|
RE: Are we going backwards using lighter faster tackle?
I feel shooting the heaviest arrow that you can tolerate the trajectory drop with is the best way to go.
|
RE: Are we going backwards using lighter faster tackle?
Will someone please call the Discovery channel.We need Mythbusters to figure this one out.Which is better heavy and slower or fast and lighter?
|
RE: Are we going backwards using lighter faster tackle?
I did the light arrow thing for a few years and it worked well enough........killed 10-15 deer that way !! But old timmers around here kept saying things I did not want to believe about shooting light arrows !! But shot noise got to be a problem(like they said)the lighter and faster I went........so I decided to back up and go to some 450 grain arrows ! Well , my shot noise went down but I noticed a substantial difference in penetration on heavy bone hits(like they said)!! Not so much difference on ribcage shots..........but a lot of difference on bone hits !! I realized what the old timers where saying and realistically the trajectoey and time difference from 0-30 yards is a joke !! A 500 grain arrow fired out of a newer fast bow will arrive in milliseconds of a 350 grain arrow out of the same bow !! And if anybody tries it..........a 500 grain arrow will stike within a couple of inches of a 350 from 0-30 yards ( nearly the same at 20 yards) out of a treestand !! So yeh........it is rediculous to go super light weight and give up penetration and shot noise when you will have nearly the same trajectory anyway IMHO!! But hey...........I learned the hard way and I am sure many others will also !! Thankfully Aurthur P and other folks can give you solid advise from a lot of experience !! Haven't been on this board for a while but will be around a little now !! Have picked the gun bug back up (after 10 serious years of bow) and checking things out on the gun forums !! [8D] |
RE: Are we going backwards using lighter faster tackle?
I dont think we are becuse i have never had to bad penetration. I love my light fast arrows. I would never shot to heavy a arrow our to light.
|
RE: Are we going backwards using lighter faster tackle?
ORIGINAL: nys-buckstalker Will someone please call the Discovery channel.We need Mythbusters to figure this one out.Which is better heavy and slower or fast and lighter? That being said, I would love to see the Mythbusters do some hunting related myths! |
RE: Are we going backwards using lighter faster tackle?
I prefer a little heavier aluminums over the carbons. I just feel they shoot better for ME out of MY setup. Others have stated that they like carbons with their setup. Its all subjective, yes there is some physics involved, but most of us don't care about that portion of it, Read Dr Ashby's reports and you'll see that many of the myths have already been busted. The info is out there for those that are really interested in better performance from their setups. |
RE: Are we going backwards using lighter faster tackle?
Its not easy to say if we're moving backwards. I think new design technology, better components, arrows, etc. off-set this a lot. I also think that way too much emphasis is put on penetration with today's bows. These bows are packing far more KE than bows of the past, all things equal. Heck, if Fred Bear and other's can take animals on any continent with a recurve, we certainly should be able to do the same with the new bows, barring a well placed shot. That is where the difference comes in. If your shot placement is poor, more KE will come in handy.
|
RE: Are we going backwards using lighter faster tackle?
Depends on how you look at it I guess. I like heavy arrows, always have. Now they just keep making bows that fling my heavy arrows faster and faster. The faster they go the more energy and momentum I have, the best of both worlds!! I don't lighten the arrows, just shoot the heavier ones faster.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:01 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.