Arrow penetration vs. weight

nodog · 05-19-2007, 11:28 AM

Made up some arrows to see if heavier would dig deeper. 3 arrows. One 2216 AL.@ 560's, one 2216 AL. @ 530's and one a Beman carbon @ 435. I even put a bigger head on the 560 to increase the foc. The 435 went around 3"'s deeper that the others. The heavier grouped as well as some here claimed they would and as I expected left the bow quieter, but the drop at yardages over 20 is too much for me and the penetration isn't better. They also make too much noise when drawn. Never checked speed.

Glad I did it. Have been wanting some varmint shafts. I will say this for the 2216's, I can find them a whole lot easier.

Roskoe · 05-19-2007, 11:59 AM

What sort of "media" did you use to test penetration?

MDBUCKHUNTER · 05-19-2007, 12:10 PM

What heads did you test on these arrows?

bow_hunter44 · 05-19-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Roskoe

What sort of "media" did you use to test penetration?

A more than reasonable question Roskoe poses....

Rickmur · 05-19-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: bow_hunter44

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Roskoe

What sort of "media" did you use to test penetration?

A more than reasonable question Roskoe poses....

Whatever it was it most likely was the same for all 3.

ijimmy · 05-19-2007, 03:30 PM

The bemans are quite a bit skinnyer , and were you useing the same broadheads ?
2 major factors that influance penitration .

Roskoe · 05-19-2007, 03:57 PM

I'm also wondering about this diameter thing. If the material used to test penetration is something that also imparts friction on the arrow shaft as it passes through, then a smaller diameter arrow is going to have a distinct advantage. Other than the hide, I don't see a flesh and blood deer's body asputting much friction on the arrow shaft. In fact, blood and other body fluids might tend to lubricate the arrow shaft a little.

TFOX · 05-19-2007, 04:26 PM

I also believe that carbon is better than aluminum with penetration so imo,that made a difference.

Your target makes a difference as well.

Considering that friction decreases with speed and a foam target uses friction to stop the arrow,that will also make a difference.Resistance will increase with speed but not friction.Sharp points should decrease resistance and allow for the friction to decrease IMO.

Laws of friction states that atvery low velocity the friction is independant of the velocity of rubbing.As the velocity increases,THE FRICTION DECREASES.

Isn't that right Bow hunter44.

I hope this doesn't turn into another 40 pages of arguments.[

]

bow_hunter44 · 05-19-2007, 07:18 PM

Yup TFOX, that is right (at least to the best of my understanding, and besides that you are always right!!). As velocity increses the frictional force, in fact,decreases.

Roskoe also has a good point about penetration of tissue. I read the other daythat when an arrow penetrates an animal, the flesh has a tendancy to withdraw from the shaft.However, when penetrating a target the opposite is true.

I hope this doesn't turn into a 40 page nightmare too!

Len in Maryland · 05-19-2007, 07:22 PM

Let's see if I've got this straight. You're taking two 2216 arrows of different weights, which means that they would have to have different lengths and/or tip weights to attain the weight difference. In any event they could well have different spines. You're comparing them to an unknown length, unknown spine and unknowndiameter Beman carbon arrow (unknown at least to us).

We also weren't told as to whether or not they were even shot out of the same bow and if that bow was properly tuned to any one of those arrows. And as stated, the medium into which the arrows were shot even complicated the puzzle. A better test would have been to build a set of identical arrows and increase the weight of one in a variety of ways.