R2MemberFebruary 18, 2017 at 7:49 amPost count: 2292
I don’t wish to argue or dispute the point but I have a whole bunch of found arrowheads that are double bevel, only one or two that are single bevel.’
Did I find the rejects? :-))
Ed AshbyMemberFebruary 18, 2017 at 1:11 pmPost count: 808
What we think we see and what is actually there are often different. You should find the following research papers of interest.
http://www.academia.edu/14516831/How_atlatl_darts_behave_beveled_points_and_the_relevance_of_controlled_experiments (once you go to this link you’ll have to request permission to access the document but it’s well worth the trouble)
R2MemberFebruary 18, 2017 at 4:57 pmPost count: 2292
So did they start using single bevel with the trade points or did they start when they learned how to put buttons on their shirts?
I’m sorry but that picture is posed for the photographer as many were in that day in my opinion.
Research or not, the flint and obsidian arrowhead that I have found and the ones that I’ve made copying their design are double bevel. I have two that are of a granite type stone that are single bevel and I can understand why…they’re “real” rock.
What they used when trade points came about? I imagine what was easiest for the metal workers/blacksmith folk to produce.
What I get hands on is mostly more believable than what is pictured or often published.
Not saying ugly about anyone but there are those of us that have some common and mechanical sense also. Just because it is written or photographed doesn’t always make it so.
If I offend I’m sorry but there are those of us that have been around also.
A note… what’s so new and wonderful about single bevel when Grizzly broadheads have been around forever. They even worked just fine when being of the so called “wrong bevel”…
Ed AshbyMemberFebruary 18, 2017 at 5:16 pmPost count: 808
R2, no disrespect intended but it’s clear you did not read any of the articles, all of which were produced by the recognized scientific community; that community folks always tell me is the only ‘scientific’ research that they will recognize. The questions you asked are all answered there. There you will also find explained that what appear to be a ‘double bevel’ stone points really are not, and why. The technique is found on stone points world-wide, and substantially pre-dates the American Indians.
Truly, there is nothing new about single-bevel points. We ‘moderns’ just forgot what our ‘primative’ ansestors knew long. long ago.
R2MemberFebruary 18, 2017 at 5:52 pmPost count: 2292
Granted a stone knapped point is a series of single bevels from the knap on one side, the other side on the next knap and so on. It’s still not flat on one side. It’s a series of multi single bevels, one side, then the other.
I’m sorry if I’m an unlearned person that doesn’t have a degree and actually think a lot of scientific opinions are , as it turns out, to be the opinion of one person.
And I’m also amazed that we create such a difficulty in enjoying archery, making a simple thing so damned hard. I hate complicating simplicity.
The whole point of the matter is that it ain’t the arrows, it ain’t the bows, it ain’t the equipment, it’s the person using it.
I work on my putting the arrow where it needs to be, not focusing my life on what if’s.
I’ve shot a lot of bows, a lot of arrows, a lot of points, by no means as many animals as some, in my almost 60 years of archery and I’ve found that with a reasonable poundage bow, a reasonable weighted arrow to match the bow, all tuned with a sharp broadhead, all works great.
I guess that’s not scientific but so be it.
And I’m still thinking that was not an appropriate picture to be proving anything about primitive people and their arrow points. Those are trade points pictured and the Native Americans had no clue about buttons on shirts.
I believe people doing using what suits them but I also think that the option ought to presented here that what has worked and fed the human race for eons be on equal terms.
I also believe that things work.
Dr. Ed you promote single bevel. I promote any will work great. If an arrow goes through and animals vitals it has done the job no matter how many bevels.
So it works for you, scientifically my way works for me unscientifically.
Good day sir and I’ll be perfectly happy with the venison I’ve eaten that came from time proven equipment that I’ve been happy with for many, many years.
It’s a simple thing complicated by science.
R2MemberFebruary 19, 2017 at 8:04 amPost count: 2292
Happy trails to you also D. Ed….
I respect the work you’ve done and your input.
Our mutual friend David L told me you’ve been a bit under the weather so best wishes with that.
As with our mutual friend, he and I have agreed to disagree but we do it with respect. We do listen to each other. That’s the first part of coming to an agreement. Listen and you shall hear whether you agree or not. I hear what you say. A lot I agree with, some not. But I listen.
I respect your opinions.
Have good day sir and I’ll continue down my path of huntin, stumpin and shootin as long as life allows.
raymond coffmanMemberMarch 5, 2017 at 7:43 amPost count: 551
Interesting info. Followed your investigations into arrow lethality since the first publications of The Natal Study. Thanks for all the work and the education.
I thought this forum was for friends of FOC not enemies there of. The main reason it has its own forum.
R2MemberMarch 5, 2017 at 9:16 amPost count: 2292
Just like today’s press. On sided view.
I don’t like turnips but that don’t make me an enemy of turnips, just got not use for’em and the 2nd amendment gives the right to say so.
raymond coffmanMemberMarch 5, 2017 at 3:19 pmPost count: 551
If you have “no use for them” does not seem to show friendship ?
The argument is on that forum , which was my point.
As I recall this forum was placed here for people who wanted to discuss the benefits of the Ashby studies. When this issue showed up elsewhere in the past, it seemed to develop into endless argument from people who had no use for it. Those of us interested in the continued exploration of foc/ single bevel development, where hoping for a little breathing room for said discussion. IMHO
R2MemberMarch 5, 2017 at 4:12 pmPost count: 2292
Nuff of this……………..
I guess if folks want to look at one side of a story, not care to hear another side there’s better places for me to be.
Would be only right to have a “It’s seems unnecessary to be FOC and single bevel minded when tried and true methods have worked for eons” forum. Especially when I put a piece of heavy metal on one end and a little piece of plastic on the other I have FOC. But hat ain’t gonna happen….
I never had any ill will towards a turnip but that don’t mean I have to like it.
I can be friendly to what I don’t like. If’n you wanna be friends with a turnip, be a friend by all means.
PtaylorMemberMarch 29, 2017 at 7:50 amPost count: 528
I think as long as folks arguments have substance (and not just trying to stir a hornets nest), then debate is good. Yes, this forum is for the support of FOC and other of Dr. Ashby’s findings. But we shouldn’t keep sound arguments for not using “Ashby” related equipment. For example, I cannot for the life of me get single bevel broadheads as sharp as double bevel. I can make a double bevel blade pop hairs, but not singles. So I have switched back to double bevel. Sharp broadheads are more important to me than dull-single bevel.
I think we should allow healthy debates, but keep in mind the Dr. has tested more arrows and killed more animals than a lot of us put together.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.