ORIGINAL: Arthur P
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.
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.
And it seems the proponents of the heavier arrows are doing all the whining and complaining here. Most of the guys that says it will not help have stated their hand on experience to why their set-up works. Yet the other side whines and complains that our tests do not matter for some reason.
In addition, I'vestated whyyour theory that the heavier arrow will cut down on losses won't work. A larger caliber bullet doesn't help the average guy kill more deer. It also leads to wounded game. A poor shot is a poor shot period. Ashby's charts on how many more wounded animals you get from a lighter arrow are based on shooting heavy boned animals. He presents no valid census from hunters and the sample is too small.
I've already stated my ideas. The shooter has to pass a test. And not just shooting at a pie plate. Maybe have to pass a technohunt where the animal is moving around like they do in real life.
Ashby himself states that a lightweight extreme FOC arrow can be just as effective as the heavier arrow even for sizable game with light bows in his Summary. Now take that same FOC arrow and put it thru a 60-70 lb bow and run the numbers.
Listen, I could care less if you use a 350 gr or a 700 gr arrow. However, when people try to impart their thoughts on others based on 1 test thenI have a problem. Even Ashby himself says that more tests need to be done on the type of arrows that some of us use. Yet, that is ignored and it's straight to heavier is better.
The only way to cut it is to make the fat butts that do not want to practice pass a test. Even with that you are missing the fact that even if that fat butt hits a deer they probably will not have the tracking capabilities to find said deer. It's not like the heavier arrow is going to nock the deer over right where it stands or throw blood all over the woods for the person to follow. That's the same mind set as the .300 win mag user.