Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Made up some arrows to see if heavier would dig deeper. 3 arrows. One 2216 AL.@ 560's, one 2216 AL. @ 530's and one a Beman carbon @ 435. I even put a bigger head on the 560 to increase the foc. The 435 went around 3"'s deeper that the others. The heavier grouped as well as some here claimed they would and as I expected left the bow quieter, but the drop at yardages over 20 is too much for me and the penetration isn't better. They also make too much noise when drawn. Never checked speed.

Glad I did it. Have been wanting some varmint shafts. I will say this for the 2216's, I can find them a whole lot easier.:D

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

What sort of "media" did you use to test penetration?

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

What heads did you test on these arrows?

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

A more than reasonable question Roskoe poses....

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Whatever it was it most likely was the same for all 3.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

The bemans are quite a bit skinnyer , and were you useing the same broadheads ?
2 major factors that influance penitration .

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

I'm also wondering about this diameter thing. If the material used to test penetration is something that also imparts friction on the arrow shaft as it passes through, then a smaller diameter arrow is going to have a distinct advantage. Other than the hide, I don't see a flesh and blood deer's body asputting much friction on the arrow shaft. In fact, blood and other body fluids might tend to lubricate the arrow shaft a little.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

I also believe that carbon is better than aluminum with penetration so imo,that made a difference.


Your target makes a difference as well.

Considering that friction decreases with speed and a foam target uses friction to stop the arrow,that will also make a difference.Resistance will increase with speed but not friction.Sharp points should decrease resistance and allow for the friction to decrease IMO.

Laws of friction states that atvery low velocity the friction is independant of the velocity of rubbing.As the velocity increases,THE FRICTION DECREASES.


Isn't that right Bow hunter44.;)


I hope this doesn't turn into another 40 pages of arguments.[:o]

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Yup TFOX, that is right (at least to the best of my understanding, and besides that you are always right!!). As velocity increses the frictional force, in fact,decreases.

Roskoe also has a good point about penetration of tissue. I read the other daythat when an arrow penetrates an animal, the flesh has a tendancy to withdraw from the shaft.However, when penetrating a target the opposite is true.

I hope this doesn't turn into a 40 page nightmare too!

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Let's see if I've got this straight. You're taking two 2216 arrows of different weights, which means that they would have to have different lengths and/or tip weights to attain the weight difference. In any event they could well have different spines. You're comparing them to an unknown length, unknown spine and unknowndiameter Beman carbon arrow (unknown at least to us).

We also weren't told as to whether or not they were even shot out of the same bow and if that bow was properly tuned to any one of those arrows. And as stated, the medium into which the arrows were shot even complicated the puzzle. A better test would have been to build a set of identical arrows and increase the weight of one in a variety of ways.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Tell that to my wife.I keep telling her that but she doesn't believe me.[8D]




I wish that were true.:eek:

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

tfox, mine doesn't believe me either.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Number my wife among the nonbelievers too!

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

You guys are funny

Just spit on it if your having friction problems....

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

When I saw this post I started laughing my a$$ off. This post is eerily familiar to me..

To test penetration basedonly onweight youhave to have the same diameter shaft and spine the same for all the arrows. If not the thinner shaft will more than likely out penetrate the thicker shaft every time. In addition, the arrow with the higher spine will loosevelocityslower. The more "flimsy" arrow will oscillate more upon contact with the media increasing the side friction on the shaft due to the bending of the shaft.

Am I explaining that right bow_hunter44?

I found that out with the experiment I did for the "Physics is Fun" Thread.

If you wanted to test for penetration based on diameter than you would need the same weight and spine for each shaft.

There are a lot of variables that you have to take in to account based on the test you are trying to conduct.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

That is true Dave, increaded oscillation will increase friction. Not only that, but a 'flimsy' shaft will loose momentum upon impact due to theoscillation of the shaft. That momentum would be much better spent following, or perhaps even driving,the broadhead into the target. Needless to say, the topic of penetration is far from a remedial one!

When I first read the topic of this thread I almost ran, ran screaming into the night!!

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

The straighter an arrow comes off the rest and/or the sooner it straightens out, the less chance of it adversely affecting penetration.

As Bowhunter 44 stated:

Quote:

---

That momentum would be much better spent following, or perhaps even driving,the broadhead into the target.

---

Also, said in a different way, the oscillation/porpoising/minowing or any mode of travel from point 'A' to point 'B' in anything other than a straight line will affect momentum/penetration.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Lee,

I bet you did.

Every test that's performed on arrow performance (or any test for that matter)musttry to have only 1 variable and keep everything else as a contant when comparing items. Introduce too many variables and the test is not valid or the outcome is skewed.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Yeah, and the number of variables is staggering!

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

I agree with Len , a better test would have been to shoot the beman into a target , measure , put weedwhacker line in the shaft , or weigt tube , and shoot the same shaft and head into the same target and remeasure .

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Again, this is adding variables to the test.

The problem with that adding weight is now you've changed the spine and FOC of the arrow depending on where you place the weight.

If you put the weight in the front you increase FOC and make the dynamic spine weaker. If you place the weight in the rear you lower the FOC and make the dynamic spine stiffer.

You'd have to ensure that you've kept the same FOC and dynamic spine or the test is invalid. For the dynamic spine you'd have to use calculations or a program to determine the spine.

A spine tester only measures the static spine of an arrow and would only be good to determine if your arrows all have a spine within acceptable ranges.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

nodog,

I commend you for testing different set-ups. No too many will even make the effort.

Unfortunately, many of the comments are valid.

The tests that you ran may be valid for you and give you the information that you want, butthey arenot applicable to everyone else's situation.

I hope that you won't let the "helpful criticism" here discourage you.

Allen

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Agreed. Conducting tests are funand I'm personally not saying that you shouldn't do them with the equipment you have. A few months ago I did my own testjust comparing heavy VS light and ignoredarrow diameter. lighter thinner arrow out penetrated heavier thicker arrow in the media thatI used. It was a fun test andallowed me to shoot twice as many arrows that day.

The tests allow you to see the difference for yourself.So, please do not stop on our account.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

I spit on my wife on a daily basis, nothing changes except , I still have to sleep outdoors....

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

thats harsh

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

[/quote]

Every test that's performed on arrow performance (or any test for that matter)musttry to have only 1 variable and keep everything else as a contant when comparing items. Introduce too many variables and the test is not valid or the outcome is skewed.
[/quote]

You said it, there's the problem

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

I'm trying to figure out your pointof quoting me? And, what the problem is that you are saying exists.

Because I talk about what you should do for a test does not mean that you can't do any test that you feel like doing. Why, because from performing tests with a lot of variables usually you often learn the differences that arrow diameter or weight, point shape, etchave on an arrow at impact. From that you can decide if you want to perform a controlled test. Yes, the tests are not valid in the technical stand point butfrom a real world stand point they are.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Every test that's performed on arrow performance (or any test for that matter)musttry to have only 1 variable and keep everything else as a contant when comparing items. Introduce too many variables and the test is not valid or the outcome is skewed.
[/quote]

You said it, there's the problem
[/quote]


????

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Bogus thread... too much misinformation going on here. There's no way an intelligent human being with a bow that's tuned to the arrows could come up with these results or really even attempt the test thinking a sound answer would prevail. I guess I'm saying the test is full of doo doo.

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

This seems like a Deja voo for me Len!!! If I am not mistaken I heard you Schooling Pat Dinan on this same subject last week ;)No disrespect Pat if your reading this;););):D:D:DYou Da Man!!!

RE: Arrow penetration vs. weight
 

Been gone for a while and most likely will not be back for a while, but here's all I was looking at.

What I have heard is heavier will penetrate better. So I made up 3 arrows. The 2216'swith different headsand vanes. The beman, the arrow I use and have for a season was what it is.

I shot it into a target, back yard bucky, out of the same bow. No funny business. Just a guy shooting some arrows at a target and seeing what would happen. They all shot well from 20 yards.

If there's more to penetration than weight so be it, but the arguments I've read here don't deviate much from that. As it is if I was to just take it for granted that heavier was better and knew nothing else much about things I'd be heading into the woods with what I thought and was told was the ticket. Things may have turned out just as good but the story wouldn't have been penetration of the much heavier arrow. Most likleyunder shooting an animal for no good reason is whatI concluded.Still fun to shoot.

I don't think I shot broadheads at first even though I think I did later and the results were the same. They would have been thunderheads. 100's and 125's.

I really just shot some heavier arrows expecting them to plow through and they didn't. End of story. They all shot very well and I don't think anyone would have had a problem using them just the way they were. None of that tuning stuff was an issue.