Free: Contests & Raffles.
Just to add my Archery seasons exist today due to the actions of some great men back when bows were considered nothing more than toys for target archery. They had to buy tags and go during rifle seasons. A good shot could put all his arrows into a target at incredible distances even by today's standards, they called it a York Round. They still didn't harvest many animals and were a very small minority. The successful ones shot bows in the 60-70# range with heavy arrows. It took Sportsmen like Chester Stevenson, Fred Bear, and Glenn StCharles to bring archery to the attention of the game departments and general public to make it acceptable as a viable weapon for big game. It took several years before they got any respect at all. Success rates were dismal because they (the majority) did not realize that you needed to get closer to the game for the broadhead to perform its job correctly.We will be forever indebted to these pioneers in our sport.If we continue using everything out there to "modernize" archery we will no longer have the privilege of separate seasons. If we don't quit arguing amongst ourselves about petty little things like equipment preferences, we are going to get blind-sided AGAIN by the game department in favor of the Muzzleloaders and Modern Firearms, You don't hear them arguing about using a .223 for elk, even though I am sure you could kill one with it, and at amazing distance!You owe it to the game you pursue to use equipment that will perform AND ensure a quick clean kill I don't care how good of a shot you are at the range, when you put hair and a heartbeat on it EVERYTHING changes...."The archer may or may not have improved his accuracy at long distances, but most certainly, perhaps unknowingly, has reduced the killing power of his weapon. This fact was bourne out by some recent experiments conducted in our shop, proving definately that arrow weight has more bearing on killing power than does bow weight. For instance, it was dicovered that a 45 pound bow shot a 400 grain arrow with more striking energy (which means better penetrating power) than a 300 grain arrow shot from a 63 pound bow. The meaty part of the whole story is the fact that if an archer shooting light weight arrows did make a hit, unless it was made in the body cavity where no heavy bone was encountered, he probably wont get his deer" ..The preceding statement is surprising in that it is the words of Fred Bear in 1942 and long before the "improvements" of modern bows.......I started bowhunting with a compound and was still using one when during an elk hunt after helping me gut and drag a spike out of the woods and posing for all the pictures, I made a comment to Joe StCharles about being in a picture with a compound user and he replied " an arrow is an arrow" ....now I am a Traditional Archer and I believe the same way, yet there are limits.A mechanical Broadhead will perform outstanding on deer sized or smaller animals at close range, but if the animal is large, thick skinned, and heavy boned, they wont perform anything close to a fixed blade....." WE have strayed a long way from the sound teachings of Young and Pope. The future of archery is in our hands and we had better get hold of our bootstraps and pull " *Fred Bear
..."The archer may or may not have improved his accuracy at long distances, but most certainly, perhaps unknowingly, has reduced the killing power of his weapon. This fact was bourne out by some recent experiments conducted in our shop, proving definately that arrow weight has more bearing on killing power than does bow weight. For instance, it was dicovered that a 45 pound bow shot a 400 grain arrow with more striking energy (which means better penetrating power) than a 300 grain arrow shot from a 63 pound bow. The meaty part of the whole story is the fact that if an archer shooting light weight arrows did make a hit, unless it was made in the body cavity where no heavy bone was encountered, he probably wont get his deer" ..The preceding statement is surprising in that it is the words of Fred Bear in 1942 and long before the "improvements" of modern bows.
Kinetic energy is NOT the correct unit of measure for calculating ANY of the forces relevant to penetration. It is applicable for calculating neither the force of a moving object; the disposable net force at impact; the net force at exit; net force consumed during penetration; the applied impulse; nor the resistance impulse force affecting penetration.
Kinetic energy does not enter directly into any of the calculations relating to penetration. THE KINETIC ENERGY CARRIED BY AN ARROW AT IMPACT HAS NO DIRECT BEARING ON ITS ABILITY TO PENETRATE.
Kinetic energy IS applicable for calculating the mechanical efficiency of one’s bow.
Lowedog, What you are looking at is energy produced on impact, not sustained energy during penetration. What you are comparing is great for energy at impact (and for measuring the mechanical efficiency of your bow, like Ray stated earlier), but the forces that the arrow meets when continuing into an animal will slow a lighter arrow, much more quickly than a heavy arrow.
