind of touched on the fact that the archery world is full of gimmicks and ideas that probably aren’t great and driven by sales first and foremost. I also think a lot of the issues people have with wounding and poor performance would be cured by people having the self control to limit the distance they shoot and taking shots at good angles
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zac
We just did the "meateater is a bunch of libs who don't talk about hunting enough" like 2 weeks ago guys. That was like a 25 page thread or something ridiculous. I'm enjoying the conversation about Ashby, it would be cool if we could keep it focused on that in my humble opinion.
 
Despite the fact that the "science" isn't exactly rock-solid, I had 2 takeaways that really shouldn't be all that controversial.
-Tune your arrows to your bow. You don't have to do it with the goal of getting some heavy, ultra-extreme FOC setup, but I'm always irritated by the number of hunters who go in to the woods and don't take the time to practice and make sure they have a setup that works. They shoot their broadheads once or twice and as long as they can "hit a dinner plate at XX yards" they call it good enough.
-Use quality arrows and sharp broadheads. Why not give yourself every advantage going in? and at a minimum make sure you're spending the time shooting and practicing with your setup (see above....). and forget FOC/weight, I think being able to re-sharpen and re-use high quality steel broadheads is appealing. That was my main motivation in trying some cutthroats this year.
 
JTR11 said:
Despite the fact that the "science" isn't exactly rock-solid, I had 2 takeaways that really shouldn't be all that controversial.
-Tune your arrows to your bow. You don't have to do it with the goal of getting some heavy, ultra-extreme FOC setup, but I'm always irritated by the number of hunters who go in to the woods and don't take the time to practice and make sure they have a setup that works. They shoot their broadheads once or twice and as long as they can "hit a dinner plate at XX yards" they call it good enough.
-Use quality arrows and sharp broadheads. Why not give yourself every advantage going in? and at a minimum make sure you're spending the time shooting and practicing with your setup (see above....). and forget FOC/weight, I think being able to re-sharpen and re-use high quality steel broadheads is appealing. That was my main motivation in trying some cutthroats this year.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just figured out my weight and foc using the calculator on gold tips website. About 460 grains and11% foc. Only a whitetail doe with this set up so far and it did what I would expect which is pass through, although I don’t think it was much of a test
 
stonewall said:
I thought it was interesting, but I have the same feelings some have voiced here.

I know very little about physics. I get the momentum thing…a ship will be harder to stop than a speed boat.

As far as an foc arrow vs an arrow that’s heavy thorough-out (like an fmj), What would make the foc arrow the better one? Could one argue that the weight behind the arrow would actually help drive it forward (and actually penetrate better)? I remember my pine wood derby days as a kid. My dad told me the car would be faster with more weight in the back. I said no it will be faster with more weight in the front (in my child mind the weight up front would pull the car down the track faster). We tested it. Weight in the back was by far faster. Not that an arrow and pine wood derby car are the same, but could the principal be the same? By that, I mean the weight in back pushing the arrow forward
Click to expand...
Not to get too side-tracked, but what you're attributing to the mass being behind the leading surface is more like starting with more energy.

Because the car is on a ramp, having the weight further back means higher up, which means more potential energy available to be converted to KE.

Equating that to an arrow would be more akin to saying that a heavier arrow is better (regardless of FOC) because they almost always will have a higher KE at launch AND maintain that energy better.
 
I still want them to finish the rhino hunting story...Cant believe Steve cut him off like that and never returned.

I do think its interesting when you listen to Dudley, Snyder, even T-bone from Bone Collector they all are like meh I'm around 15-18% FOC if I had to sit down and figure it out. More worried about figuring out a spine/length arrow match that is tuned and shooting well than the weight and being very successful.
 
This is unofficial science; but in my own shooting and arrow experimentation experience, FOC is important, but there’s a point of diminishing returns. All the arrows I ever made in Ashby’s target extreme FOC range have not flown very well, and they always ended up nock high in the target.

I’m totally on board with most of his ideas though. Heavy arrows hit hard and make a quiet bow; perfect arrow flight is ultra-important; sharp, narrower cut on contact broadheads are awesome for blowing through animals, etc.

I’m not sure that those things are super revolutionary though really. 🤷
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Matt Rinella and Jim Shockey
2 3
Replies
49
Views
11K
johnnycake
J

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
363,880
Messages
3,852,549
Members
82,579
Latest member
neverenoughguns

Latest Articles

Back
Top