beprepen,
Where did the lies come in? You seemed to supoort those so called lies by your own admission. Let me recap for you:
You implied that it was a lie that carbons pentrate further into a target and then you explained to us why carbons pentrate into a target better?<img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle>
Break Down
Your initail satement: Penetration Target Lies
Your Supporting Evidence that it is infact not a lie:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>He shows that targets slow arrows primarily by grabbing the shaft. For this kind of a force, penetration does relate to KE - not momentum. Plus carbon arrows have a smaller diameter such that the force slowing them down is less than the force slowing down an aluminum arrow. So, for most commercial targets, extra momentum is little advantage and larger diameter is a big disadvantage.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Am I missing something?
Protect your hunting rights, "Spay or neuter a liberal."