Speed, or Weight
08-28-2003, 07:30 AM
#31
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Speed, or Weight
These tests in synthetic materials is like doing a test to see which of a pair of cars gets better gas mileage but filling them up with diesel instead of gas.
Even assuming we can accept results in foam and crap like that, this ' test' stinks. What about the test neglecting to say anything about arrow diameter? Was the heavy arrow a 2419 and the light one a skinny pultruded carbon? What about surface finish? Were both arrows the same material or different? If you are going to have a scientific test, you need to eliminate as many variables as possible.
Even assuming we can accept results in foam and crap like that, this ' test' stinks. What about the test neglecting to say anything about arrow diameter? Was the heavy arrow a 2419 and the light one a skinny pultruded carbon? What about surface finish? Were both arrows the same material or different? If you are going to have a scientific test, you need to eliminate as many variables as possible.
08-28-2003, 07:42 AM
#32
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,994
RE: Speed, or Weight
Arthur, I see your point, but don' t the arrows you are using in real world conditions have the variables you mentioned yet still reportedly penetrate better? If so, that doesn' t seem to point to the variables having much of an impact on the testing above...
I know when shooting at the big plastic bale targets at our local range, my 350 grain ACCs consistently out penetrate the 500 grain CE Terminator hunters, and make a much louder " WHAP" when impacting the target. Granted the ACCs are thinner than the CE, but still the difference is not negligible...
I know when shooting at the big plastic bale targets at our local range, my 350 grain ACCs consistently out penetrate the 500 grain CE Terminator hunters, and make a much louder " WHAP" when impacting the target. Granted the ACCs are thinner than the CE, but still the difference is not negligible...
08-28-2003, 08:37 AM
#33
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Speed, or Weight
What is the primary focus of the test? To see whether KE or momentum best determines penetration. To test that, you have to have shafts and points that are identical in ALL respects, except for weight. Then your test medium. Your test will tell you which does best in a certain medium, but will the results be the same in a different one? Say you switch from foam to wet sand, will the results be the same?
Smaller diameter arrows penetrate better than large diameter in targets that are designed to stop arrows by friction. Smaller diameter, less surface area. Less surface area, less friction. Less friction, more penetration. Same goes for bag targets that stop arrows by compacting in front of the point. Smaller diameter has less frontal area and packs less material in front of it than the larger diameter arrow, and so penetrates deeper. If the 600 grain arrow was a 2419 and the 400 grainer was pultruded carbon, then you' re comparing apples to oranges. That' s exactly what a lot of these so-called ' tests' have done to ' prove' KE is top dog.
Well, a deer is not designed to stop an arrow by friction. It is not designed to stop an arrow by compaction. It is not designed to stop an arrow at all. So, how can penetration in materials that ARE designed to stop an arrow really correlate to what you can expect in the woods?
The fact of the matter is, heavy arrows have worked just fine for at least 65,000 years with bows yielding relatively low KE figures. And, like I' ve been saying, it' s when you' re dealing with low KE that momentum becomes a lot more important.
Smaller diameter arrows penetrate better than large diameter in targets that are designed to stop arrows by friction. Smaller diameter, less surface area. Less surface area, less friction. Less friction, more penetration. Same goes for bag targets that stop arrows by compacting in front of the point. Smaller diameter has less frontal area and packs less material in front of it than the larger diameter arrow, and so penetrates deeper. If the 600 grain arrow was a 2419 and the 400 grainer was pultruded carbon, then you' re comparing apples to oranges. That' s exactly what a lot of these so-called ' tests' have done to ' prove' KE is top dog.
Well, a deer is not designed to stop an arrow by friction. It is not designed to stop an arrow by compaction. It is not designed to stop an arrow at all. So, how can penetration in materials that ARE designed to stop an arrow really correlate to what you can expect in the woods?
The fact of the matter is, heavy arrows have worked just fine for at least 65,000 years with bows yielding relatively low KE figures. And, like I' ve been saying, it' s when you' re dealing with low KE that momentum becomes a lot more important.
08-28-2003, 08:59 AM
#34
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lehigh County PA USA
Posts: 12,157
RE: Speed, or Weight
Arthur,
Admittedly, it has been some time since I shot a compound without the aid of some form of sighting device. I will conceed though that it is not as hard as some people think. I could probably take the sights off of any of my compounds right now and still be able to put together an 8-10 inch group at 20 yards. Now that is not what I would consider acceptable but with some intense practice I am sure that I could get that group size down to under 6 inches.
However, one would also have to consider that by doing what I mentioned above they are then somewhat reducing the distance that they are relatively effective at harvesting game. Sure, I would hazard a guess to say that with even more practice I could probably get those same 6 inch groups at 25 or even 30 yards but then we fall into the trap of what I mentioned earlier.
More practice is needed to shoot instinctively...compound or traditional....and the average bowhunter/archer does not necessarily have that time to devote to it.
Admittedly, it has been some time since I shot a compound without the aid of some form of sighting device. I will conceed though that it is not as hard as some people think. I could probably take the sights off of any of my compounds right now and still be able to put together an 8-10 inch group at 20 yards. Now that is not what I would consider acceptable but with some intense practice I am sure that I could get that group size down to under 6 inches.
However, one would also have to consider that by doing what I mentioned above they are then somewhat reducing the distance that they are relatively effective at harvesting game. Sure, I would hazard a guess to say that with even more practice I could probably get those same 6 inch groups at 25 or even 30 yards but then we fall into the trap of what I mentioned earlier.
More practice is needed to shoot instinctively...compound or traditional....and the average bowhunter/archer does not necessarily have that time to devote to it.
08-28-2003, 09:25 AM
#35
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Speed, or Weight
Frank, I' d be willing to bet you' d group a darn sight better than 10" at 20 yards after about a half hour of figuring out where to hold, using a gap system for aiming. Once you start shooting down the middle, all the rest is just elevation. Once you' ve figured out your gaps, using the tip of the arrow for aiming reference. I can teach you a gap system that uses parts of the arrow rest and the bow' s shelf as additional elevation references. It gives you a sight system like no other. You have no sights, but you' ve got at least 20 different elevation references you can use from point blank out to 100 yards and more. You got 20 pins on your sight bar? 
Speed is nice, but knowledge and skill are far better tools.
Speed is nice, but knowledge and skill are far better tools.
08-28-2003, 10:54 AM
#37
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,994
RE: Speed, or Weight
Art, what if the test was done with ballistic gelatin, identical arrows only one filled with something that adds the required weight, and then repeated as above?
Would that be a more accurate test?
I' d really be interested in seeing something like this. Perhaps Bowhunting World or some other mag would do it if asked. I think it' d be a very beneficial read...
Let' s design the test parameters EXACTLY and I' ll contact them or others to see if they have any interest in doing it. I know a guy that writes for several of the top bowhunting mags, his pic is even featured in a new Mathews ad... He might be all over something like this.
Would that be a more accurate test?
I' d really be interested in seeing something like this. Perhaps Bowhunting World or some other mag would do it if asked. I think it' d be a very beneficial read...
Let' s design the test parameters EXACTLY and I' ll contact them or others to see if they have any interest in doing it. I know a guy that writes for several of the top bowhunting mags, his pic is even featured in a new Mathews ad... He might be all over something like this.
08-28-2003, 12:08 PM
#38
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WEST PALM FLORIDA
Posts: 2,890
RE: Speed, or Weight
I' d like to see those test done at bowhunting range , say 20 yards , as I would supose that lighter arrows lose their penitrateing qualities faster than heavyer arrows , or heavyer arrows hold their penitrateing qualities better at distance .
08-28-2003, 12:52 PM
#39
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 174
RE: Speed, or Weight
Again, you can only change 1 thing at a time. If you want to see what KE does vs. momentum, you want the chronograph very close to the target.
Though I' ll have to dig the magazine out to find the specifics, if memory serves me, the arrows were the same diameter...and I believe they were both aluminum. one just had a thicker wall (2216 vs 2219....that kind of thing.)
I would also say that 16 yards IS hunting range. A great deal of animals are harvested inside of 20 yards.
While ethafoam may have been designed to stop arrows...styrofoam was not...it just happens to do an OK job at it...and most importantly...styrofoam can be made consistant enough for repeatable results.
Ballistic gelatin would be nice...but that stuff is a little more expensive, and you MUST control variables such as temperature MUCH more closely.
Though I' ll have to dig the magazine out to find the specifics, if memory serves me, the arrows were the same diameter...and I believe they were both aluminum. one just had a thicker wall (2216 vs 2219....that kind of thing.)
I would also say that 16 yards IS hunting range. A great deal of animals are harvested inside of 20 yards.
While ethafoam may have been designed to stop arrows...styrofoam was not...it just happens to do an OK job at it...and most importantly...styrofoam can be made consistant enough for repeatable results.
Ballistic gelatin would be nice...but that stuff is a little more expensive, and you MUST control variables such as temperature MUCH more closely.
08-28-2003, 01:23 PM
#40
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,175
RE: Speed, or Weight
Ballistic gelatin IS expensive and does have to be used under very controlled conditions. Like scientific tests are supposed to be conducted, as a matter of fact.
I have an idea for a penetration test based on one I saw a gun writer do once. He built a trough that was open at the ends and just wide enough to hold 1 gallon freezer bags filled with water. He stacked a bunch in the trough, shot through the bags, and measured the distance the bullets penetrated. Seems to me the least costly way to go about it, and since animal flesh IS 70% water, and since water is a lot more consistent in density than any manufacturered product....
Problem is that I can' t perform the test. I' m too prejudiced by my posts on this subject and any data I come up with would be questioned immediately.
I have an idea for a penetration test based on one I saw a gun writer do once. He built a trough that was open at the ends and just wide enough to hold 1 gallon freezer bags filled with water. He stacked a bunch in the trough, shot through the bags, and measured the distance the bullets penetrated. Seems to me the least costly way to go about it, and since animal flesh IS 70% water, and since water is a lot more consistent in density than any manufacturered product....
Problem is that I can' t perform the test. I' m too prejudiced by my posts on this subject and any data I come up with would be questioned immediately.