I'm not trying to imply that a heavier set-up, or a compound, won't give more penetration. I can't get past the fact that you should have had plenty with what you had though, if everything else was right. A deer isn't a tank. If an arrow shot from a 52# recurve will pass completely through a 650+# bear, including the off-side leg, deer ribs shouldn't be a problem--again, if everything else is right.

You can speculate that if you'd shot either of those deer in the exact same spot with a compound, they would have been dead. Obviously I wasn't there, but I can speculate you would have possibly still lost two deer. You are basing it on two shots, my opinion is developed from hundreds. Those deer were lost, so we'll never know exactly where the shots hit exactly. The ones I'm referring to are kills.

Back to the videos--watching the shots in slow motion, it's amazing how fast an animal can move sometimes--faster than an arrow shot from a compound, and certainly faster than an arrow shot from a longbow or recurve. I don't trust my eyes or anyone else's to know just where an arrow hit if the animal isn't recovered to confirm it. On that Double Bull video I think I referred to earlier, Brooks shot an antelope with his Adcock--the entry and exit wound was on the same side, one above the other.They had no idea how it happened until they watched the shot in slow motion. On at least one shot, it would have been a clean miss, but the animal moved and actually got in the flight path of the arrow, making it a perfect shot.

I'm not trying to cast any doubt on you or what you saw--not at all. Again, my point is to clarify that traditional bows are deadly and efficient hunting weapon.

Chad