nodog, a lot of people don't think one can compare the equipment of yesterday to the equipment of today. Maybe there truly is no comparison between them, but I'll leave the ramifications of that thought process alone for now. That datamax character would have a field day with it.[:-]

At any rate, don't fall into the trap of thinking today's equipment is not subject to the exact same scientific principles that the old stuff was (and still is, for some of us). Again, a 350 grain arrow at 300 fps, generating 70 ft lbs of energy penetrates comparably to a 700 grain arrow at 150 fps and 35 ft lbs of energy only because of one reason.... The light arrow is going fast enough to equal the heavy arrow's momentum. At half the weight, it has to be shot at twice the speed and generate twice the energy to do the same job as the heavy arrow.

Look at all the things one has to do to get that 350 grain arrow to shoot 300 fps. Extra hard pulling cams, high draw weight... Do you realize that some bows today with 70 pounds peak draw weight store upwards of 90 pounds of energy to be released to the arrow? Know how those 90 pounds get into those limbs? That's how much weight you've actually drawn to get your bow to anchor. Peak draw weight is decieving in that way. You think you're only pulling 70 pounds, and that's what the scales read when you measure the draw weight. But with today's cams that hit peak early and maintain it until very close to anchor, that peak weight stays up there a l-o-n-g distance when you're tugging on it. Honestly, my shoulders can't take that kind of draw cycle, but it allows someone to shoot an inefficient, ultra light arrow with enough force to kill medium size game - if they make smart decisions on the size and type of broadhead they use and - naturally - have the bow tuned to perfection.

With a recurve or longbow, the weight comes up gradually until you hit peak at anchor. They store far less energy to be release to the arrow, so people have to use heavier, very efficient arrows when hunting with them. Those relatively heavy, efficient arrows, shot from bows that have limbs that store much less energy, allow the traditional archer to achieve exactly the same performance on game as the guys with the dinky little arrows, and do it with much less KE. How can one explain the same performance with less KE? Quite simply, regardless of what some engineers say, KE is not a very good indicator of penetration potential. Momentum is. And I'm quite certain there are a number of engineers that would confirm my point of view.

I really don't want to sound like momentum is the end all, be all because it's not. In my not-so-humble opinion, it's simply more important than KE. Even then, it's merely one part of the whole package. The size and type of the broadhead, number of blades and blade sharpness pretty much dictate how much energy and momentum you're going to need when it comes to pushing it through an animal's chest cavity. And that arrow must be flying straight and true to make the best use of it's energy and momentum.

To Sylvan... We definitely have some communication problem. The sky is blue in my world. How 'bout yours? [8D] Saying the 600 grain arrow is the same 600 grain arrow is definitely true. I just can't grasp the logic that prompted the statement. I don't see how you can say the paltry increase in KE is more important than the much larger increase in momentum when they are both attributes of the same arrow! It's a no brainer that the arrow will penetrate exactly the same amount as itself.