carbons and recurves???
 

Can I shoot carbon arrows w/ my recure? I have heard that it's possible off the shelf if you put feathers on it? any truth to that. Don't get mad it's just a question!

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Yes carbons can be and are used by many quite successfully. Just a matter of finding the right spine and weight that your bow likes...

Why so defensive?

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

You can shoot carbons from a recurve (or longbow), and I reckon they will fly good as long as the arrow spine is matched to the bow. One thing you want to be careful of with carbons is make sure the arrow is heavy enough (mass weight) or you risk damaging your bow. I like to stay with at least 8 grains of arrow weight per pound of draw weight. For example, with a bow you are drawing 40 pounds with, you want an arrow that weighs at least 320 grains (total arrow weight).

There are even companies that are marketing carbon arrows specifically for traditional bows, and quite a few people are using them.

Chad

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Chad, I agree w/everything you said. Especially about the arrow weight...but, >cough< c-c-carbons out of a >choke< LONGBOW???????!! No way man!! Ppl don't really do THAT do they?[:-]

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

cause the last time I asked that question to someone they looked at me like I was tearing the second ammendment in two. I shoot an old bear recure 50lbs @28 in. I did purchace a bunch of cedar arrows from a guy out west. but after shooting them I don't think they had enough speed to use them in a hunting situation. Above anything else I want to hunt w/ a recure but it has to be effective and can harvest the animal cleenly and quickley. I do like shooting wood but I think it should only be at something that is not breathing.

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Lol Vic--I shot carbons out of my first longbow (Beemans--those were the only carbon arrows around back then), but that was before I knew what "traditional" was! [8D] I'd probably still have some, but had to shoot wood to compete and just kinda took a liking to them.

Silverback, the difference in arrow speed is determined by the arrow's weight, not what it's made of. I agree we should use equipment that will do the job quickly and cleanly, but speed is only a small part of the equation. I know a lady in PA who killed a record book gemsbok (about the size of an elk) with a 47@26 longbow and wood arrows. Her broadhead stuck out the far side, the animal went about 65 yds and died.

A light arrow is fast coming off the bow, but looses speed faster. It also doesn't carry nearly as much momentum. One way to look at it--what do you think will do more damage--a VW Beetle travelling at 20 mph or a semi truck at 10 mph?

This debate has went on for quite a while, and I've read up on it quite a bit. I've been especially interested in it the last year or two, because I'm planning on hunting Asiatic water buffalo with a longbow. I don't think you will find any experienced dangerous game hunter (by experienced, I mean someone who has actually killed a few very big, very dangerous animals) that will reccomend a faster arrow over a heavier one on a thick-skinned, heavy boned animal. The reason is the heavier arrow will penetrate better. A ping-pong ball travelling at 75 mph will most likely just bounce off a thick glass window. A baseball travelling at 35 mph will break it. Momentum and retained energy is much greater in a heavier object.

The easiest way to prove it to yourself is take two arrows that are properly spined for your bow, that have the same diameter, same point, etc. and shoot them into a target of your choice. If everything is equal except the weight, the heavier arrow will penetrate better.

Chad

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Buff!!!!!! with a stick!!!! YIKES I'll bet you that 2500lb. Lunatic won't care what you shot him with, he is still gonna be very pissed off. Good luck with that. Also thanks for the physics on weight and speed. I do see what you mean.

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

I have no problem with you wanting to use carbon arrows, but I am concerned about your reasoning in favor of them. Chad laid out the counter argument pretty well. All that being said though, a lot of guys are using carbon arrows but they're weighting them with tubes, brass inserts, heavy points, etc in order to get their arrow weight up.

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Why would you have a problem with me wanting to ensure a quick kleen kill/

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Arther, the best way to gain knowledge is to ask questions. The answers will hopefully come from knowlegable people like Chad who want to see this great sport continue the way it's going. I want only to do my part and gain what you and others have, experience.

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Think you misunderstood Art--99.99% sure his concern was about the arrow speed being the reason you preferred it. That's why he pointed out that most folks that use carbon on trad bows weight them in some way. Slows them down, but sure helps with penetration.

I figure he's forgot more about archery than I'll ever learn. It's easy to misunderstand on these screens--sometimes you have to read a post a few times to get the meaning that was intended.

Chad

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

I'll keep that in mind Chad thanks for your help, both of you. Pete

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Actually, I understood the question perfectly. Just did a terrible job of making the point I was trying to make.[&o]

There are two things needed for establishing a bowhunter's effective range. Being able to hit where you're aiming is only half the story. Hitting with an arrow that has enough power to give enough penetration for that quick, clean kill is the other half.

Silverbackpete, here's the deal. For a long time, I was confused by all the talk I was hearing from the compound guys, about how well their light little knitting needle arrows were penetrating in game. It didn't make sense. We all KNEW you had to have at least 9 grains of arrow weight per pound of draw weight for decent penetration on game. Was it the speed? Did it have something to do with the kinetic energy numbers they were coming up with, 70, 80... even 90 foot pounds?[:-] Kept me stymied for a long time, until I got on the ballistics table calculator at www.bowjackson.com and did some numbers crunching.

Well, I decided to run the numbers on an "IBO" arrow, 350 grains at 300 fps, and compare it to a more traditional arrow, twice as heavy and half as fast - 700 grains at 150 fps - like you might see from a selfbow. So... the 700 grainer came out with 35 foot pounds and ..4655 pound/seconds of momentum. The 350 grain arrow came up at 70 foot pounds and .4655 pound/seconds of momentum.

THERE was my answer! It wasn't the speed or the KE, the light arrows were traveling fast enough in those hard cam bows to equal a heavy arrow's MOMENTUM! They had to travel at twice the speed and with twice the energy of the heavy arrow to do it, but they did it.

Well, when you go without those hard cams and shoot a recurve, they don't look so good.

Slow that 350 grain arrow down to 200 fps, which is realistic for a 50 pound recurve, and you get 31 foot pounds and .3104 pound/seconds of momentum. The lighter arrow doesn't cut through the air very well, so it slows down as it goes downrange. At 30 yards, wind resistance has cut it's speed to 183 fps, KE drops to 26 ft lbs and momentum has slid to .2838 pound/seconds.

Take a 500 grain arrow with the same bow. It'll likely shoot around 180 fps for 36 ft lbs and .39904 pound/seconds of momentum. The heavy arrow still loses some to wind resistance, but it does much better than the light one. At 30 yards, it arrives going 170 fps with 32 foot pounds of energy and .3760 pound/seconds of momentum.

The light arrow flies flatter to make it easier to hit at longer distances, but carries a lot less 'oomph' downrange for penetration potential. The heavy arrow has a higher trajectory, making it problematic to hit at longer distances, but it carries a lot more of it's power to where it's going.

You need to balance the flat trajectory with enough power to do the job. It doesn't do any good to be able to hit a deer at 35 yards if the arrow only makes a flesh wound and bounces off. Or, even worse, gets only one lung and leaves you with a long, fruitless tracking job.

That's what I meant by being concerned about your reasoning for using carbon arrows so you can make good hits downrange. It doesn't do any good to be able to hit 'em if your arrow doesn't carry enough power with it to finish the job.

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

I agree with Arthur P about the value of arrow weight in penetration. AP and others are have hashed this penetration issue out time and time gain on another forem.

There are other issues besides arrow speed and weight that also come into play and effect penetration. Like arrow drag through the animal. Factors like the broadhead and shaft design that you are shooting. I've found that I gotten better penetration from a two blade cut to the tip over say a snuffer design. The snuffer has greater drag, and in my case should be shot at thinner skinned animals like whitetails, not hogs unless I'm shooting a heavier poundage bow. If you shoot a tapered carbon shafts like the Arrow Dynamics Traditionals the head opens up channel where the decreasing sized shaft slides through with less resistance.

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Silver I think the point that is being made is this. Speed don't matter on a recurve, sorry but it don't. I understand that making wood arrows is not everyone's cup of tea. However, if you have to make the carbon arrows heavy, why not shot alluminum? Shooting carbon arrows does not make for a quick clean kill. Carbons would be the worst for this, speed doesn't matter, its penetration. If I get a pass through I get a pass through. Speed of your arrow doesn't make a deer die faster.

Why do you want to shoot carbons over alluminums?

As for the comment on wood and breathing animals.[:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@][:@]
I don't know what made that opinion.[&:]

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Hey Art--my fault that time. I didn't mean that you misunderstood, I was saying to Pete that I believe he misunderstood you. Dang computers.....

Nope, arrow weight isn't the only thing that affects penetration, but it is a big factor.

Ewolf, speed does play a part, but you don't want to give up momentum for speed. A 700 grain arrow travelling at 180 fps will out-penetrate one traveling at 150 fps, all else being equal. There is always that point of diminishing return too--you don't want to shoot an arrow that is so heavy that it drops to the ground at 10 feet (think that would be considered a spear anyway [8D]). I've never done any experimenting with that, but from what I've read it seems to be around 12-13 grains per lb of draw weight on average. That's when it gets to the point that the increased arrow weight will not make up for the speed lost.

It's the kind of stuff that makes my brain itch. I'm not going to get down to the bare minimum, so I'm not going to worry about doing the math just yet. My guess is I could kill a buffalo with a 70# bow, so I'm going with an 85# just in case.

Chad
(edited because I can't spell)

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Your right, I was assumung using the same bow. Too be honest someone didn't see the second page when they responded:eek:

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

So much input WOW!! thanks all of you,,, I am going to leave the carbons with my compound,,,,,, in the back of the closet , I going to shoot the wood w/ the 2 blade Zwickeys and have a hell of a time. Pete

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

Do I get some sort of degree in the mail after reading AP's post on speed & kenetic energy ?

RE: carbons and recurves???
 

recurves have every kind fred bears what ever u name it i love shooting them