- jaytbuzzardMemberSeptember 10, 2016 at 10:35 pmPost count: 80
Has anyone tried the arrows from PSE? They have a full length insert with a 19.7 gpi. I’m curious about the total and the concern for FOC. I would think it would take a very heavy broadhead to get a decent FOC. It’s just something I was thinking about.
- jaytbuzzardMemberSeptember 11, 2016 at 12:21 amPost count: 80
Guys, I think I found my own answer. I have been reading the Friends of FOC post and see that it would be almost impossible to get a decent FOC. Now I’m wondering who on earth would use these shafts and what are they trying to accomplish.
- smiley1MemberSeptember 11, 2016 at 12:50 amPost count: 90
Don’t know anything about those PSE shafts but I would assume they are Dangerous Game shafts. Easton makes a Full Metal Jacket Dangerous Game Shaft of about the same gpi. I usually look for the lightest gpi to make a UEFOC arrow. This year I’m shooting small diameter Victory RIP Extreme Velocity shafts with 300 gr Tuffheads. Steve
- Stephen GrafMemberSeptember 11, 2016 at 11:39 amPost count: 2127
While EFOC is best for penetration, a heavy arrow of normal foc is a close runner up.
Knowing how I like to muddy the waters, I’ll add a little mud now….
I have found that while EFOC arrows fly like darts, they don’t necessarily fly like arrows. What’s the difference you ask?
No matter how bad my release is, or how much torque I put on the grip, the EFOC arrow will fly straight. But straight where? Sometimes they go in very unexpected directions.
In short, their beautiful flight has the ability to mask problems, which makes it hard to solve them.
Why? I don’t know. But I will make an observation that might have something to do with it: As the mass of the arrow gets concentrated farther and farther forward, the paradox nodes must get much closer together and moved forward too.
In the extreme (where 100% of the mass is in the point, and the arrow is massless) the nodes would become one and would be way forward.
If you are unfamiliar with the nodes I speak of, google “easton tuning guide” and read it.
Easton says the direction an arrow travels in can be determined by drawing a line through the nodes. Just like looking down the sights of a gun. Continuing this analogy, long guns are easier to aim than pistols. Why? a large part of the reason is that the front sight and the back sight are much farther apart. The farther apart they are, the less error in aiming.
I wonder if the same principle doesn’t apply to arrows? The farther apart the nodes, the more stable the direction of flight as the arrow leaves the bow?
Just wondering out loud what it all means. It would be interesting to find out why, having the full knowledge of efoc available, guys like Byron Ferguson don’t shoot them.
There is no doubt that EFOC arrows fly farther and hit harder than normal FOC arrows. But do they shoot as accurately and as forgivingly as 15% EFOC arrows?
It would be interesting to see a study on that.
- smiley1MemberSeptember 11, 2016 at 2:13 pmPost count: 90
Interesting thoughts Steve. I’ve pondered the same question about extremely accurate archers such as Byron Ferguson. It would stand to reason that Byron is trying to achieve the most accurate shot possible not the best penetrating arrow. So when viewed from that aspect a normal FOC arrow may very well be more accurate. Let’s also remember that Byron is one of the best shots in the world. Would FOC adjustments make that much of a difference for the average archer at 20 yards and under distances? Also, what is the average FOC for Olympic archers? I realize Olympic archery and bow hunting are not the same but I’m mainly talking about accuracy.
- jpcarlsonMemberSeptember 11, 2016 at 2:43 pmPost count: 218
Very interesting line of thought on this topic. I hope others with more insight and experience (just a couple who come to mind; Dr Ashby, Troy Breeding, etc) will tune in and share their thoughts and knowledge on this one.
I learned to build and tune FOC arrows 4 years ago and haven’t looked back.
I will share my findings and experience briefly to help the conversation along.
We all know within these circles, that FOC Mass pays more gains in arrow flight and penetration than speed. Dr Ashby’s research has shown us how and why, especially when the arrow meets resistance in the form of bone and soft tissues. The research also shows how having the high mass on the front end of the arrow literally “pulls” the arrow through the resistance medium.
I think some keys points of FOC arrows to remember are as follows;
They recover from paradox faster than a non FOC arrow, allowing more energy to be conserved to pull the arrow in a straight line towards the target.
This aids in less to no oscillation as the arrow enters an animal, again conserving energy and making the arrow more efficient as it is “drawn” through the hole it creates. The arrow/broadhead has an easier time passing through the animal and whatever resistance it meets.
FOC arrows are quieter, they absorb more energy from the bow and convert it to down range momentum.
FOC arrows are quieter due to requiring smaller A&A fletching to control them in flight.
FOC is more stable in flight when encountering cross wind, hitting grass or twigs due to the majority of the mass “drawing” it forward while not oscillating.
FOC arrows are more forgiving of poor form. Once you point that mass at an object, the mass is drawing it to your point of aim.
Dr Ashby’s YEARS of documented research have proven these facts. An arrow is way more efficient when being drawn to the target rather than pushed. That is why a tuned FOC arrow shot out of a 55# bow will out penetrate/perform a low FOC arrow shot out of an 80# bow.
Total mass in an arrow is less important/has less effect on efficiency and penetration than greater FOC in a lower mass arrow, to a certain degree. (ie At least 25% FOC and 650 grains total weight)
An arrow is a system of components and the total of adding those favorable FOC components up. (ie. Type of broadhead used, level of sharpness, tip angle and design, degree of proper tuning, external/internal footings for structural integrity, how many “weak links” are in the arrow system, etc)
Again, this is based on my interpretation of Dr Ashby’s research and lectures.
Do i want to shoot reproduction cedar BEAR arrows with Bear razor heads sharpened with a file and 5 1/2 inch shield cut feathers? You bet I do! They are historic, nostalgic, and plain sexy. Will they kill animals? You bet, many animals have died to such arrows. Will they perform well when I get a bad shot, hit bone, shoot in a heavy cross wind, or I hit a twig? Not nearly as well as a high FOC arrow. The proof is in the pudding. I have taken several animals with light FOC arrows, and lost some due to poor penetration and murphy’s law. I have taken several animals with high FOC arrows, and lost only one due to my own poor shot placement (one lung hit, animal made it to private property where I wasn’t allowed to search and recover). I have payed close attention to the wound channels and damage created by FOC arrows and sharp single bevel broadheads. They do their job very well and bring home the meat. They account for more uncontrollable factors which would normal result in a poor shot due to wind, deflections, animals taking a step, poor hits. Accuracy and penetration is the name of the game. FOC arrows do that.
My humble opinion is thus; develop the highest FOC arrow you can, which works best for you and the bow you are shooting, animal you are hunting, and stay over 25% FOC and 650 grains total weight.
I look forward to other thoughts
- jaytbuzzardMemberSeptember 11, 2016 at 10:27 pmPost count: 80
I’m thinking that these arrows would be nearly 600 gpi just the shafts alone. It would take an extremely heavy broadhead to get back to a normal FOC. At what point would the total arrow be so heavy that the arrow speed would be insanely slow. But just imagine how powerful the total package would be if you could get all of the numbers to work, including a bow strong enough to launch it. You can check out the arrows on PSE’s website.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.