If you have been a bowhunter for any amount of time, I'm sure you have heard this one over and over.

Yesterday evening, a friend (actually my best friend's future son-in-law) proved, once again, 40# is plenty.

First, I'll say I don't recommend this shot. It worked great for him, but he was lucky. He shot the deer facing him. The arrow penetrated to the fletching and the deer didn't go far at all. If it had been a broadside shot, I'm sure it would have been a pass-through.

He wasn't shooting a super-heavy arrow (a bit over 400 grains). He didn't have extreme FOC. He didn't have a single bevel that matched the fletching. Deer is just as dead.

Chad

Depends on the bow. I would say no with a selfbow shooting 130fps with 10gpp. I would say yes with a custom longbow shooting 170fps with a 400gr arrow.

I've been bowhunting for 46 years and a 40# bow is plenty for whitetail deer. It isn't just about arrow speed. It's about putting the arrow in the right spot with a very sharp broadhead, preferably a 2 blade broadhead since that is what I use with my 42# and 37# recurves. I wait for my favorite broadside shot which is a pass through shot taking out both lungs.

My 42# bow shoots a heavy 657 grain arrow at 151 fps and my 37# bow shoots a 570 grain arrow at 152 fps. The speed is slow, but the GPP (grains per pound) for my 42# bow shooting a heavy arrow is 15.64 GPP with 16.5% FOC and for my 37# bow shooting a heavy arrow it's 15.40 GPP with 17.4% FOC.

In closing, in my opinion, if one is going to shoot low poundage bows like I do, a heavy arrow GPP wise is going to trump arrow speed if the distance is 20 yards or less.

I can't say that I would be comfortable with that set-up either, but........

Primitive Archer ran an article a year or three ago--I'll see if I can find it. The fellow that wrote it did some experimenting with a VERY slow, very light-weight selfbow, using natural shafting and stone points. I think he was restricted to 3 or 4 shots on a very recently killed deer. Every shot penetrated both lungs, and I think all but one penetrated the far side. Seems that one shattered a rib on entrance and hit a rib on the far side. Broke the rib, but didn't penetrate the far side. Every shot would have easily killed the deer though.

Finally weighed the bow my best friend's daughter used a year or two ago for her first recurve kill. If she came to full draw, she was shooting 29#. Again, not something I'd recommend, but it did the job just fine.

Point being that you don't have to spend a fortune on a bow, arrows, and broadheads to hunt. Some places will try to make you out to be unethical if you aren't using the latest whiz-bang set-up.

Im with LBR, you don't need the latest and greatest carbonshafts, single bevel heads, and Extreme FOC to make clean kills. I believe to much is made of all these studies, and if we took them to their logical end we would all shoot wheels, because on paper they look more efficient, but Traditional Archery lives beyond numbers. There is a, dare I say supernatural, edge to the stick and string. In our modern age we rely on the "science" of archery to much. Tell Howard Hill that he needed a extreme foc, carbon shaft tipped with a 3:1 single beveled head--I think he would have laughed as he pulled the his wood arrow out of the freshly killed Griz. As far as ethics are concerned, we are putting a sharp piece of metal through a living creatures heart! If that metal Pierces the Heart, Why should we care what setup is used to accomplish it? The fact that we are willing to take the responsibility of killing in our own hands, makes us far more ethical then 98% of americans who disreguard the fact that their hamburger was once a living creature.

Actually howard hill was a big advocate of extreme poundage.

well I will throw mine in too. I do not care what your poundage is, a bad shot is a bad shot. If you choose to hunt period, you should be effective. Accuracy is more important than the eqipment.

Hill' favorite bow pulled 90 Lbs but he was a big man and shot professionally.He favored PO Cedar for arrows.Because arrows stiff enough for his bows at his actual draw length were all but nonexistent he intentionally only drew 28".

Not actually, there were many arrows out there for his draw.

The english did it for many years with 130-150lb longbows drew to 32".

You can make an arrow stiff as you want when you make your own.

From what I've read, what Bernie posted is correct. Hill intentionally shortened his draw length to 28" due because it was hard to find a reliable supply of arrows spined heavy enough for him.

POC was "the" arrow in his day. Of course you could increase the diameter for a heavier spine, but that wouldn't have been logical--one would have had to change the machinery for the arrows, the points, the nocks, and it would have thrown them even further off center on Hill's bows, which were already 1/8" or more shy of center.

The English shot heavy bows for distance and to penetrate armour--not for pin-point accuracy. That was also the reason for the long draw.