Arthur:

There you go, hitting a 'nerve' with me. You don't know how much I preach about staying away from the higher reflex designs. Some of the 'best' bows on the market are ones I personally would NEVER shoot because of 2-3" reflex. I've personally turned away many a new/nice bow because of it.

It's amazing that most don't know what you're talking about when you mention 'reflex'. It's also amazing that some who do know what it is tend to ignore it.

I do a lot of 'snap shooting' with my compound. It's much the same as trads do with their equipment. I do it because things move and shift so fast in the woods.

A tournament archer's target is one that will usually never move. If they make them move to add some spice, it moves slowly, in an open area, and it is predictable. Not so in the environment where I like to shoot.

This is off the subject, but something that I've argued with my peers about quite a lot in the past. And probably will some more once they see this post.

Yep, Len, the most accurate, forgiving and easiest to shoot compounds I've ever used were Hoyt's old ProVantage and SuperSlam series. I'm sure you remember how deflexed they were. With reflexed bows, I have a devil of a time controlling them when they get past about 1 1/2". Add in 75% and more on the letoff, and I won't touch 'em with a 10 foot pole.

First off I didn't make up any laws of physics.It is a law of friction(therefore a law of physics) and was found in my machinist handbook with the explanation I gave.It is a law of mechanics and that is why it is found in my machinist handbook.Look it up in your handbook Arthur,if you still have one laying around.I even pointed out it is a law of dry friction and this may or may not apply.


Like I said,for arguments sake and it doesn't take much to get Arthur going.


These little ,for the sake of argument tidbits are the way people get informed and learn.Chances are if you are reading this thread and tring to weed through the bs,you are already way ahead of the game when it comes time to take an animal with your bow.


Funny thing is I just built my turkey arrows and weighted them down and will get way less penetration because of it.Before you stroke Arthur,I added weight to the back of my arrows to help overcome the 150 grain 3 1/2" cut expandables[] I put on them.So I am shooting way heavier and will get way less penetration.These are the type of info we should be concerning ourselves with instead of just heavy verses light.

Len,Arthur,I also agree 100% about reflex and it is crazy that some of these new bows are preaching 8" brace but have 3" reflex.[]

This is also one of my pet peeves.

TFOX, some gremlin stole my toolbox the first year I was out of work, so I don't have my handbook any more. Oughta get me another one because it was my security blanket for years and years. But I do know how hot and blue those steel chips were, coming off the milling machine when I had my fly cutter revved up, hogging off a quarter inch at a pass. I've got the burn scars on my arms to prove it.[:@]

Hey Arthur,times have changed,we don't hog anymore.We take many light cuts at high speeds and are able to do it quicker than hogging.

Agree.

Interesting thread, but confusing. People are arguing against things that weren't said, and points that weren't made. Lots of name calling for no reason, and plenty of derogatory comments to sour an otherwise good thread.

This arguement seems to come down to penetration, and penetration is very complex - much more so than just comparing K.E. and momentum. Certainly, penetration is affected by many other factors, like broadhead sharpness, broadhead design, arrow diameter, arrow speed, bow tune, arrow spine, distance, wind and probably several more factors. Isolating just one of these in a test, would be difficult. And although any test might give strong indication of a particular advantage for penetration, a lot of the evidence would be anecdotal and with less than good scientific control. Then, take into account that the ideal factors for penetration wil probably vary depending on whether you hit fluid flesh, hard bone, feathers, or thick hide and it gets even more confusing. The fact that so many penetration tests are in foam, concrete, steel barrels, and other materials that are so unlike live animals, throws another wrench into the fray.

I think Coug is smart to not worry about K.E.. I know that I don't. I do worry a bit about my arrows spine, it's FOC and the broadhead design. I worry a whole lot about my bow's tune, my arrow's tune and the sharpness of my broadhead. If I shot a very low poundage bow, I still wouldn't worry much about K.E.. I would then pay a bit more attention to momentum and getting real close to my quarry. Back in the 70's I shot an elk with a 45 lb draw recurve. It took about 5 jumps before it fell dead. It never occurred to my that I was under-bowed, or that I didn't have enough K.E. or that the shot was risky. In fact, at the time, I couldn't imagine that the elk had any chance of surving the shot. What has happened to change things so much since then? Personally, I think it's because hunters worry about speed, instead of other things that have more bearing on how well your broadhead flies.

I fully agree wtih you Arthur and Len about the Deflex Riser (even though it is off the topic). Although the Deflex on the on the only compound that I shoot (Darton Tundra Extreme) is slight, it is still much more forgiving then a relfex design. Great point.

Bob, now I am confused[&:]. Uh, nevermind.