bow_hunter44

I know, it is hard to understand.My hunting partner (who witnessed the whole thing) and Ihave speculated, replayed the event, speculated some more, for years and years.After the shot the arrow was visble dangling (the best descriptor I can come up with) from the elk.The spot from which it dangled would have been a dandy point of entry, but nooooo. The best we could come up with was deflection of the arrowdue to angle of impact.Which gets back to the momentum argument. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, in a straight line, unless acted upon by an outside force. The more momentum, the more difficult it is to getthe moving object to stray from its course in a straight line.

bow_hunter44

First, knowing is a difficult proposition indeed. However, the laws of physics are are the side of better penetration in that situation with greater mass of arrow.

Second, taking a shot like that is ill advised. I'm well aware of that. However, in the heat of the moment *^@! happens. It is not an excuse, but it does. Prior to that experience I had taken a LOT of critters. Not a lot with a bow, but some. However, I was no stranger to harvesting an animal. So where this story goes is to the idea that when it comes to putting it all together sucessufully with a bow, there is no substitute for experience. The price of that experience, at least in my case,was an expensive one. The thought struck me today - how would I, or evencould I, teach that lesson? Given the opportuniity Ido with passion. Teaching lessons learned by experience are difficult in the extreme. However, the pointremains that there is no substitute for expereince.Those thoughts made me sway my opinion somewhatrelative to regulations. I am not a big fan of being told what to think or how to behave.On the other hand, given that in the process of gaining experience @*#^ happens, and that teaching experience is more than difficult, Igoing to have to side with Arthur on supporting a minimum weight requirement on arrows. Arthur, where are you when you are needed!!!

davepjr71

Even on deflection the size of the mass, and larger momentum, does not matter. People used to think that all the time with big heavy bullets in PA and were and are wrong. They though the bigger bullets busted thru brush better to get to a deer. Tests have been done that dismiss that age old rumor. A poor shot is a poor shot no matter the size of the arrow. It really sounds like you are trying to make yourself feel better by using physics and momentum as your out.
You relate the situation to physics because you teach it. That's understandable. However, as a physics teacher you should also realize that there are numerous variables that should be considered in a real world scenario. And to placate yourself on one equation isn't going to fix the fact that you took a poor shot on an animal that even a heavier arrow might not of fixed.

davepjr71

LikeI said.I could list anything and you are going to have some reason why my test was crap. Therefore, it's not even worth discussing what mediumI used. I've shot at 2 different medium and the result was the same.

Also, it sounds like you are saying that your lighter arrow penetrated better than the heavier one. Doesn't that disprove the theory that the arrow with higher momentum penetrates better?

Hmmmm ,makes you think.

Arthur P

I've been sitting here all kicked back and enjoying a little break from the action. Pretty much noting how this discussion has followed the exact path of all other KE vs Momentum threads that have come before. Always before the pattern has been:

Somebody shoots a skinny, light carbon arrow into a piece of foam and then a heavier fat shaft aluminum arrow into the same foam, without retuning the bow for it, measures an inch better penetration with the little carbon and then pounds his chest and proclaims "I told you so." Dissimilar arrow diameters, dissimilar arrow materials, dissimilar surface texture, dissimilar ballistic coefficients.... Too many variables to even list. "I know I'm right because I spent 10 minutes in the back yard proving it." Scientific method be damned!

At the same time, the guy who DOES subscribe to scientific method, who spends years conducting in-depth, long termarrow lethality research on the toughest big game animals in the world,is dismissed as a fraud because his bows don't shoot 300 fps.

No sir. There comes a time when you have to let it go.

Straightarrow

Arthur, show me the bow that does shoot 300 fps - with an 800 gr arrow.

davepjr71

I forgot. You are the godfather of archery and only your tests matter. Sorry.

By the way.I shot into moremedia than just one and posted my results.Please post any test results that you have conducted. You've pretty much given my reason why more than momentum matters. There are too many variables. Furthermore, I don't remember there being a specific scientific criteria when this thread started. Just that the heavier arrow will out penetrate because of momentum. I subscribe to the scientif method that you have to take every variable into account. Not just one. In my case the 391 gr arrow out penetrated the 520 gr on 2 different media. I'll shoot it into every media you want and I bet the results are the same.

Why would I need to use a 800 gr arrow?

bow_hunter44

OMG! Newtonian physics has suffered another staggering blow! First the observations at the atomic level that lead to quantum physics, and not this!!

davepjr71

Wow, what a great insult. You really hurt my feelings. boo hoo hoo. I state that you have to take all variables into account and this was your reply? Listen, you took a terrible shot at an animal. Wounded it and now are trying to fall back on if your arrow was only heavier it wouldn't have happened as some sort of vindication.


Now my turn. What is the current state of Math and Science at the High School level in the United States. Basically in the toilet.

BobCo19-65

I'm pretty sure he was referring to Dr. Ashby's tests.