Post by: chrisb on August 05, 2009, 01:50:48 PM
Post by: SunniCutt on August 05, 2009, 08:59:42 PM
Post by: Hoytstaffshooter83 on August 05, 2009, 09:04:06 PM
Post by: Tom Tamer on August 05, 2009, 10:12:29 PM
And the main reason I heard from the WDFW( So take that for what it's worth :dunno:) They said there os too much oposition from tradtional users to ever get it switched even with all the technological advancements?
Not that I agree but that's the explanation I was given.
Now notice too that the reg. concerning broadheads only applies to Big Game, small game hunting is NOT affected, so Turkey and such ARE legal to use mechanicals. I use Rage myself for turkey.
Post by: coldsteel3d on August 05, 2009, 10:22:38 PM
Post by: chrisb on August 05, 2009, 10:36:15 PM
Post by: Tom Tamer on August 05, 2009, 10:53:00 PM
thanks guys. just as i thought its pretty arbitrary like most things the WDFW does... well at least i don't live in CA
Close this is Northern Northern California :bash:
Post by: SHANE(WA) on August 05, 2009, 11:38:52 PM
Post by: Sneaky on August 06, 2009, 12:19:03 AM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on August 06, 2009, 06:43:56 AM
Post by: KillBilly on August 06, 2009, 06:56:43 AM
It is not about technology or efficiency. See the highlighted portion of the text below, that is what makes mechanicals non compliant.
g. It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with
a broadhead blade unless the broadhead
is unbarbed and completely closed at
the back end of the blade or blades by
a smooth, unbroken surface starting at
maximum blade width forming a smooth
line toward the feather end of the shaft and
such line does not angle toward the point.
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2009, 06:57:13 AM
I don't view the technology as progress. Plus it's barbed.
Good law from my point of view.
Post by: GoldTip on August 06, 2009, 07:18:09 AM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 06, 2009, 07:24:05 AM
Quote
The reason expandables are not legal in Washington is due to the regulation against barbed broadheads. A poorly hit animal can and will usually survive but if the arrow is barbed it will stay in and cause the animal to suffer a long and agonizing death. Arrows fall out or are pulled out (I have seen them do it) If they stay in they fester and get infected. A lot of bowhunters take shots they should not take thinking that they can hit a target at that distance, but when an animal hears a bow release they move and that results in poor hits. Most will result in a minor injury that is not life threatening. (sharp broadheads cut cleanly) I am not advocating taking shots you shouldn't just stating the facts.:yeah: :archer:
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2009, 07:34:05 AM
The current rules really permit some lethal bow setups. I think there is enough for an archer to choose from when it comes to gear. Harvesting game with archery tackle happened before these broadheads.
*300 feet per second
*sights with pins for incremental distances
*drop away arrow rests
*whisker biscuits
*fobs
*having let off so that people can shoot bows they normally would not be able to and to bead on a target for long periods of time. Much like a rifle
The inherent accuracy of modern bows seems like the opportunities for equipment choices are broad enough in order to make a good kill to me.
Post by: boneaddict on August 06, 2009, 08:13:08 AM
Post by: timmyg on August 06, 2009, 09:45:30 AM
Mostly, I have been reading a lot of posts and haven't given my 2 pennies for a while.
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2009, 09:49:39 AM
Everyone wants an ethical kill but how far do you really need to take ethical as the basis of your justification? It's used as the main argument almost all the time regarding technology. Seems like more crutches to stand on and make it easier to harvest the game to me. Especially when you can achieve an ethical kill with a normal broadhead. Crossbows are ethical too.
On the lumenocks discussion as well - just use reflective tape on the tip of your arrow and a small flashlight.
Post by: boneaddict on August 06, 2009, 09:55:37 AM
Quote
leading to more efficient kills at the end of the day, and likely less wounded animalsThis is the cry often weilded by folks to defend a product. One can often twist it the other way as well. Folks tend to increase the risk of a long shot (80+) yards because they feel their product may have better flight etc. Thats just one point. I am guessing that many of the other broadheads tuned correctly and shot correctly and practiced with correctly, yeild similiar results.
Same with lumilocks, sure they may improve you finding your kill, but some could argue that it encourages folks to shoot later in the day. :dunno:
I'm curious, how do you practice with mechanicals or remove them from targets liek the block? Serious ?, as I don't know
Post by: timmyg on August 06, 2009, 10:11:29 AM
I do think a crossbow is closer to a bow than a rifle though per Ray's post.
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2009, 10:16:26 AM
Quote
I do think a crossbow is closer to a bow than a rifle though per Ray's post.
It's an interesting subject and I bet many would agree. Not a surprise that someone would say that.
I didn't actually suggest a crossbow was closer to a bow or a rifle but I did throw it out there to think about. A crossbow does not require the practice, skill and attention that a compound bow or stick bow does. For all historic purposes it is a primitive weapon type. That does not necessarily mean they should be permitted in the archery season. I agree with the uses we have for crossbows in Washington. Limited uses for no firearm zones and for the handicapped. Otherwise I think they should live in a modern rifle season. Especially when people can group the bolts at 1/2 inch for 100 yards.
Post by: timmyg on August 06, 2009, 02:47:39 PM
Obviously archery entails a lot of choices. From what type of bow to shoot, as well as the many bells and whistles available today. A lot of things go into those choices on what equipment we choose. Some may want to stay "primitive" or "traditional", while others may want to buy the latest and greatest. Some folks might not be able to afford that latest and greatest, but would go there if they could. And I am sure there are various other reasons why people hunt with the equipment they do. Maybe it is what they are used to and just like it. I agree that there are much more serious issues at hand as Ray mentioned earlier I believe. I think some people who are "purists" in their mind feel they are "better", and some who have the newest, latest, and greatest feel they are "better", but they hopefully just make choices on how they want to enjoy a great sport. I generally have found that I have a liking for people who hunt and have been doing so for a long time, because I can learn something from them and share life a little.
On the mechanical broadhead issue, I don't use them in WA because they are illegal, if that changes, I will likely use them.
Post by: adam.WI on August 06, 2009, 02:51:05 PM
I feel the big push came out of laziness and not wanting to deal with tuning a bow. Fixed blades can shoot flawlessly so I see no reason to change that law
Post by: timmyg on August 06, 2009, 02:54:20 PM
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2009, 03:15:46 PM
I also offered something up in regards to how I view these sort of gadgets because someone commented on the effect that it was other archers who object to these gadgets and not game wardens or the game department. I concur. I object to these because they are not necessary. Advancing technology is not necessarily advancing the sport. In fact I believe going too far detracts from the image of hunters. Why do they need all of these advantages and where do outdoorsmen let it end?
I don't believe anyone suggested a compound bow was a rifle. I offered up the subject of crossbows to give folks some thought about how far they think archery should expand to. I would suggest that many archers treat their bow somewhat like a rifle from my perspective. That's simply an opinion and people don't have to agree or like it and it certainly well may be a minority opinion which doesn't count. I certainly think traditional archery is another game altogether but in the end I support most every aspect of modern archery as well.
A quality product does not necessarily equate to correct application for hunting in my book. Especially when there are many ways to dispatch the game which are effective today. I am glad others agree who matter.
If I am guilty for offering insight regarding my thought process so be it. However you would never understand it or believe it existed if nobody mentioned something right? I can certainly suggest that there are others who share some of both our opinions on the matter.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on August 06, 2009, 03:22:17 PM
Post by: Intruder on August 06, 2009, 03:25:58 PM
I don't think I would use em even if they were legal. Not so much based on a philosophical perspective, I'm just not convinced that they are "better". Anything mechanical seems like another failure point to me. Plus your point about gadgets and gimmicks. Archery reminds me a lot of flyfishing 15 years ago. There was more useless *censored* put out there that didn't help a guy catch 1 more fish... just helped seperate people from their $.
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2009, 03:29:48 PM
Also - How would the proposed language be to only include these mechanical expanding broadheads if they were able to work their way out of animals and yet still outlaw other barbed broadheads? That seems like the segway to justifying them to me.
Post by: tlbradford on August 06, 2009, 03:30:51 PM
Post by: SpokaneSlayer on August 06, 2009, 03:35:12 PM
Ray - Did you mean that they ARE barbed and less likely to work their way out?
Post by: Ray on August 06, 2009, 04:54:44 PM
Quote
Ray - Did you mean that they ARE barbed and less likely to work their way out?
I am asking that, yes. Among other things.
Post by: KillBilly on August 06, 2009, 05:08:48 PM
Most importantly - are they not barbed and less likely to work their way out of an animal that is hit in a non-lethal engagement? Isn't that one of the main reasons for the law?
Also - How would the proposed language be to only include these mechanical expanding broadheads if they were able to work their way out of animals and yet still outlaw other barbed broadheads? That seems like the segway to justifying them to me.
Ray, any broadhead that doesn't begin at the widest point and taper back toward the fletching are considered Barbed. They must have that back taper so it comes out of the animal unimpeded. And most of the mechanicals are considered barbed
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 06, 2009, 05:36:56 PM
This reasoning leads me to think that you are concerned with grouping at longer yards because at closer yardage, if you are a halfway decent shot you are wrecking your arrows.
I am against shooting at a game animals at longer yardage because no matter how fast your bow shoots, it will never beat 1129fps (the speed of sound) and (I know this will stir the pot :stirthepot:.) even though some "bowhunters" can shoot out to 80+ yards and have collected game at that distance (I am guilty of it myself when I used a compound) It is not a responsible action and has the potential of wounding game, something we should be trying to avoid as ethical sportsmen. When an animal hears the bow we have no way of making sure that they will hold still (unlike a target) and most likely something is going to happen. I know some of you have harvested game at incredible distances with a bow, but is that what hunting with archery equipment is about? Long range shooting belongs on the range, not in the woods. If you cannot stalk within an acceptable and ethical distance to the game you seek, or take shots at animals way up on a hillside from the road, Mechanical broadheads might make a difference, but if you can, then the only thing that matters is that they are SHARP and you put them in the right spot.
Post by: timmyg on August 07, 2009, 07:49:23 AM
So he isn't so "concerned", I shoot a lot of arrows in preparation for the seasons. I practice mostly with broadheads this time of year STICK. I many times wreck arrows whether with field tips or broadheads, but it doesn't deter me from my practice. I have a pretty nice set up for shooting at my place with 3 D deer and turkey if you are ever in the Whatcom County area and would like to shoot.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 07, 2009, 10:18:51 AM
Sorry I got off topic. :P
All chest thumping aside, I was not talking about anyone in particular I was merely stating that I was concerned about comparing flight characteristics with field points because it leads me to the conclusion that they want a broadhead to reach longer distances, because all manufactured broadheads today are designed to fly straight, it is only when "airing" one out there that you would notice a difference. My concern is not about being able to hit a target, but a game animal. When you give it hair and a heartbeat everything changes. I practice stupid and ridiculous shots, but with broadheads I keep it under 40 (I use a recurve) In a hunting situation I only let the arrow fly if it feels right, some times I am within 10 yards and don't shoot, but I never take a shot that I think might result in wounding game. As distance to target increases, so does margin for error. Throw in the likelihood that the animal will jump,flinch, walk, or move in some way and you have the recipe for disaster.
AGAIN, I was not talking about anyone in particular! I was just stating my concerns and hope I did not offend anyone.
I know a lot of you will harvest animals with archery equipment out beyond 60 yards this year and I can only say, Wow, nice shot! however I will not encourage you to take that shot.
We are sportsmen and need to maintain our image and respect for the game we pursue,
Post by: timmyg on August 07, 2009, 10:49:02 AM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 07, 2009, 11:00:19 AM
I have replaceable zones also, but I don't have the money to keep replacing them, I shoot everyday and just replacing arrows is enough.
I know that everyone has an opinion and that is just mine, I have been bowhunting since 1987 and have formed a lot of them, several of them are unpopular.
Post by: Hoytstaffshooter83 on August 07, 2009, 11:57:58 AM
Post by: Ray on August 07, 2009, 12:20:53 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 07, 2009, 12:36:10 PM
Quote
As far as distance, everyone has this all backwards, the FARTHER away you are from game, the LESS likely they are to hear your bow, go grab any new quiet bow, stand 20 yrds away and see how loud it is, then go to 60..... good luck even hearing it go off..... any shot within a persons effective range is ethical
I knew I would piss somebody off, But Thank you for substantiating my statement,
we have diferent opinions and you are certanly entitled to yours. Good luck and great shot!
I know you can outshoot me at any range, but I can close the distance, or I dont take the shot. Ihat is why I use the equipment I choose. I am not about my great shooting ability, I am about my love of the hunt and the experience of being in the outdoors. I have experiences every year when I second guess myself and wonder if I would have taken the shot with my old compound, then I realise the choice was to increase my enjoyment of the accomplishment, not the accomplishment itself. I would feel more satisfaction sneaking into my confort range and spooking the animal than I would taking the long shot and hoping to hit it.
I dont care how quiet you say your bow is ,they hear it....Just because you have made the shot in the past does not mean you always will. One wounded animal not recovered due to pride is one too many.
I dont want to argue with you, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. You take whatever shots you feel you must and I hope they all fly true.
Post by: adam.WI on August 07, 2009, 12:43:38 PM
The advanced technology of a blade pivoting on a hinge pin has little to do with it in my opinion.
Post by: Ray on August 07, 2009, 12:46:56 PM
The most important things which makes these gadgets illegal is because they are unethical or not worth regulating in favor of. Not to mention that many archers do not approve of them.
In short - I do not believe it is worth regulating in favor of mechanical broadheads because I believe they are inferior to what is permitted by law today and will result in more wounded game.
Post by: adam.WI on August 07, 2009, 12:52:17 PM
In short - I do not believe it is worth regulating in favor of mechanical broadheads because I believe they are inferior to what is permitted by law today and will result in more wounded game.Agreed
Post by: timmyg on August 07, 2009, 01:39:24 PM
Post by: tlbradford on August 07, 2009, 02:58:01 PM
my :twocents: first off, you dont need to practice with the acutal mechanical heads, they fly exactly like your fieldpoints. so dial in your bow all year with field points, then put on whatever head you choose and enjoy your hunt. as far as the blades not coming out? please explaiin to me why that would be a issue if your SHOT PLACEMENT is correct? last time I checked a double lung shot behind the shoulder does the job damn fast regardless of whether the arrow passed through or not
You answered your own question...The broadhead needs to come out on the less than perfect shots, not the perfect shots. I agree with you on the lumenoks. I do everything I can to make my arrows brighter.
Post by: Hoytstaffshooter83 on August 07, 2009, 03:04:20 PM
If we need lumenocks and expandable broadheads why not crossbows and why not scopes on the bows? Where does it end? It ends where it makes sense. It does not make sense to overgadget bows when we have a good selection of items in our toolbox to get the job done right. We are better than these gimmicks and have already proven that. If you need more advanced and precise killing tools consider trying the rifle. As hunters - what we do use and how we use it does reflect on our image. I think we are better than just plainly accepting any new gadget as a means to get the job done. We should be aware that how we take the game and with what is under scrutiny internally and externally.
Honestly your "purist" attitude is comical to me, how can you opose something that makes finding a very expensive arrow after the hit and recovering game better? sure we dont "need" them but they sure would help as I have plenty of expensive arrows in the dirt from pass throughs on game that I never found, as stated we all know that the arrow post hit tells everything!! so why not be able to always or 99% of the time find it? what if you had a marginal hit and from the blood it looked ok, but if you found the arrow you would know to wait it out overnight, instead you track on only to lose the animal by pushing it to fast..... I assume thats ok to you because that at least keeps the sport "pure" and free of gadgets no one needs?
Post by: Hoytstaffshooter83 on August 07, 2009, 03:05:16 PM
my :twocents: first off, you dont need to practice with the acutal mechanical heads, they fly exactly like your fieldpoints. so dial in your bow all year with field points, then put on whatever head you choose and enjoy your hunt. as far as the blades not coming out? please explaiin to me why that would be a issue if your SHOT PLACEMENT is correct? last time I checked a double lung shot behind the shoulder does the job damn fast regardless of whether the arrow passed through or not
You answered your own question...The broadhead needs to come out on the less than perfect shots, not the perfect shots. I agree with you on the lumenoks. I do everything I can to make my arrows brighter.
my point is why not hold more weight to the bowhunter being proficient with our weapon?
Post by: Hoytstaffshooter83 on August 07, 2009, 03:08:37 PM
QuoteAs far as distance, everyone has this all backwards, the FARTHER away you are from game, the LESS likely they are to hear your bow, go grab any new quiet bow, stand 20 yrds away and see how loud it is, then go to 60..... good luck even hearing it go off..... any shot within a persons effective range is ethical
I knew I would piss somebody off, But Thank you for substantiating my statement,
we have diferent opinions and you are certanly entitled to yours. Good luck and great shot!
I know you can outshoot me at any range, but I can close the distance, or I dont take the shot. Ihat is why I use the equipment I choose. I am not about my great shooting ability, I am about my love of the hunt and the experience of being in the outdoors. I have experiences every year when I second guess myself and wonder if I would have taken the shot with my old compound, then I realise the choice was to increase my enjoyment of the accomplishment, not the accomplishment itself. I would feel more satisfaction sneaking into my confort range and spooking the animal than I would taking the long shot and hoping to hit it.
I dont care how quiet you say your bow is ,they hear it....Just because you have made the shot in the past does not mean you always will. One wounded animal not recovered due to pride is one too many.
I dont want to argue with you, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. You take whatever shots you feel you must and I hope they all fly true.
I never said they dont hear it, but what they may hear IMO should have no effect on them, how many times have you been shooting a gun and had a deer walk up near you? I have more then once, not every sound alerts a calm animal, and rarely one as quiet as my hoyt at 65yrds from the target..... and it has nothing to do with pride..... its about the hunt and putting meat on the table for me..... anything I can do legally to increase my odds im ok with...... good luck to you as well this season....... ill post pics of my bucks and my bull.... ;)
Post by: Ray on August 07, 2009, 04:35:54 PM
A mechanical broadhead does not make the archer better. In fact they are illegal because they are barbed and also because they are inferior. On top of that - archers are better than these silly gadgets.
Why don't you sit back and actually read what I wrote and instead of injecting what ifs just accept that these opinions of mine for what they are instead of injecting personal attacks and casting away remarks as "comical". You are acting like a 2 year old.
Post by: stringflinger4elk on August 07, 2009, 05:24:18 PM
I am 100% sure they will work as designed 100% of the time. no breaking no funny business.
Lumenocs hmmm I like them they look like fun especially shooting at dusk for fun. I saw a guy practicing with them at the R-100 a couple years ago and that was cool to watch.
I wish I could use them for hunting but I am not upset that I can't maybe they will someday maybe never.
seems like it's time for somebody to invent a new nock that doesn't use a battery to light it up then you will all be off the hook and have arrows that will glow yeah baby. glow in the dark nocks why aren't they out there yet?
Or maybe ones with the tritium in them like the hand guns sights on my glock?
I think they could make something work on that principle.
By the way I am going straight to the Patent office and all you lawyer types on here are my witness I thought of it first and you all better pay up! :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: coachcw on August 08, 2009, 10:02:14 PM
Post by: Buckrub on August 12, 2009, 09:36:00 AM
The 65% let off rule is a perfect example of this backward state.
I'm not going to condemn mechanicals until I have researched them, If they were that inferior why does every other state allow them?
Bowhunters will allways argue the traditional bow vs: training wheels (compound bow) ...to each his own, if one doesn't feel comfortable with a certain broadhead the don't use it.
Maybe it's like using a 243 for elk...it's legal but some won't use it.
Post by: Snapshot on August 12, 2009, 02:54:59 PM
[Buckrub, the 65% let-off rule went away 3 years ago.]
Post by: Bofire on August 12, 2009, 03:25:39 PM
You have shot plenty of animals, had pass throughs, never found the game? "plenty" How many is plenty, I have lost zero in 45 years.
Carl
Post by: tlbradford on August 12, 2009, 03:30:25 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 12, 2009, 04:56:07 PM
I have no doubt that a competent archer can hit an animal at incredible ranges with todays set-ups.
I will not advocate taking those shots
Quote
You guys must agree that most hunters will take a marginal shotI dont! and wont encourage others to. Neither will the guys I hunt with.
I have noticed that age seem to be a common factor in the attitude towards this issue, and others. Is this because we were hunting with a bow and arrow before most of these "improvements" and resist change, or is it because we have been hunting as long as some of you have been alive and are basing our opinions on experience?
I personally have been hunting for 30 years and bowhunting for 21. Back when I started I took some ridiculous shots, luckily I either missed clean or hit where I intended. I have killed both deer and elk with an arrow that hit where I was aiming, but penetrated in a different direction due to animal movement, I know it was because they heard my bow and turned towards/away from me after the shot.
I now hunt with a recurve and limit my range accordingly.
Post by: Buckrub on August 12, 2009, 06:58:45 PM
I agree with Ray point for point.
[Buckrub, the 65% let-off rule went away 3 years ago.]
Nojoke its not 65%??? JKidding....but why did we have a 65% rule when everywhere else was 80%??
"Maybe it's like using a 243 for elk...it's legal but is it ethical"
I still stand by this statement....I wouldn't hunt elk with a 243 but have seen many used....
I won't judge someone for using an inferior broadhead..like the wally world $3.00 special that the blades fall off at impact.
Post by: Snapshot on August 14, 2009, 09:02:50 AM
It was set at 65% when compound technology was new; hunters who foresaw that technology would change the face of the sport lobbied it for it; archery is a physical sport and compound let-off reduces the athleticism required. They were worried that one-day a 95% (or greater) let-off would be developed that would allow someone to hold at full-draw almost effortlessly. And anyone who has drawn an arrow an on a super-close-range animal knows that being able to hold at full-draw for a longer period of time reduces the challenge enormously.
After a couple of decades it became evident (I am told) that compounds with let-off greater than 80% (or whatever the maximum is now) were too sensitive for human hands. Then Pope & Young changed their rule on the matter. And following their lead the state archery organizations in Washington went to the WDFW and suggested that the let-off rule be changed.
Post by: Buckrub on August 14, 2009, 10:47:47 AM
Our state has demonstrated many times that they lack the ability to manage hunting and or regulations.
Back to the original subject...
I'm not sure I see enough of an advantage with the mechanical broadhead to make it illegal. If this is an image law IE: arrows hanging from animals then we are in trouble currently, archers will take risky shots and a fixed blade broadhead- non barbed could be in an animal for years. Rifle hunters have the same problem with wounded animals.
The new bows have created some distance advantages over recurves, but bow hunting is still a close encounter sport. I think our image has greatly improved with the new bows and technology.
Just my opinion
Post by: Ray on August 14, 2009, 01:42:35 PM
Good law.
Post by: Buckrub on August 14, 2009, 02:51:05 PM
It's not an image law. It's an illegal barbed arrow law.
Good law.
That explains everything
Post by: Ray on August 15, 2009, 09:06:51 AM
Buckrub it is loud and clear that the only thing you will accept as an explanation is that it is now legal. I understand that. If it was up to me I would never make them legal. I don't think there is much more to discuss there and I have not intended to explain to you specifically anything other than how I view things. Not as if you have to view them my way but just so you can comprehend how someone else thinks. A couple of your remarks are confusing but I kind of get your message I think..
Post by: boneaddict on August 15, 2009, 10:08:01 AM
Quote
as stated we all know that the arrow post hit tells everything!Well Hoyt, if you quite shooting those deer after hours or closer than a 100 yards out, you should be able to tell where your arrow hits. LOL
You essentially proved my point of it encouraging people to go beyond their means.
Post by: huntnphool on August 15, 2009, 10:16:48 AM
Quote
if you quite shooting those deer after hours or closer than a 100 yards out
(https://hunting-washington.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10123/guy_laughing_slapping_knee_sm_clr.gif)
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 15, 2009, 11:47:13 AM
I don't mean anything I am just joking. I am sure he has harvested a lot of game over the course of his hunting career and I mean no disrespect.
I just don't like advocating the practice of the long shot.
What you do in the woods often affects only you, but how you talk about it in public affects ALL of us.
If we (archers) advocate the new technology and ability to shoot at increasing distances we might lose our "primitive weapon" status and be forced to hunt with the "modern" crowd and I for one do not want to try to find a camping spot when EVERYBODY is out there, it is bad enough with the Labor-Day weekend crowd!!!!
Post by: huntnphool on August 16, 2009, 11:19:33 AM
Quote
I mean after all he has shot a lot of game over the years with his equipment
Well I can't wait to see which one of the 5 point blacktails he tags this year, quite the dilemma having to choose between 5 of them.
Post by: timmyg on August 16, 2009, 12:41:07 PM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 16, 2009, 01:41:17 PM
Post by: Ray on August 16, 2009, 02:33:05 PM
The broadheads you speak about are inferior because they are barbed. That seemed more than obvious to me. Nobody has really much else to say until they provide one which is unbarbed. That is the law and I don't see it changing whether or not you like it.
I also believe that moving parts in a broadhead are probably not a good idea. I have not even spoke to that yet but they must be inherently weaker.
Post by: boneaddict on August 16, 2009, 03:16:16 PM
Post by: AKBowman on August 16, 2009, 08:46:11 PM
Post by: EastWaViking on August 16, 2009, 08:59:04 PM
If mechanical broadheads were legal in this state, I probably still wouldn't use them because there is no real advantage, and more to go wrong. IMO
Post by: Ray on August 16, 2009, 09:09:40 PM
Post by: rooselk on August 16, 2009, 11:42:32 PM
In the same vein I'm sure there are also a few rifle hunters out there somewhere who believe that it should be legal to hunt big game animals with a .22. Even so, just because a .22 is lethal and might be effective under the right circumstances in the hands of someone with the right skills, that doesn't mean that it should be legal. The same thing applies to expandable broadheads.
Post by: Ray on August 17, 2009, 07:44:20 AM
Post by: EastWaViking on August 17, 2009, 07:51:33 AM
I'd like to understand how a broadhead with moving parts is stronger than others which are made with single pieces of multiple pieces of non moving steel. That doesn't sound like it adds up to any advantage.
They aren't. The mechanical I killed a deer with in Wyoming broke. It went in a three blade, and came out a two blade broadhead.
Post by: Buckrub on August 17, 2009, 07:57:01 AM
Hunters have been taking risky shots since I was a kid and will still take risky shots which could lead to a broadhead left in a wounded animal, barbed or non barbed.
I have read many pros and cons on mechanicals but can do the same for any broadheads on the market.
Who am I to judge equipment or hunting style based on my belief of ethical hunting practices?
maybe we should have distance laws based on equipment? :stirthepot: or maybe we are just taking this too seriously ;)
Post by: boneaddict on August 17, 2009, 08:00:02 AM
We can discuss mechanicals all day, when the sun sets they are still illegal :twocents:
Post by: Buckrub on August 17, 2009, 08:03:07 AM
Post by: boneaddict on August 17, 2009, 08:07:12 AM
By the way, bottom of page 30 in Oregon regs. Mechanicals and or barbed broadheads are illegal.
Post by: boneaddict on August 17, 2009, 08:10:02 AM
Post by: huntnphool on August 17, 2009, 09:59:27 AM
How about a proficiency test before being able to apply for archery or the multiseason tag, or hell modern for that matter.
But those tards I hear every year taking 5,6 and sometimes 7 or more shots at a buck wouldn't be able to hunt anymore Bone, stop being so selfish :chuckle:
Post by: adam.WI on August 17, 2009, 10:08:47 AM
How about a proficiency test before being able to apply for archery or the multiseason tag, or hell modern for that matter. LOLI like this idea, so long as no one brings up the paper plate mentality. That concept is retarded to me. I've heard to many times "I hit a dinner plate 4 out of 5 times so I'm good" :violent1: great you wounded an animal 1 out of 5 shots in perfect conditions, congrats.
We can discuss mechanicals all day, when the sun sets they are still illegal :twocents:
Post by: tlbradford on August 17, 2009, 10:21:13 AM
Post by: colockumelk on August 17, 2009, 02:15:10 PM
I haven't done enough research, but if the new regs state "no barbs", I think and I have heard that NAP has an expandable that expands from like 1 1/8 to 1 1/2 when open and doesn't barb. :dunno: However from the research that I have done, you can't beat a good fixed blade, cut on contact head. It would be nice to have the 1 1/2 cutting diameter, but the heads I use do the trick and I hit just like my field tips all the way to 80yds. and beyond. ;) No need for anything else IMO.
coldsteel. G5 makes the Stryker magnum which has a 1.5inch diameter cut on contact broadhead. I currently use the normal stryker but next year I am going to make the switch. They weigh 125grains.
Post by: Ray on August 17, 2009, 02:34:19 PM
Earlier Killbilly commented on what was barbed.
Quote
It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with a broadhead blade unless the broadhead is unbarbed and completely closed at the back end of the blade or blades by a smooth, unbroken surface starting at maximum blade width forming a smooth line toward the feather end of the shaft and such line does not angle toward the point.
The NAP BloodRunner appears to be illegal according to my interpretation of the regulations.
Not sure what makes barbed/mechanicals against the law on birds. Maybe that is stated somewhere else more specifically. Since someone else suggested it then they should provide us with the information.
Post by: SpokaneSlayer on August 17, 2009, 02:57:14 PM
It is unlawful to hunt big game animals with
a broadhead blade unless the broadhead
is unbarbed and completely closed at
the back end of the blade or blades by
a smooth, unbroken surface starting at
maximum blade width forming a smooth
line toward the feather end of the shaft and
such line does not angle toward the point.
Post by: adam.WI on August 17, 2009, 02:58:20 PM
Post by: Hillbilly270 on August 17, 2009, 03:20:24 PM
I got my first bow 6 months or so ago and i am confident with a 40yrd shot on level ground, but if i have any kind of incline/decline i probably wouldn't shoot at 40 until i get more practice.
Post by: tlbradford on August 17, 2009, 04:21:07 PM
Post by: Buckrub on August 17, 2009, 08:34:52 PM
there was a kid in cabelas the other day and he was going to get a sight put on his new bow. he just got a bow two weeks ago and he was asking if he would be able to shoot at 70yrds for deer and you all know the season starts in a couple weeks. two weeks of shooting a bow and he is ready for 70yrds. I should of stepped on his bow when he set it down.
I got my first bow 6 months or so ago and i am confident with a 40yrd shot on level ground, but if i have any kind of incline/decline i probably wouldn't shoot at 40 until i get more practice.
My point exactly.... :dunno:
Post by: Ray on August 19, 2009, 03:17:36 PM
He pretty much has been doing research for several years. He has concluded that they often mechanically fail and more often on angled shots. Also he reported that they are generally a inferior product in several aspects.
I am paraphrasing sort of -
One example. One of the common failures is described:
If someone shot one of these mechanicals at an agle at a critter only one of the blades is deployed and the arrow cartwheeled off the animal and left a flesh wound.
End of my version of paraphrasing
He also noted that almost every single mechanical broadhead was damaged beyond repair or subsequent use and did not match up to the competition in regards to being a strong product. He commented that he would not recommend using any mechanical broadhead on any big game animals. In addition to that he had facts which support that the mechanicals do not penetrate nearly as well as a double blade conventional broadhead. He has studies which describe the brands and models used as well as testing scenarios compared side by side with conventional broadheads. In all his tests he concluded (even with a significantly lower poundage bow) the conventional broadheads outperformed their opposition which were using mechanical broadheads and a higher weight bow of somewhere around 20lbs of draw.
I could get back and read that magazine article some more but his reports were pretty much devastating to mechanical broadheads. Undoubtedly some of his previous studies are available on the internet. http://tradgang.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=24
Post by: tlbradford on August 19, 2009, 03:59:15 PM
Post by: Ray on August 19, 2009, 04:57:56 PM
1) A strong broad head. Preferably made of a single piece of sharp cutting metal.
2) Structural Integrity of the arrow from the broad head to the rear of the shaft. He has eye opening reports surrounding the failure points on inserts. He seems to have a justification for the tapered arrow.
3) A lot of weight up front makes sense and just overall weight of the arrow in correlation to the game.
4) A good shot.
Back to the point. I think they are a great tool to have ( his reports ) but that a good solid broad head and arrow combination can get the job done on most deer sized animals. If you are going to take shots at elk and larger sized , big boned game often then it might be a good source of information in order to comprehend performance. His studies are often centered around cutting through hide and penetration of bone as well as shot angles. Including how broad heads rate on penetration into ribs and scapula. I even liked how he talked about the shape of broad heads.
I think they might be the ticket for elk and larger sized critters. Probably not necessary for deer but I have been looking closer at the Silver Flames more than anything. I'm not planning on making any purchases though.
One of the most interesting discoveries is that the multi blade broadheads do not seem to perform as well as the single blade.
He's claiming that hard wood is more durable than carbon on specific tests. E.G. something like Ipe.
Post by: tlbradford on August 19, 2009, 09:08:32 PM
I know he is not a fan of vented blades, but I want a little bit of venting to help prevent planing. He also wants the ferrule to be smooth with no lip, but those silver flames are built like a tank so I'm not worried about that either.
Post by: Hunter Dug on August 22, 2009, 08:19:00 PM
Post by: Hunter Dug on August 22, 2009, 08:30:57 PM
Post by: Ray on August 24, 2009, 02:02:53 PM
Post by: Lowedog on August 24, 2009, 04:45:38 PM
They can make mechanicals legal tomorrow and it wouldn't bother me a bit. Doesn't change anything for me. More people than we know use them in this state and don't even know they are illegal. Just like they don't know about the 6gr per pound of draw arrow weight rule, or just don't care.
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 24, 2009, 04:49:03 PM
All some of you guys want to do is talk about how you are being personally judged. That's just a cockamamy side track of the real discussion. It's weak and nobody has done so. Repeating it is a lie. I can only imagine it is done so you can take your pot shots and justify a poor product. Bottom line. More wounded animals. Maybe you should hunt the animals with steak knives tied on to your arrows for broadheads. Back your favored products with real research and come talking on this subject.
Post by: tlbradford on August 24, 2009, 05:11:41 PM
Post by: Lowedog on August 24, 2009, 05:14:27 PM
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 24, 2009, 07:13:12 PM
Just because you refuse to read the studies doesn't make them not hold water.
This is the equivalent of using field tips on large game especially considering the failure rates in the studies. Read them yourself and educate yourself. This is not traditional versus modern. This is good products which have a proven record versus plain garbage.
Illegal is right. I'll make sure they never become legal as long as I have any word in it too.
Post by: Ray on August 24, 2009, 07:14:29 PM
Quote
Ray, the mechanical broadheads do create a better wound channel in ballistic gel. And we all know that animals are comprised of ballistic gel.
Right. No bones at all.
Post by: Lowedog on August 24, 2009, 08:36:35 PM
It's not a theory. That's where you are wrong. The studies have been published. Almost all of these products from different companies have proven to be brittle, failed to deploy either partially or fully and might as well have the user shooting field tips.
Just because you refuse to read the studies doesn't make them not hold water.
This is the equivalent of using field tips on large game especially considering the failure rates in the studies. Read them yourself and educate yourself. This is not traditional versus modern. This is good products which have a proven record versus plain garbage.
Illegal is right. I'll make sure they never become legal as long as I have any word in it too.
You can find just as much positive literature about them as you can negative probably more. Why are you so passionate about something that is already illegal?
There will be a lot of game hit with non lethal shots from perfectly legal BHs here in WA because so many take to the field not properly prepared. For those that are properly prepared for the shot I don't care what type of BH they use.
As far as traditional vs modern isn't that where you started out? Where do you draw the line?
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 24, 2009, 08:50:05 PM
Absolutely. You get 1000 archers wounding game with poor products and that's a thousand dead deer. I'd bet hands down my products are superior in more ways than one to any gadget prone modern setup. Simplicity is fantastic as well as reliable. I don't need some bow doc to tune my bows and they are capable of penetrating bone, flesh and taking game as well as or better than any modern setup. Since you wanted to touch on homemade bows please educate me on how it is "inferior". These bows can shoot with the proper poundage any wild game in the state. I would not advocate shooting elephants but we do not have any here. Shafts - IPE shafts are considerabley stronger than many modern shafts of aluminum and have proven to be so efficient because they can be made extremely thin yet denser than many modern shafts. Broadheads - You'll never prove that a single piece of non moving steel is inferior to a mechanical broadhead. That's what does not add up. The studies show.
Why am I so intersted in this? Because all it takes is a bunch of ill informed people to propose something to the game department and we got a total screw up.
Lethal shots is not the point. We should use what we know is good. Not what we know is poorly constructed and performs marginally well in specific situatons.
Please point me to all the positive literature where there have been comprehensive studies in favor of these over conventional blades? I have already supplied some sources. You have failed to do so.
Post by: Lowedog on August 24, 2009, 09:32:23 PM
I don't use mechanicals and I don't care to. Others may want to use them and if they can use them in a proficient way then who are you or I or anyone else to say that it is wrong. 1000 archers will still go out and make non lethal hits on animals this season no matter what they have on the end of their arrows because they didn't prepare themselves.
Lethal shots are the point. It doesn't matter what you are using if you aren't taking and making lethal shots.
-Lowedog
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 24, 2009, 11:49:18 PM
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.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi282.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fkk245%2Fstiknstringbow%2Fscan00042.jpg&hash=f10b6be77de781d8cf8d24270266128281905d51)...." 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
Post by: timmyg on August 25, 2009, 06:31:32 AM
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 07:05:18 AM
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 07:18:35 AM
-Lowedog
Post by: boneaddict on August 25, 2009, 07:34:16 AM
Quote
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
NICELY PUT!
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 08:10:20 AM
..."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.
This statement got me wondering.
All things being equal except poundage and arrow weight here is what you would get...
Using an archery program that calculates speed and energy I placed the bows IBO speed at 220fps which I believe is probably close for a recurve.
so this bow set at 45# and a 28" dl would shoot a 400 grain arrow at 128.33 fps with 14.63 ft lbs of energy
Same bow set at 63 lbs and 300 grain arrow would get 197.67 fps and 26.03 ft lbs of energy.
Something to think about...
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 08:13:16 AM
Be careful reading because those studies are opinions just like it's an opinion that Clinton didn't have sexual relations with Lewinsky :tung:
I recommend reading this page - http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/Ashby-On-Arrow-Lethality-Part-4-W23.aspx
Then this one - http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/Ashby-On-Arrow-Lethality-Part-5-W18.aspx
Here are some quotes from other pages in his study.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
Kinetic energy IS applicable for calculating the mechanical efficiency of one’s bow.
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 09:26:30 AM
In order to reach the momentum factors he states in his article with traditional bows a person would have to be drawing an unrealistic poundage.
For example: to push a 740 grain arrow at 160 ft per second using the Martin Venom with an IBO rating of 280fps, with a 28" draw you would have to be pulling 88lbs to reach 161fps with a momentum factor of .529.
So, let's take my Bowtech Guardian with an IBO of 325fps and give it a 28" draw (I shoot 29.5"). It only takes a 70lb draw weight and a 430 grain arrow at 273fps to achieve the same results with a momentum factor of .5219.
Here is some realistic testing for you. feature=related I by no means support this product but I like the testing procedure they use. Shows that you don't need to be throwing a log at an animal to penetrate bones.
Taking the point of view of the person who helped design and the product is named after is hard for me to do. I accept all forms of archery hunting.
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 09:31:49 AM
He has some very specific examples regarding the mechanicals in his latest report. I mentioned this earlier.
Basically a 60lb compound bow shooting a mechanical could not penetrate tissue as well as a longbow at 40lbs shooting a conventional broadhead.
The in depth studies and open reports pretty much speak for themselves. He doesn't work for any of the manufacturers so discrediting him on those accounts will not work. He makes no money from products named after him.
Post by: tlbradford on August 25, 2009, 09:37:52 AM
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 09:43:03 AM
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.
Read the articles by Dr Ashby where he states that it is momentum that equates to penetration. I posted momentum figures on both of my examples.
I can email you guys this archery program. It is very cool. Using it over a chrono with a few different bows has shown it to be very accurate.
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 09:45:16 AM
Post by: robb92 on August 25, 2009, 03:30:21 PM
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 05:31:21 PM
Back to the Energy and Weight Discussion.
This is good reading for those that think speed and lightweight arrows or energy measurements are the main factors to penetration.
Quote
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.
If one fills a 5 gallon plastic pail with sand and fires both a .357 magnum and a heavy hunting arrow at it, the bullet will be stopped by the sand, while the arrow will penetrate the pail completely. The .357 magnum handgun has a 158 grain bullet traveling at 1250 fps, for a momentum of 0.83 slug-feet per second, and a kinetic energy of 520 foot-pounds. A 710 grain arrow at 183 fps has only 0.57 slug-feet per second of momentum, and a mere 52 foot-pounds of kinetic energy.
These are actual combinations I have used to demonstrate the penetration power of a heavy hunting arrow. Our baseball, with 96.5 foot pounds of kinetic energy, and 1.39 slug-feet per second of momentum, will simply bounce off. What makes the difference?
A major factor between the bullet and the arrow is the increased resistance force met by the higher velocity bullet. While the bullet has ten times more kinetic energy, and 37.5% more momentum, than the arrow, its almost seven times higher velocity causes the bullet to be met by nearly fifty times as great a resistance force as that encountered by the arrow!
Another major factor between the handgun’s bullet and the arrow (yes, we will get to the baseball shortly) is the longer time period of the arrow’s impulse; which results from its higher mass. Though the arrow is traveling much slower than the bullet, and has less momentum than the bullet, it derives a greater percentage of the momentum it does possess from its mass. It is ‘heavier’.
The heavier (and lower velocity) arrow “decelerates” more slowly than the bullet or, if one prefers, it has a longer time period over which the force acts. Remember? Force multiplied by the time it acts equals the impulse. The heavier arrow retains a higher percentage of its force for a longer period of time than does the bullet. The bullet’s total net disposable force, though very high relative to the arrow, is entirely dissipated in milliseconds.
Quote
Formulas:
Momentum = Mass x Velocity
225218
In other words, momentum equals the arrow’s mass, measured in grains, multiplied by the arrow’s velocity, expressed in feet per second, and then divided by 225218. The resultant answer will be expressed in slug-feet per second.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 25, 2009, 06:13:10 PM
Quote
That's great. Let me know when you can shoot a moose and how it performs.
better yet how about an Elk!!! They work on deer but.... If you shoot a deer through the heart with anything it will die
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 08:40:58 PM
QuoteThat's great. Let me know when you can shoot a moose and how it performs.
better yet how about an Elk!!! They work on deer but.... If you shoot a deer through the heart with anything it will die
Wouldn't that apply to an elk also? ;)
-Lowedog
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 09:05:19 PM
That's great. Let me know when you can shoot a moose and how it performs.
Back to the Energy and Weight Discussion.
This is good reading for those that think speed and lightweight arrows or energy measurements are the main factors to penetration.QuoteKinetic 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.
If one fills a 5 gallon plastic pail with sand and fires both a .357 magnum and a heavy hunting arrow at it, the bullet will be stopped by the sand, while the arrow will penetrate the pail completely. The .357 magnum handgun has a 158 grain bullet traveling at 1250 fps, for a momentum of 0.83 slug-feet per second, and a kinetic energy of 520 foot-pounds. A 710 grain arrow at 183 fps has only 0.57 slug-feet per second of momentum, and a mere 52 foot-pounds of kinetic energy.
These are actual combinations I have used to demonstrate the penetration power of a heavy hunting arrow. Our baseball, with 96.5 foot pounds of kinetic energy, and 1.39 slug-feet per second of momentum, will simply bounce off. What makes the difference?
A major factor between the bullet and the arrow is the increased resistance force met by the higher velocity bullet. While the bullet has ten times more kinetic energy, and 37.5% more momentum, than the arrow, its almost seven times higher velocity causes the bullet to be met by nearly fifty times as great a resistance force as that encountered by the arrow!
Another major factor between the handgun’s bullet and the arrow (yes, we will get to the baseball shortly) is the longer time period of the arrow’s impulse; which results from its higher mass. Though the arrow is traveling much slower than the bullet, and has less momentum than the bullet, it derives a greater percentage of the momentum it does possess from its mass. It is ‘heavier’.
The heavier (and lower velocity) arrow “decelerates” more slowly than the bullet or, if one prefers, it has a longer time period over which the force acts. Remember? Force multiplied by the time it acts equals the impulse. The heavier arrow retains a higher percentage of its force for a longer period of time than does the bullet. The bullet’s total net disposable force, though very high relative to the arrow, is entirely dissipated in milliseconds.QuoteFormulas:
Momentum = Mass x Velocity
225218
In other words, momentum equals the arrow’s mass, measured in grains, multiplied by the arrow’s velocity, expressed in feet per second, and then divided by 225218. The resultant answer will be expressed in slug-feet per second.
Apples to oranges. Big difference between comparing a bullet fired into sand vs an arrow, than 2 arrows with no difference between them other than what is attached to the end of them.
What would you rather have in your hands with a grizzly charging, your long bow and an 800 grain arrow or a Smith & Wesson 500? :yike:
I gave slug feet per second numbers in my examples before. Simple fact is a traditional bow of reasonable poundage can not out perform a modern compound no matter how heavy an arrow you want to shoot.
With that said, I love traditional bows. I have built a few of my own. I might go out one day with my compound and the next with my recurve.
The only reason I responded on this thread was to say that to each his own. If a guy wants to have the latest most high tech set up so be it. Hunt with what you are happy with and let the next guy do the same.
Now, to Ray who said that a 45 lb longbow shooting fixed will out penetrate a 60lb compound with mechanicals, I would love to put that theory to a test. You send me the broadheads and I will do the testing and post up results. :) I have both bows at those draw weights...
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 09:22:42 PM
Quote
Now, to Ray who said that a 45 lb longbow shooting fixed will out penetrate a 60lb compound with mechanicalsI didn't say it. Ashby did. And it wasn't a 45lb bow. If I recall it was a 40lb vs 60lb. I can dig the report out of my garbage if necessary. Remember it's not about the bow it's all about the arrow and broadhead combined with momentum and impact. The comparison is distracting and I agree with that. I guess if you want to call him innacurate go ahead. His test is there for you to challenge. He has been doing them for many years and has some credibility. Don't take objection to me if you don't agree with it. Go do your own test and prove it wrong. Then publish your materials for all to see. He's not making money off his studies and has published his work for criticism openly.
A number of things which you hit on were not even representative of what was discussed and are somewhat incorrect. First - when did someone say that a traditional longbow would outperform a compound bow? It's a multi faceted series of variables. More than the bow. Please show me this. I'd probably choose a handgun over a bow when confronted with dangerous animals too but that wasn't the point. The point was understanding the laws of penetration and what factors are involved. What was stated by you earlier I did not even respond to because it was also unclear and not on target regarding the formulas. I think you have chosen to take several things out of context for the sake of your argument and apply them but forget about the other important factors. Which can be construed as an attempt to make someone else's response a lie or false. I am not offended by it. I am used to it when someone feels on the losing end of a debate. A lot of things which you speak to I am not debating. Other than mechanical broadheads will never be stronger than a single piece of steel and to this date they are proven to be inferior in many tests and that there is just reason for them being illegal. That's what you don't like or want to agree with openly but it's not my problem. You have also implied I was insulting about things which I did not say. I have read what you wrote and do respect your point of view.
Quote
Simple fact is a traditional bow of reasonable poundage can not out perform a modern compound no matter how heavy an arrow you want to shoot.
I could pick this apart but I think I know what you wanted to say. So are you saying a 45 lb compound bow would outperform a 65 lb longbow? Think about it. Again I think I know what you wanted to say. Maybe of equal poundage or something. But remember it's not about the bow. The arrow and broadhead will be factors. Including weight, arrow choice and momentum.
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 10:41:08 PM
My statement that a traditional bow of reasonable draw weight can not out perform a modern compound was simply that. I guess if you want me to be more specific lets just use IBO figures.
Give the compound an IBO speed of 325fps which is fairly moderate for todays bows and here are the numbers-
K/E = 82.11 ft lb
Slug-ft/sec = .505
The only stated IBO speed rating for a longbow I could find is for the Martin Venom at 280fps-
K/E = 60.95 ft lb
Slug-ft/sec = .435
All of this is just to show that there are many ways to get the same results in the end. One way is no better than the other in my opinion.
Hell, if you want to argue then the argument could be made that a person who feels that by using what they think is a superior product could lead them to be more likely to take marginal shots at game.
Another argument could be made that by using what is being considered an inferior product here in a mechanical that the person using it with the most modern compound set up is far more accurate at a far greater range and can place that BH with pinpoint accuracy thus eliminating the marginal shot and delivering the arrow into the vitals where it will do its job.
That is if a person wanted to argue.
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 10:45:19 PM
Quote
Another argument could be made that by using what is being considered an inferior product here in a mechanical that the person using it with the most modern compound set up is far more accurate at a far greater range and can place that BH with pinpoint accuracy thus eliminating the marginal shot and delivering the arrow into the vitals where it will do its job.
Is a compound bow more accurate or the person behind the bow? I have seen guys who could not hit the broad side of a barn at 30 yards.
You can't hit vitals if your arrow does not penetrate far enough. With mechanicals your chances for sustaining integrity of the broadhead are lower and the penetration may be great if they expand and work under their needed circumstances. Otherwise if they do not maintain their structural integrity they will surely not perform nearly as well as desired. They have a long way to go when it comes to comparing them to other broadheads. Studies show why they are illegal.
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 10:48:07 PM
Quote
My statement that a traditional bow of reasonable draw weight can not out perform a modern compound was simply that.
It's the broadhead, arrow and the momentum. Not the bow. The bow only produces the momentum. It does not produce the arrow or the broadhead.
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 11:02:17 PM
Quote
Give the compound an IBO speed of 325fps which is fairly moderate for todays bows and here are the numbers-
K/E = 82.11 ft lb
Slug-ft/sec = .505
The only stated IBO speed rating for a longbow I could find is for the Martin Venom at 280fps-
K/E = 60.95 ft lb
Slug-ft/sec = .435
How could you calculate the slug-ft if there was no arrow weight? This is the sort of thing I have been ignoring from you earlier.
You'll have a hard time proving your thought process like that.
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 11:09:32 PM
QuoteFirst - when did someone say that a traditional longbow would outperform a compound bow? It's a multi faceted series of variables. More than the bow. Please show me this.I'd bet hands down my products are superior in more ways than one to any gadget prone modern setup. Simplicity is fantastic as well as reliable. I don't need some bow doc to tune my bows and they are capable of penetrating bone, flesh and taking game as well as or better than any modern setup.
I guess you didn't exactly say "out perform". That is what I thought was implied there. My Bad. :dunno:QuoteSimple fact is a traditional bow of reasonable poundage can not out perform a modern compound no matter how heavy an arrow you want to shoot.
I could pick this apart but I think I know what you wanted to say. So are you saying a 45 lb compound bow would outperform a 65 lb longbow? Think about it. Again I think I know what you wanted to say. Maybe of equal poundage or something. But remember it's not about the bow. The arrow and broadhead will be factors. Including weight, arrow choice and momentum.
So again to go to the numbers for arguments sake.
Let's go with one of the most modern compounds in the Mathews monster with an IBO speed rating of 360fps and set it to 45lbs with a 28" draw and a 350 grain arrow which would be realistic to hunt with. Here are the numbers-
290fps
65.38 ft lb K/E
.45 Slug-ft/sec
Back to the Martin Venom and lets give it the same 28" draw at 65lbs with a 650 grain arrow which would be pretty representative of what some one might hunt with. Numbers-
150fps
32.48 ft lb K/E
.4329 Slug-ft/sec
So yeah I guess a 45 lb compound will out perform a 65lb longbow.
-Lowedog
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 11:11:55 PM
Quote
So yeah I guess a 45 lb compound will out perform a 65lb longbow.
It can. But it might not if someone chose a heavier or different arrow and better broadhead.
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 11:13:02 PM
QuoteGive the compound an IBO speed of 325fps which is fairly moderate for todays bows and here are the numbers-
K/E = 82.11 ft lb
Slug-ft/sec = .505
The only stated IBO speed rating for a longbow I could find is for the Martin Venom at 280fps-
K/E = 60.95 ft lb
Slug-ft/sec = .435
How could you calculate the slug-ft if there was no arrow weight? This is the sort of thing I have been ignoring from you earlier.
You'll have a hard time proving your thought process like that.
IBO rating = 70lb draw weight, 30" draw and a 350gr arrow.
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 11:14:38 PM
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 11:21:34 PM
QuoteSo yeah I guess a 45 lb compound will out perform a 65lb longbow.
It can. But it might not if someone chose a heavier or different arrow and better broadhead.
Going heavier with an arrow at that draw weight and draw length just makes the numbers worse.
Add 200grs and the K/E drops to 13.1 with .314 slug-ft/sec at a dismal 83 fps. The animal might just run off before the arrow gets there. :chuckle:
Actually contrary to the heavier is better theory a 550 grain arrow would be the best set up and get you closest to what the compounds numbers are.
183fps
41 ft lb K/E
.447 slug ft/sec
Offer still stands to email you this program. It is a great tool!
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 11:22:27 PM
You actually have not proven what you wanted.
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 11:25:31 PM
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 11:31:12 PM
The important thing to remember is that this is about broadhead performance. Although you may find it a interesting for the sake of a small point that I was not necessarily trying to debate. The point is not to prove a compound bow is a good performer when we are comparing and discussing broadheads and their ability to perform. If you are going to propose that people use mechanicals on large game then do some testing on elk and moose. Real testing. Not mathematics.
You actually have not proven what you wanted.
I really didn't want to prove anything. Just that what someone else uses as long as they can use it proficiently is no business of mine.
I am not proposing that WDFW make mechanicals legal. I just am saying if they do it won't bother me if someone else wants to use them.
There is a bunch of testing you can find all over the net for all kinds of BH's. From shooting though steel barrels to actual deer bone inside of ballistic gelatin. Bowsite has some pretty good tests they do on just about every BH out there.
Anyway, to each there own.
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 11:32:02 PM
Post by: EastWaViking on August 25, 2009, 11:36:29 PM
a 3 pack of Grim Reapers is probably not a good stocking stuffer idea for Ray this year. ;)
Post by: Lowedog on August 25, 2009, 11:38:10 PM
So is it ok for me to shoot blunts or field tips at deer or what? I can be proficient.
You do what you want Ray, or maybe you should ask the all knowing Ashby that question.
You seem to want to quote numbers and such from Ashby but when presented with actual numbers that prove your theory wrong you want to blow it off.
You just keep going on about your closed minded ways...that is the only way that will be acceptable to you
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 25, 2009, 11:44:04 PM
Post by: Lowedog on August 26, 2009, 12:00:28 AM
It's not my theory. You have only scratched the surface on the studies. You have only crunched numbers and have not comprehended many parts of his reports. I think you are a smart guy but your close mindedness has not permitted you to dive in and read them yourself and then come back with an intelligent response which adds up to good broadhead reporting.
It's not your theory but it is the theory you are going to live by and refuse to be open to any other type of thinking.
I did read his theory on what it takes to penetrate game. Great theory but he also quotes numbers and his guideline numbers for heaving heavy arrows that takes very high poundage longbows to do so are easily equaled and surpassed with modern equipment and much lighter arrows and broadheads.
Now what type of intelligent BH reporting have you put out? That mechanicals are not worthy to hunt with? That is your opinion, well I guess it's Dr. Ashby's but whatever, his opinion is yours I guess. You would find many people across the country that would argue that point. If you want to find testing that might give you an opposing view other than your own/Ashby's then you can easily find it by doing a search. Ashby has already made up your mind for you though so why bother.
-Lowedog
Post by: Ray on August 26, 2009, 12:06:03 AM
Quote
It's not your theory but it is the theory you are going to live by and refuse to be open to any other type of thinking.
Completely untrue. I would love to read more reports. You just have not produced anything but hot air. Honestly would like to see more of these sort of reports from anyone. As long as they are well put together like his. I have said this before.
The rest is not worth responding to.
Post by: Lowedog on August 26, 2009, 12:10:13 AM
Post by: Ray on August 26, 2009, 12:12:21 AM
Post by: tlbradford on August 26, 2009, 09:03:07 AM
I am going to try to break down physics in the easiest possible manner for everyone reading this. (That may only be me, you, and Ray at this point)
Momentum = Mass*Velocity. Momentum is what determines penetration. For our arrow weight test Mass is a constant. So what are the variables that can effect Velocity? That is how you have to think about this problem. Friction increases as the broadhead penetrates the target. Friction will slow a smaller mass more quickly than a larger mass. What increases friction? The number of blades, the type of point, the cutting surface area, the drag of the arrow shaft, the type of material the shaft and head is made of. What else will have an effect on the forward motion of the arrow? Any mechanical process that is needed to open blades. Try jumping straight up in the air as high as you can go. You throw your arms straight up in the air to help keep your momentum in a straight line. Now straight up in the air while throwing your arms out to the side. Did you jump as high?
Ashby didn't come up with this stuff on his own in 1997. The mathmatical theories behind his studies have been around for hundreds of years. All he did was take physics and relate it to arrow penetration.
What are some of the advantages of mechanical broadheads? One of them is they can offer better flight characteristics and stabilize the arrow more quickly. This will keep the momentum of the arrow in a straight line and will give it better penetrating power than an arrow that wobbles. Stable arrow flight is one of the top factors for penetration.
I don't need to present any scientific data to prove that a single fixed piece of steel has greater structural integrity than something with moving parts. If your common sense can't figure that out, than it isn't worth trying to convince you otherwise.
In any type of hunting you are trying to inflict fatal damage to an animal. With bullets that can be a transfer of energy that ruptures cells and damages organs due to the impact of a bullet. In bowhunting, maximum penetration is king, since this will cut through the maximum amount of tissue. Kinetic Energy should not be used to determine killing power when talking about bowhunting.
If you want to really delve into the math behind this, study this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum) Pay particular attention to linear momentum. Then study up on friction which will help you better understand what forces act upon an arrow in flight (air drag) and as an arrow enters into a target. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction)
The only advantage to hunting with lighter arrows is a flatter trajectory and the amount of time spent in the air before it reaches an animal. Period. A heavier arrow, with all of factors being the same, will penetrate better out of a bow that shoots 300fps than a bow that shoots that same arrow at 290fps, regardless of the type of bow.
I appreciate your openmindedness to all forms of bowhunting, but you are using a program that gives you bad information in regards to arrow penetration.
As far as testing studies. Every "independant" study I have read has shown that mechanical broadheads fail at a higher rate than fixed. I can find numerous studies that are backed by manufacturers that state otherwise but those aren't exactly unbiased.
Post by: Ray on August 26, 2009, 09:13:08 AM
Post by: EastWaViking on August 26, 2009, 09:17:34 AM
Post by: Lowedog on August 26, 2009, 01:09:36 PM
the bottom line is this: Mechanical broadheads are illegal in WA, and if your bow is tuned right, there is no need for them anyways.
True dat!
I don't know how this got into such a big argument with Ray and maybe others thinking that I was a proponent of mechanicals because I am not. I am neither for nor against them. I simply was trying to state that arguments can and have been made that they can be very lethal on big game. I never once said that they are in anyway better than a fixed of any sort. The example numbers that I put out are just that.
Any point that I was trying to make about heavy vs light is that a fast modern compound can shoot a lighter arrow and produce the same type of momentum and energy figures as a much slower traditional bow that is shooting a very heavy arrow.
Its completely obvious that a faster bow shooting the same weight arrow BH combination will penetrate better than the slower bow. That wasn't my point at all.
I am in complete agreement that a fixed blade is stronger and tougher than a mechanical. I just don't have the opinion that all mechanicals are garbage and have no place in the archery hunting world.
-Lowedog
Post by: Lowedog on August 26, 2009, 01:28:57 PM
Lowedog...Your program is flawed in regards to arrow penetration. At least from the numbers you have posted here. From what it looks like, someone took a ballistic calculator used for cartridges and converted it to arrows. Please email it to me when you get a chance or upload as an attachment to your post and I will play with it.
Just emailed that program to you. I tested the program against the numbers that Dr. Ashby used for the 710 grain arrow shot into the bucket of sand example and the program gave the exact numbers.
Mess around with it and see what you think. It takes into consideration a bows IBO speed rating and calculates what you would get with variances from IBO in regards to draw length, draw weight and arrow weight. I have tested it over a chrono with a couple of my bows and it has been spot on.
-Lowedog
Post by: Buckrub on August 27, 2009, 10:05:52 AM
Throw out the legality issue because they are illegal in Washington.
My question is what are they trying to accomplish with this law??? Barbed? Are they trying to be humane with a barbed rule for a non lethal shot placement? Image? Do they think a non barbed broadhead will fall out of a non lethal shot?? Mechanical Failure??
What is the thinking behind this law?
And NO! I haven't spent the time digging into all the aspects or studies... I use what is legal and that's it.
I'll leave the hours of research up to you guys while I go chase elk around.
Post by: Ray on August 27, 2009, 10:31:09 AM
Quote
My question is what are they trying to accomplish with this law??? Barbed? Are they trying to be humane with a barbed rule for a non lethal shot placement? Image? Do they think a non barbed broadhead will fall out of a non lethal shot?? Mechanical Failure??
What is the thinking behind this law?
It's all been covered in this topic. You don't need to come to page 11 and ask. :chuckle:
Post by: Lowedog on August 27, 2009, 11:51:37 AM
-Lowedog
Post by: tlbradford on August 27, 2009, 11:54:24 AM
Post by: Buckrub on August 27, 2009, 01:02:58 PM
QuoteMy question is what are they trying to accomplish with this law??? Barbed? Are they trying to be humane with a barbed rule for a non lethal shot placement? Image? Do they think a non barbed broadhead will fall out of a non lethal shot?? Mechanical Failure??
What is the thinking behind this law?
It's all been covered in this topic. You don't need to come to page 11 and ask. :chuckle:
"It is nothing to do with efficiency... it is described here and on page 62 of the regulations. The purpose is to use a blade that can come out or be pulled out by the animal if it is not found or does not die. Any shape that would keep an arrow embedded in the animal is considered to be inhumane. A broadhead that remains in an animal if not harvested causes infection, growths, sometimes loss of life later on.
It is not about technology or efficiency. See the highlighted portion of the text below, that is what makes mechanicals non compliant."
danng...I thought we were supposed to take risky shots so the planted wolves could feed the pack.
Wouldn't hoof rot be considered inhumane???
Post by: Ray on August 27, 2009, 04:00:32 PM
Page 1 of this very topic.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,31388.msg372067.html#msg372067
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on August 28, 2009, 01:28:32 AM