Yeah, it's a good device that shouldn't have been laid aside. But it was totally forgotten when the chronograph was invented. Companies that marketed the penduluum have already come and gone.
A fella named Benjamin Roberts inventedthe ballistic penduluum way back in the mid-1700's as an efficient way to test the quality of black powder. Early archery researchers back in the early 20th Century - guys likeHickman, Klopsteg and Nagler - didn't have chronographs, so they used the penduluum. Fred Bear even wrote a bit about his experiments with the ballistic penduluum in the 'arrow selection' section of his
The Archer's Bible.
Now most people have never heard of it.[&:]
Also, do you decide this by saying the arrow has to be able to go thru a shoulder blade on the entrance side of the animal? To me this is not a good shot and therefore, wouldn't be considered in my criteria.
Of course it's not a good shot, Dave. Nobody with a lick of sense aims at the shoulder blade with a bow-n-arrow. But'stuff happens.' And 'stuff' is more likely to happen - and happen more often- with guys who are less experienced, less skilledand less knowledgeable. I think a little extra arrow weight, a little extra penetration potential, would help make a bad situation come out with a better conclusion in some cases. And, in my book, even one less wounded and lost animal is reason enough for a minimum arrow weight regulation.
If you only consider perfect shotsunder perfect conditions in your criteria, then you're right and I'm wrong. When you add in the unfortunate fact that perfection isn't something you can expect every time...
My choice of hunting gear is ruled by an old proverb and it has never failed me:"Expect the best, but prepare for the worst."