<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
...
I am intelligent enough to think for myself. I even took a few physics classes back in college! ... I can shoot your weight and momentum theory to hell and back with the &quot;drinking straw propelled by the winds of a tornado example&quot; - ... about 293 fps...bury 3-6 inches deep into trees(seen that with my own two eyes). ...How exactly would aluminums have helped me??? The aluminum would have given off a great deal of it's momentum and KE through oscillation of the arrow(if it didn't bend)...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

With respect to straws in trees, this from http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...k/wasktorn.htm :

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> there are confirmed reports of straws penetrating trees or boards in tornadoes. Years ago some thought that tornado winds were fast enough to drive straws into trees, but measurements of tornado wind speeds have shown that they rarely approach 300 mph. The air pressure inside a tornado is lower than the surrounding pressure, but is far from a perfect vacuum. The most generally accepted theory about what happens is that the winds bend trees or boards enough to open up the grains, a straw flies in and the tree straightens up when the tornado moves on. (12-29-96)
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

As far as aluminums oscillating more on impact - I guess it is hard to think of a fair test due to carbons being lighter than aluminums for the same spine (true?). But I don't really have an opinion on aluminum vs carbon - well, I guess I think that carbon is a little better and more expensive - I just think that momentum is the right thing to look at when discussing penetration in a deer.

Well, since you brought up college physics, you probably got Newton's second law in about the third week of class: the force on an object equals the change in MOMENTUM per unit time.

beprepn



Edited by - beprepn on 01/15/2003 18:28:03

Bottom line is this, you guys are arguing a mute ( or is it moot?) point. Really all you are arguing is far in the ground the arrow sticks after a pass through, so why not go for the most speed that one can comfortably, and I do emphasize comfortably, shoot. And who ever got the idea that carbons are more expensive nowdays anyway, I can get them all day long for 5 to 7 dollars each, depending on the brand. The thing that is WAY more important than all this nonsense is how sharp the broadhead is! That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

The word is 'moot'. At the risk of riling up the 'mighty defenders of carbon', I am one who says that carbons are too expensive. Even at $35 a dozen, if they won't shoot a broadhead straight and true, they're way overpriced. I have yet to find a carbon arrow that will consistently shoot a broadhead straight and true and I've gone from the low end of the price scale up to $90 a dozen. I've come up loser on each gamble I've made on carbons so I refuse to spend another cent on them. I may be crazy but I ain't stupid.

On the bright side, I've got a whole bunch of high rollin' tomato stakes. About 7 dozen of the blasted things at last count.

I've heard rumors that going to 15% FOC will make them fly more consistently, but I haven't gotten around to trying that yet. Besides, broadheads are no problem but I don't know where to get 5/16 field points that weigh 175 grains. Good thing I shoot feathers or I'd need 200 gns to hit 15% on my 32&quot; arrows.

So with 175 gn heads my carbon arrows would wind up weighing around 525 grains. Hardly lightweight arrows for a 60 pound bow, are they. Only 60 grains less than my super accurate 2315 logs that shoot broadheads like a champ.

Anybody that can come up with a good reason for me to keep beating my head against the proverbial brick wall with carbon arrows instead of sticking with my old faithful aluminums, you have the floor.

Arthur P, I didn't post the spaghetti story to prove a point, just through it out there.

LOL! You threw it out there and it got sucked up into the vortex. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there are confirmed reports of straws penetrating trees or boards in tornadoes. Years ago some thought that tornado winds were fast enough to drive straws into trees, but measurements of tornado wind speeds have shown that they rarely approach 300 mph. The air pressure inside a tornado is lower than the surrounding pressure, but is far from a perfect vacuum. The most generally accepted theory about what happens is that the winds bend trees or boards enough to open up the grains, a straw flies in and the tree straightens up when the tornado moves on. (12-29-96)
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

The tree just opened up, let the straw fly in and then closed back up all without ever losing a piece of bark! Yea that is absolutely freakin amazing.

Hey I forgot to mention to you that I have this bridge for sale if you're interested in that too!

Arhturp.

You could have been a politician! I haven't seen ducking and weaving like that since the Clinton administration<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Anybody that can come up with a good reason for me to keep beating my head against the proverbial brick wall with carbon arrows instead of sticking with my old faithful aluminums, you have the floor. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Nope, not me. I think you absolutely unequivically should keep shooting them! But, I am also rational enough to realize that just because they are not the right choice for you in your rare circumstance, doesn't mean they are not the right choice for me! You might also make note of the fact that I am not the one starting these &quot;if you don't do it my way you are doing it wrong&quot; threads! If someone doesn't like shootings carbons is the way for them to go then stick with aluminums and drop it!

Protect your hunting rights, &quot;Spay or neuter a liberal.&quot;

Ah if we only lived in a world where everything was black and white. Wouldn't things be simpler then? This is right, that is wrong, this is good, that is bad....(How utterly boring ).

As the old saying goes, &quot;there is more than one way to get to Chicago&quot; (or there is more than one way to skin a cat). I think when one gets to a certain level you start to split hairs. If one guy is shooting a 400 grain arrow at 270 fps and the other guy is shooting a 600 grain arrow at 190 fps, assuming both put it in the boiler room which deer will be deader or should I say more dead (Is deader a even a word? <img src=icon_smile_blush.gif border=0 align=middle>)? By the same token if you make a bad hit with either, your in trouble.

I wouldn't argue physics with anyone. I'm not smart enough for that. I couldn't tell you the difference between a time unit of momentum and a foot pound of kinetic energy. I just know both have to be delivered to the right spot to be effective. As wild Bill Hickok once said, &quot;Fast is fine, but accurate is final...&quot;

I love to play. I have tinkered with heavy arrows and with light arrows. I guess I fall somewhere in between in that gray area. But I have found that both will work. You have to decide what type of combination works for you. Kind of like shoes, there are all different kinds and sizes, you have to pick the pair that fits you.

Silent, I didn't post the link to that site. But that definitely is what the meteorologists THINK happens. Nobody has ever actually been able to film a specific tree in a tornado to say for sure, one way or the other.

By using the straw in a tornado bit, you're using an unproven hypothesis as proof for the performance of light, fast arrows. Like I said earlier, actual performance of light, fast arrows on game animals is all the proof required.

I'd be happy to drop the whole issue except for one thing. Problem is that there are a lot of tuning, shooting form and broadhead selection issues that come with that speed. Lots of people reading these threads where folks are raving about speed and they get the idea that they have to have speed too. Then they find out they don't have the experience or skill to use it effectively. They need to hear that there is an alternative to speed that they can use and still put meat on the table. And they need to hear it without this kind of 'my way is better than your way' baloney.

You're right about my experience with carbon being a rare circumstance. I'd imagine less than 5% of all archers have a draw length like mine. As compounds have gotten shorter and more and more reflexed in the handle, fewer and fewer bows are offered in my draw length. That is what has finally driven me to the realization that I hang out with a bunch of smurfs. (Randy Newman's tune 'Short People' is suddenly running thru my head <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>) But all my fellow knuckledraggers that I know of have had pretty much the same experiences with carbon. I'd like to know WHY they don't work for so many long draw shooters.

Arthur,

I think you answered your own question. The reason they don't try to make carbon that will work at your lengths is probably becasue archers with your draw lenth represent about 2% of the market and it just isn't a profitable demographic to go after. You can use one manufacturing process and reach 98% of the market. I understand your delimna but would it be worth it to you to go after the other 2% when you are already enjoying that kind of success

Protect your hunting rights, &quot;Spay or neuter a liberal.&quot;

If I wasn't after the 2%, then I wouldn't make raw shafts long enough for that 2% to fletch up and shoot. If I did make shafts that long, then I'd make sure the quality was there for them to be just as good at 32&quot; as they are at 28&quot;, like Easton has done with aluminum arrows forever.

Maybe I could rummage around and find an overdraw to stick on my bow to shorten my arrows to 29&quot;. That would be exactly the same kind of rig I shot 20 years ago. Ain't progress and technology grand! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Nah. I'll just shoot aluminum until they're driven into extinction. I probably don't have that many years of bow shootin' left in me anyway. I'd like to make it to my birthday in 2005 and make it an even 50 years of archery before I'm done though. Maybe by then I'll have learned something about it.