Another list offactors that seem to have been ignored here is the frontal surface area of the projectile at point of impact, the broadhead's performance through bony, cartilagenous materials, arrow diameter, shaft drag through the viscous materials inside the body cavity, etc....
No, they haven't been ignored. The whole menu of those items was covered previously, and multiple times. It's just, for me anyway and I'm sure it applies to others as well, I've gotten tired of typing that "all else being equal" disclaimer at the end of every freakin' post.
Furthermore, I'm stating that the 391 gr is close to the 521. The difference in penetration and performance is marginal. A marginal diffrence in penetration, not weight. Therefore, why shouldn't I use the 391? and it's 119 gr diff, not 160. That weight in an arrow would be 30 grains in the same gun. Get my point?
My point for the 400 gr minimum was that there is no diff between a 390 and a 520. So, what would the minimum solve?
Once again, IT WILL NOT
SOLVE ANYTHING!
It MIGHT help reduce the overall wound/loss ratio by putting somewhat more effective arrows into the hands of the vast majority of bowhunters. You know, the guys who are totally CLUELESS when it comes to properly choosing and tuning their equipment. Like I said before, I'd much rather see the minimum set at 450 grains, but lookat how much whining and complaining I'm getting over 400. Sheesh!
I'm thinking about the possibility that such a change couldbenefit bowhunting as a whole.Reducing our wound/loss statistics would take a helluva lot of ammunition away from the anti's and a minimum arrow weight is the best, or at least most enforceable, way to do that.
You got a better idea on how to cut the wound/loss ratio than minimum arrow weight? One that's workable in the REAL world? Dude, I'm all ears.