<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Slo-bo said earlier....&quot; In my opinion, in most cases, once you have reached a certain speed/KE, it becomes somewhat of a mute point, it's more a matter of how deep in the ground the arrow will stick on the other side of a pass-through <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

It all boils down to shot placement and sharp broadheads. I think I will go out and practice from my treestand while you some of you guys try to figure out a mathematical equation for how far my arrow is going to stick in the ground after blowing through a rib cage on opening day.

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

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>But uncontrolable stuff does happen, when you are not shooting at an indoor range using stationary targets.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

Bob,

I agree, stuff does happen, but from what I understand, going from a very heavy arrow to a very light arrow does not decrease KE by much. What, maybe 10%? Since everything is a trade-off, for that minimal gain in KE, do you want to make range estimation more critical, or moving deer less easy to hit?

This is why I say weight is probably not too important, unless you cannot hit what you're aiming at. If a new archer is asking for advise and he is shooting fairly accurately, it would seem to me, that the best advise would be to tune the bow so the arrow is flying as straight as possible and use the sharpest broadheads you can get your hands on.

Buckskin, I like your teflon idea. Who knows? Reduce friction enough and if you don't hit hard bone, you can probably take deer with a KE of 10 or less.<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Bobco,I was sure there was 1 out there.


The momentum and ke that you are getting might actually be part of what is breaking the Rockets.If you were using the Steelheads then speed really doesn't matter with them.I don't believe Rocket gives a speed minimum with any of their chisel point heads.They do on the bigger heads that don't have a chissel point.

One thing about heavy arrows that I have experienced... You can go too heavy with arrows, exceed the bow's efficiency range, and slow the speed down to the point where KE does begin to drop off. Unless you've done that, you will lose some KE going to substantially lighter arrows.

I don't really like going heavier than 10 grains per pound of draw weight. I have gone up to 12 grains per pound with a 74&quot; longbow. With my draw length, I also don't like going lighter than 7 grains per pound.

Just to throw another monkey wrench into the works... Anyone ever thought about how short draw lengths vs long draw lengths impact bow efficiency with various arrow weights? I don't have any evidence to support my opinion on this, but I would bet that short draw lengths would be more efficient with lighter arrows than they would be with heavier arrows. Long draw lenghts would lose efficiency with light arrows. And we could also look at efficiency with short vs long limb length at various arrow weights.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> This is why I say weight is probably not too important, unless you cannot hit what you're aiming at. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

I agree with you there and that is why I was trying to make a point. I can hit what I am aiming at, but stuff does happen outside of your ability to hit where you are aiming. Your post has a lot of relevance and I'm not trying to cause waves. I'm just saying that things can happen outside of your control when you are in a hunting situation. And for those times (just to be safe) I want to through everything that me setup has to offer. I want as much of the stored energy stored inside of my bow to go to the arrow as possible. Even if it is minor.

TFOX, good call on that, there is always one in the bunch. I never had a hard time experimenting with stuff. I think at the time I was using them, I was shooting 75 pounds on my Jennings Carbon Extreme. And I know that the one's that I used back then have probably been upgraded by now. Even then though, I knew that they would kill, they just were not for me. I would never tell someone don't go buying mechanicals or anything like that. But I don't have a problem telling people why I don't use them and why I only used fixed, then let them determine what suits their needs.

Arthur, I agree 100% about going too heavy. Currently I am shooting 10 grains per pound, and it is working fine.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>So, does a carbon penetrate well because it's light with a high KE, or does it penetrate well because it has a narrow shaft diameter. Should we be buying light, narrow diameter shafts or heavy, narrow diameter shafts? Or doesn't shaft diameter matter?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

Or, do narrow shafts only matter when dealing with high friction media like foam blocks. Would it matter much on lubricated, low friction, live flesh? We could add dozens real-life variables that would likely affect the results. We can guess on all the variables and try to figure them out, but for now our best advise to archers looking for maximum penetration is probably best left to the known factors. Well tuned bows with very sharp broadheads(especially cut-on-contact types), penetrate deer better. Add the fact that a higher KE will increase the odds of adequate penetration on shots hitting hard bone.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And seeing that a foam target does not realistically emulate a game animal, I would be interested to see what the results of the small diameter light weight vs small diameter heavy weight in large game looked like. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

I would be interested to see that myself. That was the one thing that stuck out as an invalid arguement where this discussion was concerned.

On another note one thing that was not mentioned(or at least I didn't see it) is the fact while aluminums may absorb more of a bows energy as it comes off the riser it immediately starts giving it away with oscilations back and forth all the way down the course. I personally don't shoot deer at 1 ft. so an arrow that is flexing and osciallating like an aluminum shaft does is going to give away a much larger portion of it's stored energy than and arrow that doesn't oscilate or flex as much. Also, aluminums shafts &quot;flex&quot; really bad on impact unlike carbons. I am no engineer here but I think I understand that when an arrow hits an object and the mid section of the arrow flexes in a direction that is not in the linear plane in which it is traveling, at that point KE turns into to momentum, however it is momentum that has a different vector than the arrows. Basically the arrow tries to bend rather than penetrate and by bending or flexing it again gives away KE. The bottom line is that aluminum is a much less efficient material than carbon. Carbon allows you to give up the weight, go with the speed, get the same results with better yarage estimation.

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

About arrows flexing when they hit a target (which they ALL do, regardless of material)... You cannot take much from how an arrow acts when slamming into a target and going from XXX fps to a dead stop in a matter of a few inches. Granted, carbon arrows DO, in fact, dampen oscillation quicker than aluminum. No question about it. However, the slow motion video you see on the GoldTip website shows arrows hitting a target, expending all their energy and stopping dead with aluminums flopping around like a bullwhip and carbons just quivering. Impressive as all get out, but it's not all that meaningful. An arrow is not going to whip around like that when it zips through a deer's ribcage, so any advantage carbon's superior damping qualities give it are minimal in a real life hunting situation.

But then, use a heavy carbon that carries as much momentum as a heavy aluminum and you've probably really got something when that blasted shoulderblade gets in the way.

The more I think this over, the more I'm liking the idea of a heavy carbon arrow. Now to find one that works at an extra long length.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>An arrow is not going to whip around like that when it zips through a deer's ribcage <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

But what about when it runs into something solid?

On one hand you are saying that aluminum is going to flex and give away a great deal of it's KE when it hits something solid(a shouder blade) and on the other hand you are saying it's going to do better because it is heavier. I will concede that a heavier carbon arrow with the same diameter may penetrate better than a lighter carbon. I just don't feel like there is enough of a difference in penetration to justify the loss of speed, especially when I know my bow is &quot;super tuned&quot;, absolutely quite and vibration free(,Patriot...it came built in to the bow) and I am shooting razor sharp broadheads(Montecs this year).

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