A long look at fletching and EFOC

[Steve Sr.]

#6527

Some of you, I’m positive, have already read this but the lengthy testing and information discussed within is well worth the read if for no other reason than to increase our knowledge of arrow dynamics.

I, for one, found the posts here quite informative and may effect any testing I do myself in the future.

Within this thread, Dr. Ashby, Charlie Lamb and others whom you will recognize discuss feather length, height, and shape and the resulting stabilization and flight noise levels of various ones from shape and also how they are fletched on the arrow.

All of us know that the “standard” 3 five inch helical feathers do indeed work yet it is discussed in detail the numerous things to consider if wanting to change fletching for whatever reason. I do not view it as a negative thread towards the 3 five inch helicals standardly used but instead a oollection of information for each to decide him (or her)self.

This study, consisting of comments and results posted, is not a “quick read” and actually quite a long one of 38 webpages.

Since so much of the discussion was based on arrows with EFOC that I felt it important to add to our forum and hope the link to another site is not offensive to Tradbow. I certainly don’t mean for it to be such.

Once Doc Ashby returns it will be interesting to see if he has anything to add since this 2008 report.

This thread takes the study of all aspects of feather fletching to a level few have seen. I hope a few of you find it as interesting as I did and it helps you decide upon the best fletching for your needs if a change is being considered.

So, grab your favorite beverage, throw on your thinking cap and take a gander.

EDIT: Oct 21, 2009.

No real need to go to the other site now. Dr. Ashby has kindly added to this thread below and it’s a much easier read.

(You must copy and paste the ENTIRE link in an address bar)

http://tradgang.com/noncgi/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=057257;p=1

Hunt safe, shoot straight! (and post photos!):D

Steve

[Ed Ashby]

#33724

Steve,

This is an area of EFOC and Ultra-EFOC arrow design that needs to get more attention from hunters. There are some big benefits, and I’ve migrated to using the tiny A&A fletch on my serious hunting arrows. Of course there’s the decreased drag in flight, with better trajectory and more retained arrow force downrange, along with less deflection in crosswind conditions, but that’s not what I find to be the biggest advantages. The biggest advantages are: (1) a clearly present reduction in noise in flight; (2) the tiny fletching is far less visible to game; and (3) there is a major wet-weather benefit. NOTE: Your shaft setup needs to be well tunded BEFORE you start working on minimum fletching required to stabalize your broadhead. Even at EFOC, small fletching won’t work well when the shaft’s dtnamic spine is not correct.

Wesley did some test shooting for me (I can’t shoot well enough at forty yards to hit those tiny target dots!). From his compound, we took 190 gr. Grizzly BH’s on a 26%-27% FOC setup with the A&A fletching. Shot them dry then soaked the fletching in a bucket of water for a full 30 minutes and, without even shaking the water off the fletching, shot again. At 40 yards there was absolutely no change in point of impact. I think a lot has to do with the stiffness of the low-cut fletching (which you can only get away with using if your arrow has very high FOC). Even after 30 minutes of soaking there’s no visible matting down of the fletching. Those shots were with untreated feathers – no form of add-on waterproffing whatsoever.

For any unfamiliar, here are a few photos of the A&A fletch. Their appearance does take a bit of getting use to. The red ring is the turbulator.

#1: With EFOC 0.5″ tall, 2.5″ four-fletch A&A works for my very poor quality finger release. Once I get a good Ultra-EFOC setup I may be able to go smaller.

#2: 0.5″ tall, 2″ three-flect A&A worked with mechanical release from Wesley’s compound. This is the fletching we water-soaked and tested.

#3: Compare the fletching surface area between the 2″ A&A and the 3″ parabolic cut fletching. When thoroughly water soaked the A&A still stabalized the broadhead’s flight; the 3″ parabolic didn’t.

#4: Looks starnge; works great!

Ed

[Steve Sr.]

#33944

Thanks for the info once again, Ed!

I’ve cut em down this year and may try smaller next year but tickled with what Im shooting and season is in.

As always, you explained it far better and with fewer words than I could hope to ever do.

Mine are not on the same level as yours but…..a far cry from my five inch helicals from years past and fly deadly quiet, spin nicely (sorry, I gotta have it, lol) and shoot perfect.

575 grains and 29.2 percent (top) and 585 grains and 30.2 percent(bottom) is the weight and EFOC on these two. The bottom is next up to bat! (it has the head of discussion from our PM swap, Doc. GOTTA DO IT).

God Bless
Steve

[David Petersen]

#34019

Doc — What is a “turbolator,” and we’d sure benefit from similar testing with slow-shooting stickbows and the longer, heavy arrows we typically shoot here. Thanks, dave

[Ed Ashby]

#34076

Dave, the turbulator is the tiny raised red band you see in the photos, located 1/4″ forward of the fletching. It’s a piece of pinstriping tape – available at most hobby shops. It acts to disrupt the ait flow, increasing pressure on the fletching. It works too. I can go down to a fletching size that won’t stabalize the broadhead, add the turbulator and presto; total stability again.

We’re getting both types of testing. When it comes to any potential accuracy effects I tend to turn to Wesley. There’s just no way I can shoot accurately enough to tell exactly what’s happening. Wesley is as close to a shooting machine as anyone I’ve ever met.

With my very poor finger release I have to use a 2.5″ four fletch. Those works on all my EFOC setups, from sub 650 grains to 900+ grains. I’ve tested and hunted with them on the EFOC setups for almost 2 years, and have had nothing but fantastic results. I’m hoping that I’ll be able to go a bit smaller on the fletching on an Ultra-EFOC setup.

Ed

[Hiram]

#34094

Any testing with vanes?

[Patrick]

#34621

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: Dave, the turbulator is the tiny raised red band you see in the photos, located 1/4″ forward of the fletching. It’s a piece of pinstriping tape – available at most hobby shops. It acts to disrupt the ait flow, increasing pressure on the fletching. It works too. I can go down to a fletching size that won’t stabalize the broadhead, add the turbulator and presto; total stability again.

Ed

This is very fascinating (both, the fletching and the turbulator). From what I can see, the pin striping could be cut from a piece of arrow wrap, correct? Also, have you used an arrow wrap? If so, does the front lip of the wrap do the same as the turbulator, or does it have to be a narrow band to be effective?

[Ed Ashby]

#34640

Hiram, I have not done any testing with vanes, but other have, and the results were similar. There’s an FOC article in the Nov. Bowhunting World by Richard Combs that talks about being able to use smaller vanes as FOC goes up. However, as he correctly points our, vanes of corresponding size weigh more than feather fletching, reducing arrow FOC.

Patrick, yes, you can cut strips from an arrow wrap to use as a turbulator. However, a roll of pinstripe tape from a hoby shop is inexpensive, and does hundreds of arrows. The pinstripe tape is the narrow one, about 1mm wide.

I have not tried using the lead edge of an arrow wrap as a turbulator, but some others have. They report that it works, but I’m told by the aeronautical engineers that it wouldn’t work as well as the tape, because the tape is a true ‘bump’ – up on the lead edge and down on the back edge – whereas the fletching wrap would be only a ‘up-bump’ for the air flow.

Note that the distance the turbulator is placed in front of the fletching is important. Optimum appears to be 1/4″. That’s based on O.L. Adcock’s extensive turbulator testing with flight arrows. He also found that there must be only one, single turbulator. Multiple turbulators didn’t work well, regardless of their number or placement(s).

Hope that helps.

Ed

[Patrick]

#34839

I couldn’t help notice that those super short feathers are more akin to a shield feather shape. I wonder if these would suffice (as I don’t want to get into cutting my own feathers…call me lazy…that’s fine :-):
http://www.gatewayfeathers.com/2009-rayzr-feathers.html

Another conundrum I have is I shoot ABS Grizzly Stiks, and they advise using an arrow wrap, if for no other reason, to keep from gluing the fletching directly to the shaft and ruining the finish. Personally, I really like to use the wrap so that it’s less likely for me to lose my arrows. Is there a way for me to incorporate the advantages of the tubulator and still use a wrap? How about cutting the wrap to a length just slightly longer than the fletching?

[Ed Ashby]

#34855

Patrick, as far as stability it’s the fletching surface area that matters. The A&A pattern has a straight, vertical cut at the fletching’s rear. We have experimented a fair amounht with the sound in flight (with approximately same surface area but different fletching shapes) and the absolute square (vertical cut) trailing edge is the most silent we’ve found.

Uning a wrap with turbulator is no problem from a functional standpoint, it works well. Just add turbulator on the wrap. Be sure the wrap is fairly long, so its leading edge is not anywhere near the turbulator’s position. I don’t use wraps on any of the EFOC/Ultra-EFOC arrows. They just add unnecessary weight at the shaft’s rear, reducing FOC. It is also helpful to keep the fletching as far back on the shaft as you possible can (while leaving clearance for your fingers). This increases the length of the arrow’s rear stearing arm – the distance from the arrow’s center of pressure in flight to the point where the fletching’s stabalizing pressure is applied upon the shaft.

Ed

[Mark Turton]

#34865

Fascinating stuff Doc

To get this clear in my own mind, the fletching produces drag, drag creates stability; the angle of the fletching provides rotation and aids accuracy. The turbulator disrupts airflow creating greater pressure on the surface of the fletching therefore giving greater resistance and stabilising the arrow earlier in flight.

The turbulator has square edges and is placed at an optimum distance in front of the fletching to produce maximum turbulence over the fletching.

Variables will be height of the turbulator determining the volume of air it displaces/disrupts, surface area and angle of fletchings, and the surface texture of the fletching.

Am I right in thinking then that this will not work with straight fletchings as they will be buffeted by the turbulence and not stabilise?

Do we also need to be looking at the broadhead and its transition into/onto the shaft as there may be turbulence here as well?

I hope I’ve got that right, look forward to your comments, Mark.

[Ed Ashby]

#34952

Mark,

You’ve pretty well got the idea, but a couple need clarification. Feather fletching doesn’t require any offset to induce rotation. The natural curve of the feather creales a pressure differnetial for the air flow on each side of the feather. The A&A fletch is applied as a straight-fletch. There’s no functional reason why it can’t be offset, or even helical. However, the straight fletch is a bit more silent in flight; which I view as one of the greatest advantages.

As long as the fletching’s pressure is sufficient to stabalize the individual arrow there is no accuracy difference attributable to a difference in fletching size or shape.

The only broadhead factor to consider (other than alignment) is the wind shear factor. The greatest wind shear will be with wide, non-vented single blade heads, but velocity also has an effect. The faster your arrow, the greater the wind shear. As we found with Wesley’s compound, a high MA single-blade, single-bevel BH (the 190 Grizzly) on a well tuned EFOC arrow fired with a release can be stabalized with three, straight-fletched 2″ A&A fletches. With my rather poor quality finger release I need four 2.5″ fletches to consistently and relaibly stabalize the same broadhead at a near-equal amount of arrow FOC (and that’s the minimum fletching that works on my occasional REALLY BAD releases). Just as with everything about your arrow setup, you want to try for the best, but be sure you’re prepared for the worst … in this case, enough fletching to stabalize the arrow on your ‘worst releases’.

Hope that helped,

Ed

[kingwouldbe]

#34955

Steve Sr. wrote:

575 grains and 29.2 percent (top) and 585 grains and 30.2 percent(bottom) is the weight and EFOC on these two.
God Bless
Steve

Hi Steve, how are you getting such high EFOC on such light arrows? there not that light, just lighter than mine.

I want to go to 35% or so, but I also don’t want to shoot 1000 grains.

Thanks

[Ed Ashby]

#34974

David, your post bring up a very important point. There’s enough data now to verify that going up in FOC enough (into EFOC and Ultra-EFOC) will let a significantly lighter arrow equal the penetration of a much heavier arrow having a normal or high FOC; but that does NOT mean that it will equal the penetration of a heavier arrow of “like dimensions” that has a like-amount of EFOC/Ultra-EFOC.

Arrow mass still matters, but EFOC/Ultra-EFOC will allow a lighter arrow to equal or exceed the penetration of a much heavier arrow having ‘commonly used’ FOC.

Ed

[Steve Sr.]

#34998

“Hi Steve, how are you getting such high EFOC on such light arrows? there not that light, just lighter than mine.”

In the case of these, the arrow weighs 6.98 GPP and Im only shooting 43lbs, which allows for lots and lots of head weight to tune it. Shooting a 60 or so like you, I couldnt do it.

I’m of the opinion this bow weight coupled with the factors of the Ashby Report, I will indeed get penetration far and above what I had previously shooting heavier bows chosen FOR more penetration. Therefore, I’ll have little reason to shoot heavier bows and will be able to shoot this weight for the remainder of my hunting life, with great results.

I also have a standard 28 inch draw. For the first time in my life I see an ADVANTAGE (of sorts) to a short draw (shorter than mine I mean). Less shaft weight with lower spine shafts having lower GPI.

With a shaft weight of 200 grains, you can see what I had to play with for arrows of this weight.

One I would like to TRY, but hear horror stories on is the carbon pro arrows shafts from High Country archery. 5.5 grains per inch “up to 80lb spine” but dont know the deflection measurement on them. I do hear A LOT that they are “brittle” so……hmm.

Doc Ashby did give me advice that I “knew” but had not put into play (aka forgotten).

You can build out your arrow rest or flat use a bow NOT centershot and the spine of the arrow needed will be drastically LOWER than one center shot allowing for much lower spine shafts that have a much lower GPI as well that allows for less rear / shaft weight.

It gets to the point, for me at least, that adding MORE weight up front, even if the spine requires it flat dont give much in way of EFOC once about 25 percent is hit, yet using less weight in the rear does.

That is logical mathmatically since the length of “lever” on the feather end of a 25 percent EFOC arrow is 3 times that of the front. I reduction behind the fulcrum of balance, has greater impact on the EFOC several times that amount added to the shorter front “arm”.

Correct any errors Dr.Ed!!! 😆

God Bless
Steve Sr.

[Ed Ashby]

#35008

That’s straight forward and ‘spot on’ Steve.

Ed

[kingwouldbe]

#35025

Thanks guy’s 8)

[Mark Turton]

#35925

Hi Doc

Thank you for clarifying those points, the arrows I shoot evolved more by trial and error rather than by design and although they shoot OK I think I could do better following your recommendations. Can’t do anything about it at present the house is a building site but certainly before Christmas I hope to find some time.

Best regards, Mark.

[Steertalker]

#36060

For my own personal education what is considered EFOC???? 15%? 20%? 25%?

Brett

[Ed Ashby]

#36096

Here you go, Brett.

Normal FOC: Any amount up to 12%.
High FOC: Between 12% and 19%.
EFOC: Between 19% and 30%
Ultra-EFOC: FOC above 30%

They’re in the introduction of the 2008 Updates, Part 1.

Ed

[Konrad]

#61680

On the subject of light fletching…Has anyone used the Gateway Razyr. They are “high profile” and light and only 2 inches long.

They look like an off the shelf EFOC aid.

[Ed Ashby]

#53699

After Dave’s query and a receiving a couple of emails today asking about the A&A fletching it looks like it’s time to take this back to the top.

Ed

[FUBAR]

#53811

Glad you did. Thanks:D

[wildschwein]

#53821

Well this definately explains things. Thanks Dr. Ashby.

[Texas Red Dog]

#54338

I assume you are using carbon arrows? Are carbon arrows recommended over wood? Very interesting discussion.

[Troy Breeding]

#54416

Texas Red Dog wrote: I assume you are using carbon arrows? Are carbon arrows recommended over wood? Very interesting discussion.

Dog,

I think you will find that most of us that are doing what we can to get those high FOC’s are using carbon. Not to say you can’t do it with other type shafting, but you will find other type shafting has limitations.

Troy

[Steve Sr.]

#54423

We can now get over 20 percent with woodies picking and choosing but with one of the largest ingredient for REALLY high FOC is a LIGHT and STIFF shaft…..carbon wins hands down much to my dismay.

AbsoLUTEly nothing “wrong” with carbon and you can see I gave it a go and it worked beautifully but you have also seen in current posts that my love of ye old wood shafts just wont allow me to let them go.

HOWEVER, should I ever hunt something MUCH bigger than a whitetail or even just a lot tougher (oink, oink) a heavy carbon with as much FOC as I could stuff into it would be definately along for the ride.

You can get stiff carbon arrows around 200 grains or less maybe, for the shaft weight alone and that would certainly be a tough one for woodies of the same spine.

It’s simple. The more weight behind the fulcum you have, the lower your FOC will be and it’s multiplied a bit too since there is MORE OF the shaft behind that point.

Doc probably should have answered this but this is my take, at least.

God Bless
Steve Sr.

[Ed Ashby]

#54437

Texas Red Dog wrote: I assume you are using carbon arrows? Are carbon arrows recommended over wood? Very interesting discussion.

A high amount of FOC isn’t easily obtainable with any shafting other than carbon. If you want to reach more than a low to modest level of EFOC you must use carbon shafts. If you want to reach Ultra-EFOC you will need to use only carbon shafts having a low grains per inch weight.

I’ve not been able to get a wood-shafted arrow setup which tuned well that had much more than 21% FOC, or an aluminum-shafted setup having more than about 24%.

Ed

[Steve Sr.]

#54444

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote:

I’ve not been able to get a wood-shafted arrow setup which tuned well that had much more than 21% FOC, or an aluminum-shafted setup having more than about 24%.

Ed

Other than shaft weight differences, is the excellerated recovery rate of carbon over the others possibly the reason behind the EFOC carbon arrows tuning easier?

Just curious if this has been considered or …..??

God Bless
Steve Sr.

[Ed Ashby]

#54463

Steve Sr. wrote: Other than shaft weight differences, is the excellerated recovery rate of carbon over the others possibly the reason behind the EFOC carbon arrows tuning easier?

It’s a combination of factors. The flexion characteristic of carbon shafts is certainly a major factor but so is the ability to achieve great levels of arrow stiffness at low weight and small diameter.

The stiffness of carbon shafts allows for the increased point weight achieving high levels of FOC requires without resorting to excessive shaft diameter and/or weight. It’s all the performance characteristics of the carbon shafts tied together that make it the top choice for EFOC and Ultra-EFOC.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

#54527

The A&A fletch is applied as a straight fletch, with no offset or helical. This decreases wind noise around the fletching to the maximum amount possible. If the fletching size has been determine by the steps I outlined in the prior post you will KNOW that this provides all the drag necessary to stabilize the broadhead under all flight/wind conditions. I found the following quotes on a ‘fletching thread’ elsewhere, where a neophyte was asking for recommendations.

“As much helical as you can put on them.”

“Always use helical, especially w/broadheads.”

“As said, as much helical as your jig will make.”

“They slow the arrow down, make a lot of noise, but they stabilize the arrow and I do like them I shoot 5 3/4″ 7 degree offset.”

“Mine are 5 1/2″ and I used a chopper to cut them. I’ll put as much helical into them as I can.”

“Helically applied, “maxi fletch” banana or shield cut feathers is all I have ever hunted with.”

This makes me wonder if these ‘more experienced’ folks are using excessive fletching and excessive helical to compensate for a lack of adequate arrow tuning or whether their arrows are so marginally stable due to low FOC that they need this amount of drag to overcome the broadhead’s windshear effect and stabilize the arrow’s flight.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

#49402

Just bring this to the top for someone who enquired about the turbulator and A&A pattern.

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#49548

I’d like to add alittle to this as well. In reguards to the tubulator, I cut thin stips from arrow wraps to make mine. I know some will think I’m full of it with this statement, but I can see the rotation of my arrows much sooner using the tubulator than I can without.

Troy

[Steve Sr.]

#56852

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: The A&A fletch is applied as a straight fletch, with no offset or helical. This decreases wind noise around the fletching to the maximum amount possible. If the fletching size has been determine by the steps I outlined in the prior post you will KNOW that this provides all the drag necessary to stabilize the broadhead under all flight/wind conditions. I found the following quotes on a ‘fletching thread’ elsewhere, where a neophyte was asking for recommendations.

“As much helical as you can put on them.”

“Always use helical, especially w/broadheads.”

“As said, as much helical as your jig will make.”

“They slow the arrow down, make a lot of noise, but they stabilize the arrow and I do like them I shoot 5 3/4″ 7 degree offset.”

“Mine are 5 1/2″ and I used a chopper to cut them. I’ll put as much helical into them as I can.”

“Helically applied, “maxi fletch” banana or shield cut feathers is all I have ever hunted with.”

This makes me wonder if these ‘more experienced’ folks are using excessive fletching and excessive helical to compensate for a lack of adequate arrow tuning or whether their arrows are so marginally stable due to low FOC that they need this amount of drag to overcome the broadhead’s windshear effect and stabilize the arrow’s flight.

Ed

Probably a lot more than we would like to admit.

Ive got and shot deer with the AA fletching. Works super-ific.

I may yet go put together some more UEFOCs to play with when the other tuffheads get here. Always fun to me.

I never have had good eyesight. No matter what is spent on glasses or contacts.

Only issue I had with AA fletching is I just flat couldnt see the arrow fly OR hit very clearly.

When I was about to spend MORE money on lighted knocks, I sat back and mused a bit on it all and for hunting purposes I went back to the big, hard helical fletchings on woodies like used for several decades.

A *astard of two worlds I love tinkering with arrows but nostalgia just plays WAY to big of a part for me to ignore it.

Even contemplating taking some 1942 arrows and heads out from Ol Ben and sticking a deer in his memory.

Sometimes, for me, it’s a lot more than what works best but please recall, I totally agree this is a total package arrow set up that flat SHOOTS following all Doc’s information.

My fondest hunting memories consist of seeing the arrow spin out and connect and the two deer I shot with AA fletching…I flat did NOT see the arrow hit and on one of them that was a “not good” thing.

Even though they flew great, I stripped and refletched them so I could see them hit.

I gotta see my hunting arrows so big and noisy ones for this year but more contemplations on it all.

God Bless

[M]

#14101

This may be a bit off topic , but is there a source for shrink wrap fletching using feathers? I see them for vanes of various sizes but have been unable to locate any with feathers. I think this would be a quick easy way to experiment with different feather sizes and colors etc. they also seem highly visible so it may offset the smaller feathers in flight and make it easier to see the arrow. I would like to try smaller fletching but I do not have the tools to fletch my own arrows and not sure I want to.

[Two rivers]

#16474

can any one help me with this? I am shooting a 55# r/d longbow (cut to center I believe) @ 28″ draw. what I want is a 29″-29.5″ arrow that has a finished wieght of 550 grains with 20% FOC. I have tried this with a cupel different arrows and ether end up being way to heavy or not the FOC that I want by the time I am all tuned in. I was looking at the new grizzly sticks and thinking about trying them but they dont have the charts for them like the others and they dont say how much more FOC they add over the old ones. has anyone ever built a arrow that is 10gr per inch for 55lbs that has a FOC of 20%?

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#16485

Two rivers wrote: can any one help me with this? I am shooting a 55# r/d longbow (cut to center I believe) @ 28″ draw. what I want is a 29″-29.5″ arrow that has a finished wieght of 550 grains with 20% FOC. I have tried this with a cupel different arrows and ether end up being way to heavy or not the FOC that I want by the time I am all tuned in. I was looking at the new grizzly sticks and thinking about trying them but they dont have the charts for them like the others and they dont say how much more FOC they add over the old ones. has anyone ever built a arrow that is 10gr per inch for 55lbs that has a FOC of 20%?

I have a r/d 55# longbow (Savannah). I was able to get just over 23% FOC with a 28.5 GT Traditional (9.3 gpi), 100 gr. brass insert and a 170 gr head. I know that’s not exactly what you’re looking for, but it’s close. It shoots very well wih that setup. Hope that helps.

[Two rivers]

#16592

I have a r/d 55# longbow (Savannah). I was able to get just over 23% FOC with a 28.5 GT Traditional (9.3 gpi), 100 gr. brass insert and a 170 gr head. I know that’s not exactly what you’re looking for, but it’s close. It shoots very well wih that setup. Hope that helps.

Are they 5575 goldtips? or 3555?

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#16600

5575.

[Steve Sr.]

#18409

Perhaps, and only perhaps…….you could consider building one with less concern about total arrow weight?

There is some fine info here from those building much higher UEFOC arrows of heavy weight and IMPROVED trajectory. Just how much improved compared to your own……..or not, only you could be the judge.

There is indeed a HUGE amount of people concerned with trajectory and I have to humbly admit I’ve never understood it.

While Fred B and others recommended the 10 gpp range, I also feel that was a MINIMUM suggestion depending a lot upon what you hunted of course.

There is indeed nothing WRONG with 10 gpp and have used such in the past successfuly but there WAS times where penetration on some less than perfect hits was minimal at best.

I am just suggesting that perhaps building an arrow with whatever other attributes you wish to have and shooting them awhile and TEST your accuracy at ranges you hunt with them before putting them in the “null and void” catagory.

Some will quote the “needed” trajectory for “long” shots. That too is a personal choice and also one where I take the “other side of the fence” (big surprise THERE, lol).

At longer ranges the heavier arrow retains more of it’s initial energy by losing less speed and having more mass to begin with. That is a fact of Physics. With longer ranges possibly increasing MY error factor…..I want the one that will penetrate the most, just in case.

Yes, yes “but if you cant hit something due to increased trajectory…it doesn’t matter” there again, SHOOT THEM……..a LOT. I dont have a single arrow in my quiver under 625 grains and some 100 grains higher and my HEAVIEST bow is 50lbs. I’m not the least bit “afraid” of a 35 yards shot.

I think you might be surprised shooting some awhile, but if not, not much lost and experience is gained for your own decisions with more “data” in your old noggin computer.

God Bless

Steve Sr.

[Steve Sr.]

#18416

That’s 35 yards from a ground stand at a CALM broadside deer in the wide open…..just to make things clear before I get beheaded. It doesnt present itself much.

With Tuffhead’s I get 20 percent FOC on cedar or tonkin cane shafts, BTW.

God Bless

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#18488

With all due respect, Steve – I guess I’m a little confused on what it actually is that you’re trying to say here. Simply that it’s important to test whatever you’re going to shoot extenisively, at various ranges, before hunting with it? If so, I doubt anyone would disagree. Not trying to be a jerk here – I think you have good points to make, based on a lot of experience, I’m just trying to decipher your point above.

[Steve Sr.]

#18557

Sorry. I was giving my two cents concerning the above statement “what I want is a 29″-29.5″ arrow that has a finished wieght of 550 grains with 20% FOC.” and suggesting maybe not using the total weight of the arrow as a limitation building a higher FOC arrow for trial.

While only my opinion, limitations on arrow weight will reduce some of the advantage OF higher FOC, even if buildable, at least for hunting/penetration sake and was hoping to add that as food for thought for the person asking about his arrows.

Again, my opinon only.
I apologize.

God bless

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#18673

Steve Sr. wrote:

Sorry. I was giving my two cents concerning the above statement “what I want is a 29″-29.5″ arrow that has a finished wieght of 550 grains with 20% FOC.” and suggesting maybe not using the total weight of the arrow as a limitation building a higher FOC arrow for trial.

While only my opinion, limitations on arrow weight will reduce some of the advantage OF higher FOC, even if buildable, at least for hunting/penetration sake and was hoping to add that as food for thought for the person asking about his arrows.

Gotcha. And agreed.

[Ed Ashby]

#60316

Bringing this to the top for someone who asked about the A&A fletching.

Ed

[codger]

#62322

Lots of good information here but i have a question ive always used 5″ some what helical fletching just because thats what i was taught to do many many years ago. Does the amount of Helical used actually help stabilize the arrow? I seem to get pretty decent flight out of my arrows out of all of my bows recurves longbows and all wod longbows.The wood bows arent as center cut of course so i ave to allow for that but im wondering if i really need all that flecthing now. I dropped down to 4″ on soem aluminm arrows for the recurves and they work well but now im wondering about my longbows with cedar shafts do i really need 5″ fletching? in the past ive tried sheild cut fletching but they seemed noisy they were about 51/2″ if i remmeber correctly.

[Ed Ashby]

#62388

The amount of pressure you need on the arrow’s rear is affected by a number of factors. The more fletching surface area you have the greater the pressure. The more off-set in the fletching the greater the pressure exerted, the more helical you have in the fletching the greater the pressure exerted.

On the other side of the equation the higher the arrow’s FOC the longer the rear steering arm, and the less fletching pressure required to steer the arrow. The broadhead you chose to use is also a factor. Some broadheads exhibit more windsheer effect than others, and you need sufficient fletching pressure to overcome that.

The more pressure the fletching exerts the more drag there is on your arrow in flight. This slows your arrow in flight. A straight fletched feather (no offset and no helical) still induces arrow rotation in flight and the less fletching surface area you can use will result in more arrow speed and more retained arrow force downrange.

It’s all a balancing act, but there are advantages to using the least amount of fletching, with the least offset and helical you can get away with. The smaller, ‘straighter’ fletching not only conserves arrow energy in flight it also results in quieter arrow flight and less wind drift in a cross wind. An added advantage we’ve found with the short, stiff A&A fletching pattern on the EFOC arrows is that you can soak the feathers in bucket of water for 30 minutes, take them out and, without even shaking the excess water off, put them in a shooting machine and they will still shoot into the same hole at 40 yards. They are virtually impervious to the effects of having wet feathers.

Ed

[codger]

#62420

Thank you very much for the explanation. this topic made me think further than i previouslly had about fletching etc.

Im going to be experimenting a bit more in the near futhre.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#62451

So this begs the question in my mind – why do so many use 5″ – 5-1/2″ fletching, if it isn’t actually necessary with a well-tuned arrow and a decent amount of FOC? Is this just another one of those “tradition” things?

And, to take it a step further – in the case of bare shaft tuning advocates (a practice I’ll admit I still don’t buy into) – why would you bother to tune an arrow to fly well without fletching, and then finish the process by putting on more fletching than is required? Haven’t you just demonstrated that your arrow flies well without fletching? So why not just put on a minimal amount of fletching (3-4″) as the finishing touch, rather than 5″ or more?

And, as I think about this even more (probably too much), it seems like bareshaft tuning, followed by putting on more fletching than is actually needed, would further minimize the point of doing any bareshaft tuning in the first place, since the more fletching you add, the more you are changing the balance of the arrow….

In the end, why not just tune with the amount of fletching you actually intend to use? And why use more than needed?

[Ed Ashby]

#62480

You ask very valid questions. If your arrows are well tuned you need less fletching. The wide spread use of larger fletching is a combination of several things. Part is tradition and past is that most folks don’t have their arrows really well tuned and, without a lot of fletching, they see a lot of ‘wiggle’ of the shaft in flight. With the EFOC/Ultra-EFOC arrows, once they are tuned they will shoot just as accurately without any fletching as they will with fletching – when you are using a field point. Once you add your broadhead you’ve introduced some windsheer effect. Then you need to add only enough fletching to overcome that windsheer effect; no more.

One factor that is missed by most folks is that the TRUE FOC of an arrow in flight is dependent on the location of the CENTER OF PRESSURE on the arrow WHEN THE ARROW IS IN FLIGHT. What we ‘measure’ for the FOC is merely a relative reference point. It is an ‘indicator’ of the TRUE FOC but doesn’t dictate the TRUE FOC. If you’re using a lot of fletching you are exerting more pressure ot the arrow’s rear, while in flight. This actually will REDUCE the TRUE FOC of the arrow in flight.

You are ‘spot on’ with the tuning. Once the arrow is tuned you want to use the very least amount of fletching (and fletching pressure) that you can. Once my bare shaft is tuned with a field point I go through a ‘tuning process’ to determine the minimum amount of fletching that I can use with the broadhead I intend to use. The tuning of the fletching involves more than just shooting with the broadhead to obtain stable flight. One needs to do some shooting under differing wind conditions; crosswind, quartering wind, into the wind and with a trailing wind; to be certain the fletching is large enough to stabilize the broadhead under different conditions of windsheer. You also need to shoot them enough time to be sure that the fletching is enough to counter the effect of the occasional bad release.

Ed

[Brennan Herr]

#62580

Ed,

I am in the process of tuning a new set of arrows. I got the spine right but I can’t get rid of a 1 inch high nock. I am paper tuning and have moved the nock point every which way. However, as I go lower with the nock the arrow starts to kick into the rest and the high nock gets worse. I have also tied on another nock under the arrow and that didn’t do anything either. I figure it is me but just wanted to see if you had any other ideas or if the fletching will take care of it.

Thanks,

Brennan

[Troy Breeding]

#62662

Brennan,

Can I step in here for a second?

What grip do you shoot? Three under or split finger?

Whats your bow weight?

What spine shafts are you trying?

Whats your draw length?

What weight point?

How long are your shafts at this point in time?

Bareshaft tuning isn’t really complicated, but some verables can cause differt effects on the shaft.

Sounds like your off on your spine choice.

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#62738

Troy is on the right track. I’ll be heading off on my long drive to Kalamozoo very soon, but Troy doesn’t have as far to travel, and with all the info he asked for I’m confident he can help … after all, he’ll be doing the EFOC tuning part of the K’zoo presentation! 😀

Ed

[Brennan Herr]

#62748

Troy,

What grip do you shoot? Best way to describe it is Asbell style

Three under or split finger? split

Whats your bow weight? 48 lb at 28

What spine shafts are you trying? CX heritage 250

Whats your draw length? 28 1/4

What weight point? 260 with 200 insert

How long are your shafts at this point in time? BOP 29 5/8

thanks

[Troy Breeding]

#63166

brennanherr wrote: Troy,

What grip do you shoot? Best way to describe it is Asbell style

Three under or split finger? split

Whats your bow weight? 48 lb at 28

What spine shafts are you trying? CX heritage 250

Whats your draw length? 28 1/4

What weight point? 260 with 200 insert

How long are your shafts at this point in time? BOP 29 5/8

thanks

You say 260 with 200 insert, can you go alittle more indepth on that? Is that 460grs total? Also if you have a 200gr insert, please let me know where you got it. The heavest insert I’ve been able to find is 100gr.:D

Out side of this I can’t see that much wrong with your setup.

Troy

[Brennan Herr]

#63247

Troy,

I use 100 grain brass insert with a .243 100 grain bullet behind it. The .243 fits perfectly inside a CX heritage arrow. A type of internal footing I guess. This morninging I played with tip weights to ensure the arrow wasn’t to weak and I moved the nock point to 1 inch high and worked from there. I got the tear to about 3/4 inch and the tear started to go the other way again. That was with the nock at 3/8 above center. I figure I am doing something in my form causing the problem. I will keep trying to figure it out.

Brennan

[Troy Breeding]

#63319

Daaaaaaaa,,,, Just reread your first post and I think I know your problem. You said that when you tried lowering the nocking point the arrow started kick off the sight window. Am I correct?

If so then your shaft is too stiff…

Try using a heavier point. Start with the string nock set at 3/8″ above level and see what happens when you start increasing the point weight.

Like everything else not one bit of the tuning information and proceedures are written in stone, but if you have tried other ways and thought the shaft was weak then try it the otherway.

I’ve only had one bow that required setting the nocking point on the string more than 3/8″ above level and that was a three peice takedown ACS CX that I wanted to use a weaker spine shaft with. It was a test to see if I could do it.

Troy

[Brennan Herr]

#63380

Troy,

I tried your suggestions with no luck. Just for giggles I shot 3 under and hmmm bullet holes, well very close to it. Guess I am doing something with my string hand. I am going to video tape my shooting some more and try to see what it is. Thanks for your advice and help…it is appreciated.

Thanks,

Brennan

[Troy Breeding]

#63427

Wow!! Three under and it shoots fine? Is there a chance your bow was tillered for three under? Check the distance from wedge fadeout to string on both limbs. If the top distance isn’t atleast 1/8″ longer then you may have a three under tillered bow.

Troy

[bamboo]

#7659

hows the nock fit??

[Brennan Herr]

#7775

Well the tiller isn’t 3 under. The top is 1/4 inch over the bottom. The nock is a snug fit. I will sand it down to loosen it some and try it out.

Thanks for the idea

[bamboo]

#8255

i’ve noticed that a tite nock fit can be quite loud as well

—————————–mike

[Squirrel Master]

#11500

WOW!! Ive been shooting for about 2 months now and you guys just blew my mind. Im only hunting squirrel right now but plan on moving up to hogs and white tail as soon as I can “one shot one kill” my target at any given distance out to 30 yds. Im not trying to sharp shoot but I do want to be able to put it in the kill zone without fail. As much as I enjoyed this read and would like to take to tuning up my arrows, I think Im just gonna work on my consistency for now. But what fun to look forward to later. 😀

Oh, BTW, Im running gold tip 3555, 100 gr field tip, 3 4″ parabellums all weighing in at 389 grns and measuring nock throat to field tip end Im getting 9.9% FOC. Old glass powered Fred Bear Kodiak Magnum 50#. 62″ bow.

[bamboo]

#11526

practice shooting a marginaly tuned bow is like playing an out of tune guitar–awfully hard to get it right—-in my opinion your real close on that set up[nice bow]–IMO you could go up in point wieght 75-100 grains

good luck and have fun

————————-mike

[Squirrel Master]

#11582

Thanks for the input. What would an increase in point weight ( I assume you mean sharp thingy at the business end of the arrow?) do for performance other than increase my FOC? Or is an increase in FOC the purpose for the increase in point weight?

[bamboo]

#12355

squirrel

IMO-your set up is pretty light–@7.78GPI-if your pulling a true 28″–if your pulling any more–its even lighter

i would think those arrows are flying stiff-[left if you ‘re a righty]maybe not–

but by going up in point weight you should see an improvement in flight-[accuracy]- improved penetration—a much quieter bow [7.78GPI is very light for that bow]

——————-mike

[Squirrel Master]

#12371

Bamboo,

Please correct me if Im wrong but doesnt GPI stand for Grains Per Inch? Of the arrow? My test arrow, from nock throat to field tip end is 31.3 inches @ 389 grns. That would give me 12.43 GPI. Either way, Im not familiar with the implications of having a “light Arrow”. Is that akin to having a car thats too light for the monster engine under the hood? I.E. a Mazda Miata with a super charged 454. Too much power for the ride?

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#12402

Squirrel Master –

As the previous posts in this thread hint at, there is a bunch of information on this site about the benefits of increasing both overall arrow weight, and FOC in particular. Basically, it comes down to significant improvements in increased penetration. Spend some time looking at the excellent studies done by Dr. Ashby, and other threads in this forum, for the benefits of increasing weight/FOC.

I would agree that your set up is quite light, and your FOC minimal, particularly for a 50lb. trad bow. Compound guys often shoot much lighter arrows than most trad hunters. Increased weight = increased momentum, and momentum is good, particularly in lower speed bows (and while most compound guys only pay attention to speed, momentum is more important, with any bow, imo).

I find this link explains it quite well:

http://www.alaskabowhunting.com/Three-Darts-W13.aspx

[Squirrel Master]

#12508

Not even joking, that dart explanation makes SO much sense. Ive dabbled in the dart arena in the past and there is no better way to exemplify the need and purpose of FOC. Thanx so much for the link. Now I get to start ALL over with my Gold Tips. At least Im hitting the learning curve now and not 3 years from now. 😀

[bamboo]

#13545

squirrel

shooting an arrow that is too light can do damage to your bow–most bowyers won’t warranty bows shot below 8GPI making your set up borderline —

however my suggestion to go up with your point weight was to improve the effect of the archers paradox–as well as foc

good luck

—————————–mike

[Squirrel Master]

#13880

Archers Paradox?:?

[james gilmer]

#16902

Ed need help here

I cut some A & A shaped and size fletch’s and have pretty good good results. Then i saw that gateway sells a shape they call razor in a 2 inch length. I went and got a package. i shoot a high wrist and my hand is very close to the shelf. I am now getting the odd arrow bouncing due to one of the feathers hitting my top nuckel ( I bare shaft tune the arrows and was darn close to perfect.). I am thinking its the occasional bad release rather then feather height?

[kingwouldbe]

#17260

jgilmer

Just my 2 cents, I use full length feathers, there 10-12″ long, so I get 5-6 A&A fletch from one feather.

I first cut a bunch 2″ long with a pair of sharp scissors, put them in the jig and make my arrow, them I take a sharp 3″ razor and cut a straight angle back and only 1/2″ tall, then I stand the arrow straight up and cut the backs off making them flat on the backs.

So again 2″x 1/2″ and I am using 4 fletch.

Hope this helps

[Troy Breeding]

#17980

jgilmer wrote: Ed need help here

I cut some A & A shaped and size fletch’s and have pretty good good results. Then i saw that gateway sells a shape they call razor in a 2 inch length. I went and got a package. i shoot a high wrist and my hand is very close to the shelf. I am now getting the odd arrow bouncing due to one of the feathers hitting my top nuckel ( I bare shaft tune the arrows and was darn close to perfect.). I am thinking its the occasional bad release rather then feather height?

jgilmer,

You could have a problem with your release or you could very well be a tad bit low on your nocking point. Try raising your nocking point approx. 1/16″. This minor adjustment shouldn’t mess with your tune and will allow the quills of the feathers to clear what it is hitting.

Troy

[james gilmer]

#19085

thanks guys , I try both solutions and let you know!

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#27555

Bump w/ a question – is it just me, or do other people find that EFOC-related discussions tend to draw a knee-jerk reaction in some trad circles? Some people almost seem to see this stuff a sacrilege (since it wasn’t what Howard Hill did…), or contend that it’s all theory and that “the real world is different.” And I continue to be amazed at the number of people who say it only applies to “big” animals. I don’t really care that much what others choose to do, but it’s a trend I’ve definitely noticed and I’m scratching my head as to why.

Regardless, I find threads like this really great and thought-provoking. Just because it’s “traditional” doesn’t mean there still isn’t room for exploration and refinement, in my opinion. Thanks for all the great info here.

[Joseph Miller]

#27883

Anybody that attended Dr. Ashby’s seminar in Kalamazoo should know that EFOC is just as important for whitetails as it is for any other big game. I am pushing 70 now and can tell you that FOC is probably the most important development in traditional archery that I have witnessed in over 50 years of shooting. Thank you Dr. Ashby for teaching an old dog a new trick!

Joe

[Ed Ashby]

#27982

Smithhammer wrote: Bump w/ a question – is it just me, or do other people find that EFOC-related discussions tend to draw a knee-jerk reaction in some trad circles? Some people almost seem to see this stuff a sacrilege (since it wasn’t what Howard Hill did…), or contend that it’s all theory and that “the real world is different.” And I continue to be amazed at the number of people who say it only applies to “big” animals. I don’t really care that much what others choose to do, but it’s a trend I’ve definitely noticed and I’m scratching my head as to why.

It’s been that way ever since I first started to share what I was finding in the Study, and seemed to get worse after a few folks began trying the things the Study indicated, and posting the positive results they were seeing. Why some folks react as if all these ‘new things’ (which are likely very ancient, but we are just now re-learning them) are a personal threat to them. I’ve never understood that.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

#27987

jlmiller wrote: Anybody that attended Dr. Ashby’s seminar in Kalamazoo should know that EFOC is just as important for whitetails as it is for any other big game. I am pushing 70 now and can tell you that FOC is probably the most important development in traditional archery that I have witnessed in over 50 years of shooting. Thank you Dr. Ashby for teaching an old dog a new trick!

Joe

Thank you for the kind words, Joe. I think you’re right about EFOC/Ultra-EFOC … and those ‘primitive’ (?) Papua New Guinea natives were using Ultra-EFOC long before they had any significant contact with the outside world; even before they had steel, and used only hardwood points … but we’re starting to catch up with them. 😀

Ed

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#28027

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: [quote=jlmiller]…I think you’re right about EFOC/Ultra-EFOC … and those ‘primitive’ (?) Papua New Guinea natives were using Ultra-EFOC long before they had any significant contact with the outside world; even before they had steel, and used only hardwood points … but we’re starting to catch up with them. 😀

Ed

Fascinating. As an amateur history/archaeology buff, I’ve been wondering about that. Seems highly likely that this was figured out a long time ago, by people who used bows a lot more than we do. Anyone know of good sources for more info about this?

[Ed Ashby]

#28038

Smithhammer, your post prompted me to take a look around at a few sites. I see what you’re talking about, and it’s not just with EFOC items. Not to worry though. I’m long past the point of trying to convince those who have closed minds … but I won’t hold back on reporting what the data shows. If it offends some, well, that’s the way things go, and I won’t waste my time in meaningless back and forths with such folks.

Long ago I got tired of never hearing a bad word about any product, as though every product on the market (that pays to advertise) is perfect in all aspects. Not every product is perfect in every regard. In fact few (if any) are totally perfect; but that some things work better then others can not be questioned.

Some Trad archers seem to get offended if anything even slightly less than glowing is said about a product they personally like or about a concept that seems diffrent to what they use, but are quick to point out all the misleading advertizing and bad products and performance concepts found in the ‘compound media’. It’s a glaring double-standard.

It was a lack of honest, reliable information, untainted by any personal-gain motive, that started me on my personal quest ot find answers as to what factors affect an arrow’s terminal performance, how they affect termianl performance, and how much effect they have. This I wish to leave to those that will follow. If it prevents the wounding and loss of just a few animals it is more than worth enduring the ‘slings and arrows’ of the detractors.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

#28047

Smithhammer wrote: As an amateur history/archaeology buff, I’ve been wondering about that. Seems highly likely that this was figured out a long time ago, by people who used bows a lot more than we do. Anyone know of good sources for more info about this?

The PNG article is here; in the Ashby Library section. Here’s the link, if you haven’t read it. This article will be featured in the upcoming issue of “The Journal of Primitive Technology”.

https://www.tradbow.com/members/310.cfm

Ed

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#28190

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote:

It was a lack of honest, reliable information, untainted by any personal-gain motive, that started me on my personal quest ot find answers as to what factors affect an arrow’s terminal performance, how they affect termianl performance, and how much effect they have. This I wish to leave to those that will follow. If it prevents the wounding and loss of just a few animals it is more than worth enduring the ‘slings and arrows’ of the detractors.

Ed

Amen, Ed. I’d rather pay attention to data than opinions.

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote:

The PNG article is here; in the Ashby Library section. Here’s the link, if you haven’t read it. This article will be featured in the upcoming issue of “The Journal of Primitive Technology”.

https://www.tradbow.com/members/310.cfm

Ed

Thanks!

[CareyE]

#28423

Dr. Ashby, thank you for all your work. I am going on my first elk hunt this year and hope to be able to use EFOC to bring one down if given the chance.

[Ed Ashby]

#28455

CareyE wrote: Dr. Ashby, thank you for all your work. I am going on my first elk hunt this year and hope to be able to use EFOC to bring one down if given the chance.

Here’s to a successful elk hunt Carey. Looking forward to hearing a great hunt’n story.

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#29085

All I can say is Ed must have some broad shoulders to be able to handle all the Ya Ya that as been thrown at him over his study.

I can’t understand why folks want to run it down when they havn’t given it a try.

Things improve and advance over time. If not we would all be driving a model “T” instead of the four wheel drives.

Troy

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#29136

Troy Breeding wrote: All I can say is Ed must have some broad shoulders to be able to handle all the Ya Ya that as been thrown at him over his study.

I can’t understand why folks want to run it down when they havn’t given it a try.

Things improve and advance over time. If not we would all be driving a model “T” instead of the four wheel drives.

Troy

No kidding. Is there anything we currently use in the realm of traditional archery that wasn’t, at at one time, the result of someone tinkering, experimenting and refining an idea?

And why is it that so many who seem to have the most argumentative reaction to these ideas are those who have never tried them out, but merely convinced themselves that it couldn’t possibly be an improvement over the way that they’ve been doing things for years? Or worse, what someone they idolize did?

Tradition is a wonderful thing, when kept in check by an open mind. But sometimes I find the contradictions of what is considered “traditional” or not to just be downright hilarious, i.e. – longbows are more “traditional” than recurves, camo isn’t traditional (even though Fred Bear wore it, and used a recurve, but we revere him in every other way), or a definition of “traditional” that only seems to be what a handful of guys, in one country, were doing between the 1920’s – 50’s, etc…

And I think it’s fascinating that there actually is history (tradition) to the idea of EFOC, though it may not be the particular ‘tradition’ that most pay attention to.

It reminds me of the old Zen quote – “In the beginner’s mind, there are many possibilities. In the expert’s, there are few.”

[Ed Ashby]

#29477

Smithhammer wrote: “In the beginner’s mind, there are many possibilities. In the expert’s, there are few.”[/i]

I like that quote! It’s a ‘keeper’.

Ed

[Ireland]

#29483

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: Smithhammer, your post prompted me to take a look around at a few sites. I see what you’re talking about, and it’s not just with EFOC items. Not to worry though. I’m long past the point of trying to convince those who have closed minds … but I won’t hold back on reporting what the data shows. If it offends some, well, that’s the way things go, and I won’t waste my time in meaningless back and forths with such folks.

Long ago I got tired of never hearing a bad word about any product, as though every product on the market (that pays to advertise) is perfect in all aspects. Not every product is perfect in every regard. In fact few (if any) are totally perfect; but that some things work better then others can not be questioned.

Some Trad archers seem to get offended if anything even slightly less than glowing is said about a product they personally like or about a concept that seems diffrent to what they use, but are quick to point out all the misleading advertizing and bad products and performance concepts found in the ‘compound media’. It’s a glaring double-standard.

It was a lack of honest, reliable information, untainted by any personal-gain motive, that started me on my personal quest ot find answers as to what factors affect an arrow’s terminal performance, how they affect termianl performance, and how much effect they have. This I wish to leave to those that will follow. If it prevents the wounding and loss of just a few animals it is more than worth enduring the ‘slings and arrows’ of the detractors.

Ed

Hang in there Dr. Ashby!!! Keep up the quality research!!!

Ireland

[Fletcher]

#29649

The old regular arrows and broadheads have been killing things for a long time and will continue to do so. That doesn’t mean we can’t do better. I’ve managed to achieve 21.6% at 630 grains with a wood shaft arrow and I’m hoping to get a little more as the results were impressive and I love the way the EFOC shoots. I made my first single bevel kill just last Jan and it was very impressive, too. I plan to keep working on both.

[Ed Ashby]

#30139

Fletcher, have you ever tried adding a hardwood footing to a cain shaft? Just curious what that would give, FOC wise.

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#30182

I shot cane shafting years ago, before understanding what FOC was all about. Since I was cutting my own shafts I was picking by size. As it turned out the size I picked, once dry and straight was way too stiff. I used the heavest glue on point I coud get at the time and they were still too stiff. So as a way to help I glue #4 copper ground rode in the front end of the shaft and reinstall the 190 fieldpint. I would normally cut the shafts around 4-5″ infront of a node. Putting 4-5″ of copper rod (what ever the length was to the node) in the front of the shaft proved to decrease the dynamic spine enough to shoot.

Now that I understand FOC I can see why they shot so good.

Troy

[Fletcher]

#30736

I’ve done very little work with cane arrows and shafts and have not footed any. I don’t find wood footings to be heavy enuf to make any significant difference in FOC, replacing wood or cane with a slightly heavier wood. IMO, the real advantage to footings is their increased strength at the point. An osage or lam maple foot is WAY stronger than a plain POC, fir or spruce tip. I like to front taper my shafts just enuf to get the point/shaft contact inside the ferrule to eliminate the sharp stress riser at the back of the ferrule.

[Troy Breeding]

#30799

Fletcher,

Are you tapering the rear of the shafts to 5/16″ and the front to 11/32″?

If so, I think they call that a breasted shaft. I used this style tapering quite a bit when I shot hickories. It allowed the shaft to retain quite a bit of strength behind the point unlike a true barrle tapered shaft.

Troy

[horserod]

#30889

I, for one, enjoyed Dr. Ashby’s seminar dealing with EFOC. I have been using the bow and arrow since 1957 and through all these years understand what works and doesn’t work ! Actually, Dr. Ashby backed up alot of my discoveries I have learned. With this information(from the seminar) and researching here, I have made up my own arrows with over a 22% EFOC and I’m excited about my further adventures hunting with my new equipment(I bought a new bow at the Expo). I’ve had to reduce my bow poundage due to a recent injury. I have,also, been a modern broadhead collector and attest to what men have come up with(in their minds) to enhance better bowhunting success, Let me say it has had me scratching my head many times ! Thank you Dr. Ashby for reviving my lackadaisical attitude towards my bow hunting !!! I will report on my coming adventures……Bullseye

[Ed Ashby]

#31230

bullseye wrote: I will report on my coming adventures……Bullseye

Looking forward to hearing them!

Ed

[Fletcher]

#31241

Troy, I tail taper about 10 inches to 5/16 but my front taper is only about 4″ and just enuf to get the end of the taper inside the ferrule. Generally that is about 11/32 or slightly less. With such a short taper, the spine change is unnoticeable even on my meter, much less shooting. I do believe it makes the point end much less succeptible to breakage.

Bullseye, we would be interested in hearing about your earlier observations. Years ago when I would make a set of arrows, I would mount some with 125 points and some with 160’s to see which was going to shoot best. It seemed like the 160’s always won, and I eventually quit messing with 125’s. I was learning about FOC before I knew what it was.:D

[Troy Breeding]

#31487

Fletcher,

Yep, that’s about the ame way I did my hickory. Not noticeable on the spine tester either.

Troy

[sapcut]

#31656

Regarding the topic of UEFOC arrows, I have continued my life’s ambition as an arrow scientist wannabe. My latest information I have gathered is using a lighter insert and using that weight in the broadhead instead.

The TuffHead 300 is definitely my new favorite for two reasons. One is the benefit of the wider bevel. I think the wider bevel will twist more creating more cutting power. And the TuffHead 300 has allowed me to trade the 100 grain insert for a 15 grain insert and put that 85 grain difference in the TuffHead 300. The end result is the SAME total weight arrow with 1.3% more FOC. I know that’s not the most important accomplishment on this great Earth but it helps calm my tick.

As usual I can use the 2317 footing to create a sleeve over the insert AND the extended shoulder of the broadhead adapter. This should sufficiently strengthen the aluminum insert. Finally, the sleeve fits nice and snug underneath the ferrule’s edge. It has a very smooth penetrating profile.

The end product is a 31.25″ GT Ultralight Entrada 300 with 2317 over a 2117 footings, a 15 gr. insert, 170 gr. broadhead adapter, Tuffhead 300 and 3-3″ low nanner fletching. Total weight of 810 grains and 33.7% FOC shot from 71@31.

[kingwouldbe]

#31882

I was playing around today on a judo to mach my Tuffhead weight.

All with-in a few grains

Tuffhead with 100grain steel insert for 400 grains total

Judo with a 300 grain steel field point tapered to a 5 degrees, 407 grains total.

300 grain Brass field point from Joe Furlong with 100 grain steel insert for 400 grains total.

[kingwouldbe]

#31889

Sapcut,

You got some bad medicine right there.

I am most envious of that 71# @ 31″ draw. 😛

[sapcut]

#31919

King…

That adapter you have in your judo is the way I’ve been making my heavy broadhead adapters for several years now. Look at the draw clearance you have added with the long adapter. Now you can cut your arrow shorter to create more spine for more FOC.

Speaking of long draw….just keep pulling it back. I anchor with string touching brow.

[kingwouldbe]

#32441

I hear ya Sapcut, sep, if I keep pulling it back, my ear gets caught in the string, 😕 fully stretched out I can get 29-29 1/2, except I like to stay a little compacted with some flex in my bow arm.

It takes away from my overall bow performance, however I think it increases my accuracy.

If I took one of these 300 field points ( after tapering it weighs 265 ) and put it in a Tuffhead 300 I could make a 565 grain broadhead, I might be able to catch up to Troy and his Airhammer with 40% UEFOC.

Whats after Ultra extreme forward of center (UEFOC) the BLACK HOLE. 😀

[Fletcher]

#32446

Smithhammer wrote: Bump w/ a question – is it just me, or do other people find that EFOC-related discussions tend to draw a knee-jerk reaction in some trad circles? Some people almost seem to see this stuff a sacrilege (since it wasn’t what Howard Hill did…), or contend that it’s all theory and that “the real world is different.” And I continue to be amazed at the number of people who say it only applies to “big” animals. I don’t really care that much what others choose to do, but it’s a trend I’ve definitely noticed and I’m scratching my head as to why.

Regardless, I find threads like this really great and thought-provoking. Just because it’s “traditional” doesn’t mean there still isn’t room for exploration and refinement, in my opinion. Thanks for all the great info here.

Yes, Smith, I see it too. Most people are resistant to change, esp when the new goes against what they have been taught, believed and professed in the past. Meaningful change takes time, but the evidence is there and groundwork laid. Like those who oppose high FOC and single bevels, shoot what you believe to be best and let the results speak for themselves. We all have much to learn.

[Troy Breeding]

#32494

King,

Blackhole!!!!:shock: Now thats funny as all get out!!!:D

It will from this point on be known as BHFOC…:P

Troy

[sapcut]

#32757

At what percentage does BHFOC start? Just tell me the number, 35+%? 😆 I’ve got to have one. I can’t wait to see the Lasters (Light and fast crowd) at SB tell me how ridiculous it is to have a BHFOC arrow and I should only use trad equipment in moderation….moderate weight bow and arrow and forget about the bones.

King,

You could use a 225 field point and get a 200 gr. adapter or a 200 FP and get a 170 ish..which is on my TuffHead 300 now.

Have you tried the Victory HV 300’s yet? They are like 6.9 gpi. instead of the 8.6 we are using now with the GT UL 300.

[Ed Ashby]

#32786

Since one of those ‘primitive’ PNG arrows made 42.6% FOC I suppose the ‘unknow territory’ of the BHFOC would have to start at 43% – yikes!

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#32828

43%!!!!!!!:shock:

Dang!!! that is going to be hard…:cry:

I thought I was going to need a straight jacket before making 40%,,, now the challenge for 43% has me trying to figure that one out.

Wonder if Joe has any plans for a 400gr point????

Troy

[sapcut]

#32873

All right!!! Can’t wait to take the BHFOC arrow to SB. It will be ha-Larry-us to see all the SBers tell me why its so ridiculous and how I need to build arrows in moderation.

Troy, I’m thinking maybe fill the TuffHead 300 ferrule with lead…..but then again those dudes may be too expensive for experimenting.

[Troy Breeding]

#32885

Sap,

If Joe isn’t willing to make a heavier head I guess I’ll have to figure out how to make a heavier adpt.

The adpt I used to make the 40% arrows was 275grs

The other problem is I’ll have to work up to a heavier bow.

The “Airhammer” arrow tips the scales at 992grs. I’d only be guessing, but to get 43% I would think the finished arrow would be close to 1200grs.

Troy

[kingwouldbe]

#33109

Troy Breeding wrote: King,

Blackhole!!!!:shock: Now thats funny as all get out!!!:D

It will from this point on be known as BHFOC…:P

Troy

Well, they say a black hole sucks every thing into it…..

I was just having fun guys, and I see we are all nuts enough to try and reach the imposable, I just reached 35% now Doc Ashby raises the bar again….

If you think about it, we are HUNTERS, and most of our kills are under 25 yards, so trajectory is irrelevant at such close yardage.

With this new 43% arrow you just might, never have an arrow stay in an animal.

I like the idea of that, as I break to many arrow each year.

[sapcut]

#33373

As I begin my tinkering I increased point weight to 560 of the arrow I have and only got 37.6%. The 27 7/8″ balance point mark is where I reach 43% FOC. That requires 850 grains up front……ain’t happening….unless I were to use a 6-7″ 2117 footing to stiffen arrow quite a bit.

Oh brother….challenges challenges

[Ed Ashby]

#33407

Little doubt that at least a long IF will be needed to get enough dynamic shaft spine for a BHFOC arrow. Then it’s going to take a really heavy point weight. I wouldn’t be surprised if the total arrow weight got up clost to 1700 grains; perhaps more. Pretty hefty, but still way lighter than the solid fibergalss fish arrows Bob Swinehart used on his elephant or those Monty Browning has hunted everyhing with for years … at low FOC. Amazing that very few folks have jumped on Monty for using such heavy arrows. I guess using low FOC and large fletching makes it alright to use extremely heavy arrows. 🙄

Ed

[Vintage Archer]

#33416

Keep it up you mad scientist. BHFOC might be something for Ripley’s record book .I hope some one makes it. It would be interesting to read the reaction to that on the other sites.:D It would blow their minds.:D

[Troy Breeding]

#33436

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

The lighties would still say their arrows would everything the BHFOC can…… 😀

Eyegor, Eyegor,,,,, where the heck is my assisant.. I never can find him when I need him.

Somebody sent up the lightening collector rod… I need more power!!!!

Troy

[sapcut]

#33511

As of now, calculating all the arrow components together looks to be in the 1250-1300 grain range. Just not sure yer if the 7″ e,eternal footing will stiffen arrow enough. But I do have the details in mind that will give me 43%. Still early yet.

[kingwouldbe]

#33621

ut’oh….. we have created a MONSTER 😯

This is going to be fun

[Troy Breeding]

#33640

I was thinking more along the lines of the Gene Wilder version of Young Frankenstine…:D

Troy

[kingwouldbe]

#33668

I’ve got it……..it’s only 1,981.5 grains

It has a 1,384 grain broadhead.

It has a 11″ steel cable 180 grains.

It has an 11″ internal footing carbon arrow 108 grains.

It has a 4″ 2117 external footing.

On a 28 1/4 300 shaft

43.38 BHFOC 😯

[kingwouldbe]

#33679

I have not shot it yet…… 😕

The main reason I have not shot it is….

I had to tape #3 400 grain heads together and one had my super 265 grain insert to hit the mark.

The real challenge might be getting a 1,384 grain broadhead and then getting a arrow shaft stiff enough to handle it.

I just wanted to see how far we have to go to get there.( as I sit here shaking my head )

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#33760

Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: You know, I’m a rather brilliant surgeon. Perhaps I can help you with that hump.

Igor: What hump?

[Ed Ashby]

#33773

We must keep this site secret while working on the BHFOC. I see the relatively benign EFOC and small fletching thread got pulled from another site. No telling what they might do if they heard of the heresy underway here. 😈

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#33808

Dagnabit!!!!!

You beat me to the draw King….:cry:

I just gave birth to the new “Fronkinsteen” arrow.

780gr point on a 425gr shaft.

Total weight before tuning 1205gr.:shock:

FOC at this time is 43.65% 😯

I’ll start tuning as soon as the weather warms up.

Troy

[Troy Breeding]

#33822

A couple of pics of the newborn.

First shot in the cradle.

Next a head shot. Can you see her smiling face.:D

I will keep everyone updated as she evolves into “something”:shock:

Troy

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#33824

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: We must keep this site secret while working on the BHFOC. I see the relatively benign EFOC and small fletching thread got pulled from another site. No telling what they might do if they heard of the heresy underway here. 😈

Ed

Good point. Then we better not breathe a word about my SFFOC (Seriously Freakin’ Forward of Center) project either. The ears of the Inquisition are everywhere. 8)

[kingwouldbe]

#33862

What chu talking about Willis……………hold on there….. your 860 grains less that what I came up with, that just might be workable.

What we need is someone to turn some 400, 500, 600, 700 grain broadhead inserts, then at least we can start to shoot it, to see if we can tune it.

Troy,

It looks like your stacking inserts on field points, it that right?

I did internal and external footing to see if it would spine, but I don’t have anything heavy enough to shoot.

With a heavy 500 grain broadhead adapter and a 300 grain broadhead, now we’re talking.

Troy,

I think your going to have to do some internal footing to get that shaft to handle that much weight hanging on the front, and that is why the overall weight go’s up, it takes away from the foc or the BHFOC……. lol

Oh! we have the first pic’s of the BHFOC in flight

[kingwouldbe]

#33867

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: We must keep this site secret while working on the BHFOC. I see the relatively benign EFOC and small fletching thread got pulled from another site. No telling what they might do if they heard of the heresy underway here. 😈

Ed

I gotcha Doc. we will speak in code from now on…. we need a secret name for this.

How bout “Manhattan project”

[Troy Breeding]

#33868

King,

It does have and internal and extermial footing. I used the same basic setup I used to make the “Airhammer”. Just increased the internial footing a tad.

The point is a 279gr homemade adpt, 200gr woodie weight and one of Joe’s 300gr glue-ons.

The toughest part is lining it all up so the shaft spins true. The homemade adpt is the problem. The angle isn’t exactly correct and I have to play with it a bit to make sure the complete setup spins right.

I’m sure the weight will back off alittle and very well drop in FOC once I start tuning. The shaft is still full length. If it holds on FOC, I want have a problem with a slight drop in overall weight.

Troy

[kingwouldbe]

#33884

Troy,

Your still almost half the point weight I need to get to 43%

I sure hope you can get there, I would be willing to go 1200-1400 grains. 😯

I just got some new Morrison carbon foam 67lb’er I think would love to shoot them.

[Troy Breeding]

#33897

King,

Don’t know when I’ll get to test. It’s supposed to start snowing again tonight and do it until sometime around mid day tomarrow.

I’ll let everyone know how it does as soon as possible.

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#33970

Kingwouldbe wrote: I gotcha Doc. we will speak in code from now on…. we need a secret name for this.

How bout “Manhattan project”

Is that a photo of what it’s going to look like when the BHFOC arrow hits home?

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#33980

That’s what my target may do when I shoot it the first time.

Remember, my normal 34.4% arrow went out the back of the “new” Blackhole target I had at K’Zoo.

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#34042

It might just do that Troy 😯 – this IS unchartered territory. 😀

Ed

[David Petersen]

#34085

What? BHFOC? Exploring unchartered territory? Trying to “fix something that ain’t broke”? Heresy! I’m betting the Trilateral Commission is involved in this unAmerican, unGodly fondness for exploring new ground and having fun with it … “they” are up there, hiding above the dark clouds in black helicopters! 😛 “It’s not paranoia when they’re really after you.” 😯

[Ed Ashby]

#34086

SCATTER – WE’VE BEEN INFILTRATED!

Ed

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#34775

Whew. Just want to reiterate how much I appreciate and enjoy this place and discussions like this – informative and funny, with no one feeling threatened.

and Troy – can you shoot video? I’d love to see the “Fronkenstein” in flight!

[Troy Breeding]

#34807

Bruce,

I’ve tried to get video of my shafts in the past. We don’t have a video camera, but do have a short video setup on our digital camera as well as both my phone and wifes phone.

So far we havn’t been able to get anything you can see other than a short blip.

I think one of the problems is that the shafts are black and doesn’t pickup very well with our setups. I’m thinking if I paint the shaft white it might help.

I’d buy a video camera if I had more use for one.

Troy

[Troy Breeding]

#34853

Thought I’d throw in these new pics.

This one the new baby on her first balancing act in public.

Here is a close up.

Wish the weather was better today. Still snowing, with winds of 15+mph.

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#35249

I’m impressed!

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#35253

Yea, I think I really impressed myself on these pictures.:lol: It’s hard as heck to get a shaft to balance on a round object.

Troy

[David Coulter]

#35287

Just a thought, but maybe you could try making a heavy adapter out of the same compound they make hard cast pistol bullets out of. I’m sure they wouldn’t last as long as a steel part, but those things are very durable. I’ve dug them out of a log that I thought I could reload and shoot again. dwc

[Troy Breeding]

#35304

dwc,

Doesn’t look like point weight will be the problem since I started using the woodie weights. I can keep stacking them to get all the weight I need. The big problem is finding a stiff enough shaft with low gpi to carry the point weight without having a finished arrow that will be 2000grs.

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#35851

Troy, the point length on your BHFOC arrow is starting to resemble these primitive arrows.

Egads! The second one looks like it not only has high FOC it also has a tiny winged nock that serves as the SMALL FLETCHING. Heresy! Way too high tech to be allowed. Modern ‘traditional’ bowhunters must not be permitted to see this item.

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#35866

LOL!!! Now your getting the idea!!!:D

See,, I do read at times…:D

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#35877

We are just begining to relearn much about archery/bowhinting that was clearly known and understood long, long ago. 💡 Now if the Traditional Archery Police will only permit it’s use …

Ed

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#35947

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: We are just begining to relearn much about archery/bowhinting that was clearly known and understood long, long ago. 💡 Now if the Traditional Archery Police will only permit it’s use …

Ed

Ha. So true. Just a few highlights of statements I’ve received from the Trad Police of late:

“small fletches? nope, as dumb as mechanical broadheads, imho. playing with small fletches on hunting arrows is just plain stupid. save that for target archery and flight shoots.”

“the real concern about foc, mini fletches, fletch turbulators, skinny bowstrings, etc, is that too many folks use tackle technicals as a crutch. none of that crap is a panacea must-have to hunt well.”

“going down to a 3″ 4-fletch drastically increases the chance of poor recovery from a bad release under hunting conditions, no matter how high the foc. ”

Good thing the Papua New Guineans (and others) didn’t have the Trad Police around, telling them what was acceptable and what wasn’t, or they never would have gotten anywhere.

I also find it really interesting that folks who are so vehemently opposed to experimenting with these ideas frequently say that these things are being used as a “crutch,” or are for people who are looking for a shortcut to sidestep having solid hunting skills. Where has anyone actually suggested this, or denied the fundamental importance of good hunting skill, regardless of the tackle that’s being used? Nowhere that I’ve seen.

Once again, I’m reminded that, “In the beginner’s mind, there are many possibilities, in the “expert’s” there are few.”

[Troy Breeding]

#35962

I wonder what will be said when and if this ever gets out. May have to keep it between ourselves. Otherwise, some of the lighties may stroke out. LOL!!!:D

Troy

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#35965

Troy Breeding wrote: I wonder what will be said when and if this ever gets out. May have to keep it between ourselves. Otherwise, some of the lighties may stroke out. LOL!!!:D

Troy

I think it would be great! How funny would it be if Trad Bowhunter got a reputation for promoting “radical” thinking? There are at least several layers of irony there…

[sharpster]

#36557

Well I see we’re all having fun…

Troy, Sapcut, and King…. I see an awfull lot of connections on those missles y’all are building… now don’t forget the first rule: Structural integity 😛

Hey! I see we’re also doing quotes! I’ve always liked this one:

The passion for truth is silenced by answers which have the weight of undisputed authority.

– Paul Tillich

Ron

[Troy Breeding]

#36586

sharpster wrote: Well I see we’re all having fun…

Troy, Sapcut, and King…. I see an awfull lot of connections on those missles y’all are building… now don’t forget the first rule: Structural integity 😛

Hey! I see we’re also doing quotes! I’ve always liked this one:

The passion for truth is silenced by answers which have the weight of undisputed authority.

– Paul Tillich

Ron

Structural integity????

Heck, if all else fails I’ll break out the duct tape.:D

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#37221

Is duct tape considered traditional?

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#37236

Probly not, but who cares as long as it works!:D

Heck I even shot a bow a couple weeks ago that was made from a plastic coathanger.:D:D

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#37306

Troy Breeding wrote: Heck I even shot a bow a couple weeks ago that was made from a plastic coathanger.:D:D

If you haven’t see it check out this link on making a horse bow from a PVC pipe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahPK7coHVXQ

There are several other YouTube videos on using PVC for horse bows too.

Ed

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#37363

THAT’S NOT TRADITIONAL!!!!

[Troy Breeding]

#37364

Lord help!! Now everyone will think they are seeing deer in the woods with all those white bows.:shock:

Sure hope he plans on painting it.:D

I saw a red one in the background.

Also that would be an easy way to make kids bows that wouldn’t break the bank.

Troy

[kingwouldbe]

#37385

Troy, I need all your specs on your arrow, including all parts used.

Thanks bro.

[Troy Breeding]

#37387

Kingwouldbe wrote: Troy, I need all your specs on your arrow, including all parts used.

Thanks bro.

I tink I tee a putty tat!!!!:D

No tweety, just a brother of the knowledge!!!

PM sent in a short Bro.

Troy

[kingwouldbe]

#37392

Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: Is duct tape considered traditional?

Ed

40 years ago……. that’s Fred Bear’s traditional time frame.

On the lunar surface in December 1972, Apollo 17 astronauts Harrison Schmitt and Eugene Cernan needed to repair one of their lunar rover’s fenders in an effort to keep the “rooster tails” of dust away from themselves and their gear. This picture reveals the wheel and fender of their dust covered rover along with the ingenious application of spare maps, clamps, and grey strip of “duct tape”.

[Ed Ashby]

#37393

Kingwouldbe wrote: Troy, I need all your specs on your arrow, including all parts used.

They will likely have to arrive in a plain brown envelope that gives no indication of the seditious contents.

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#37397

LOL!!! LOL!!!:D

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#37400

Duct tape in the space program! That does it. Can’t use duct tape, it is definitely too high tech to be traditional. 😕

Ed

[kingwouldbe]

#37402

To little never works…….:(

[Ed Ashby]

#37415

Before I get ticketed by the Trad Police which should I give up, my straight-end longbow, Hill-style shooting glove, St. Charles quiver and moccasins or my ‘too high-tech’ arrows? ❓

Ed

[kingwouldbe]

#37417

I have been working with my compass to try and figure out how Troy did it………

[Troy Breeding]

#37420

I knew one of these days I’d figure out how to put that square peg in the round hole.:D

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#37422

Kingwouldbe wrote: I have been working with my compass to try and figure out how Troy did it………

No hope, King. It is a ‘Dark Side’ secret.

Ed

[kingwouldbe]

#37425

Troy got it…. nice detail

[Troy Breeding]

#37426

Oh crank!!! you mean we finally went over to the dark side???:shock:

Daddy always say I had too much space between the ears. I thought he just meant wide.

Troy

[Ed Ashby]

#37427

Destroying society. … one bowhunter at a time.

[kingwouldbe]

#37428

Just one question? where did you get the enriched uranium 😯

[Ed Ashby]

#37430

Kingwouldbe wrote: Just one question? where did you get the enriched uranium 😯

Iran.

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#37431

Just wait until they see my turbo booster I’m designing.:shock:

Troy

[kingwouldbe]

#37434

I only thought WE where NUTS……. Now I KNOW 🙄

[Ed Ashby]

#37436

Troy has harnessed The Force 😈

Ed

[kingwouldbe]

#37440

Troy Breeding wrote: Just wait until they see my turbo booster I’m designing.:shock:

Troy

That gave me an Idea…. what if we fill the shaft with gun powder and use a CB cap to detonate.

Oh… we might have to hunt in the black powder season.

Never mind

[Ed Ashby]

#37450

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#37451

[Troy Breeding]

#37475

I was thinking more on the lines of an inline ignitation system powered by turbo lined computer and jet fuel.

That way I could call the new arrow “shank and bake”.:D

Troy

[sharpster]

#38459

Fletcher wrote: [quote=Smithhammer]Bump w/ a question – is it just me, or do other people find that EFOC-related discussions tend to draw a knee-jerk reaction in some trad circles? Some people almost seem to see this stuff a sacrilege (since it wasn’t what Howard Hill did…), or contend that it’s all theory and that “the real world is different.” And I continue to be amazed at the number of people who say it only applies to “big” animals. I don’t really care that much what others choose to do, but it’s a trend I’ve definitely noticed and I’m scratching my head as to why.

Regardless, I find threads like this really great and thought-provoking. Just because it’s “traditional” doesn’t mean there still isn’t room for exploration and refinement, in my opinion. Thanks for all the great info here.

Yes, Smith, I see it too. Most people are resistant to change, esp when the new goes against what they have been taught, believed and professed in the past. Meaningful change takes time, but the evidence is there and groundwork laid. Like those who oppose high FOC and single bevels, shoot what you believe to be best and let the results speak for themselves. We all have much to learn.

Excellent post Fletcher… “we all have much to learn”….

Words we should keep not so far in the back of our minds at all times. Well said!

Ron

[L82HUNT]

#38898

Just really started messing with the smaller fletching. But am really happy so far. Only at 27.5% foc thou, but getting excellent flight. Having a custom chopper for some 3″x 3/4″ A&A pattern made right now.

[Ed Ashby]

#38989

I’ve had great luck with the A&A on arrows with FOC from about 25% on up. I haven’t given them a try on FOC’s lower than that, but suspect that a 3″x3/4″ would work at FOC’s in the low 20’s.

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#39176

Now your telling me I used all those feathers for nothing!

[Ed Ashby]

#40049

This deserves multiple postings. 😀

“The arrow has been likened to a ship; the feathers corresponding to the rudder with which the ship is steered. If the rudder is too heavy, it slows the ship down and may even cause it to sink; if it is too light, the ship will roll and pitch and be out of control.” – From translation of the 500 year old text on Arabic Archery

Ergo; if the fletching is of a greater amount than the minimum required to stabilize the arrow’s flight all it does is slow the arrow down and ‘cause it to sink’. 😯

Ed

[jmack130]

#40098

it think at 15 yards my bow will shoot a bare shaft as good as a fletched shaft the feather is just to stabelize it right ?

[Ed Ashby]

#40107

jmack130 wrote: it think at 15 yards my bow will shoot a bare shaft as good as a fletched shaft the feather is just to stabelize it right ?

If the tuning is correct a bare shaft with field points should shoot just as accurately as a fletched shaft at all distances; particularly if the arrow has EFOC/UEFOC. When you add a broadhead to the shaft the broadhead induces windsheer, stearing the arrow from the front. What is then required is enough steerage on the shaft’s rear to overcome the windsheer effect of the broadhead. This stabalizes the broadhead-tipped arrow’s flight. For maximum performance you want to use the least amount of fletching possible to counteract the broadhead’s windsheer. Any fletching above this amount merely detracts from the arrow’s downrange performance.

Ed

[David Petersen]

#40356

“For maximum performance you want to use the least amount of fletching possible to counteract the broadhead’s windsheer. Any fletching above this amount merely detracts from the arrow’s downrange performance.”

While it all seems so simple when considered one piece at a time, when taken together, Ed, some of your most basic research findings often get lost in the shadows. For example single-bevel broadheads almost as wide as they are long. In light of what you say above, it’s obvious that shooting a long-narrow head, close as possible to 3:1 per the Tuffhead, will reduce wind shear way below what a fat head will create, thus allowing for less fletching. Thus, it’s not just UEFOC and arrow tuning that allow for less fletching drag, but a high MA as well. MA is the least-mentioned factor in all of these discussions, but one I’ve always felt to be extremely important … and when the head hits the abrupt transition from air to flesh or bone, a high MA’s import multiplies, eh no? Given the same force, am I going to be able to stab you deeper with a short fat knife, or a long narrow dagger? And as force/bow poundage decreases, the MA takes on increasingly great import, eh? Yet broadhead manufacturers, even some who have been pioneers in other areas of bringing your research to market and so should know better, continue to sell Fatheads. But progress is absolutely being made, censorial inertia notwithstanding … lead, as all worthwhile freedoms are lead, by the freedom of speech.

And whatever happened to Steve Sr.? He starts this, the most ongoing thread thus far in the history of tradbow.com … and then disappears. Maybe he fell into the same hole Patrick has been bobbing in and out of for the past many months. I hope he’s OK.

[Ed Ashby]

#40404

Dave, you are correct on all fronts. While each factor in arrow design has its own individual contribution to make, independent of the other factors, everything about the arrow design is also interconnected. It’s this complimentary effect that allows such a great increase in penetration. None of the factors, taken alone, gives such enhancement of performance.

I haven’t heard from Steve Sr. either. I too hope all is well.

Ed

[Fallguy]

#40420

I always try to impress upon our students in our bow hunter Ed. classes that a bent stick can be a bow but a bent stick can not be a arrow. When buying equipment with limited funds.

1. broadhead

2. arrow

3. bow

[Ed Ashby]

#41060

Small bamboo-leaf fletching from Southeast Asia. 😀

Ed

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#41083

I really fail to see how any of this is “overly technical” or representative of a “compound mentality” – two common detractions that these sorts of discussions have been accused of.

I mean, how exactly is a two-blade, single-bevel head any more “technical” than a double-bevel three blade?

How is 3″ of fletching any more “technical” than 5″?

[Troy Breeding]

#41091

I’ll get you Smithhammer,,,, you evil do’er..

[Ed Ashby]

#41188

[Troy Breeding]

#41203

[Ed Ashby]

#41217

[Troy Breeding]

#41238

[Ed Ashby]

#41258

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#41259

[Ed Ashby]

#41261

[Ed Ashby]

#41345

[kingwouldbe]

#41445

Ashby, why did you have to bring my little brother into this….

[Ed Ashby]

#41455

He’s still a youngster … boss ain’t even complete yet. Humph!

[Troy Breeding]

#41678

[Ed Ashby]

#41690

WHO YOU CALL’N A LIGHTWEIGHT … AND I’M IN PRACTICE TOO!

[Ed Ashby]

#42380

I’m just adding a tag to Troy’s thread on Fearhers???? What Feathers!!!!, as it goes so well with this thread, and this will make locating it easier; as time goes by.

https://www.tradbow.com/members/cfmbb/messages.cfm?threadid=8CEF2218-1422-1DE9-ED9091068EB49702

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

#42390

Should add this related link too.

https://www.tradbow.com/members/cfmbb/messages.cfm?threadid=82BCA52F-1422-1DE9-ED7A414F5E9C0794

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

#42401

TROY,

No? Then you should locate and link all those EFOC/UEFOC tuning threads you posted to this thread too. That way they will be a lot easier to locate a year or two from now, when someone ask about you about where they are. That’s advice from having to spend a long time trying to locate an old posting for someone, to answer their questions.

Ed

[Troy Breeding]

#42471

[Ed Ashby]

#45224

Troy Breeding wrote:

Easy.

[L82HUNT]

#59048

Made some 2.5″ long by.75″ high. They whistle very badly I’m guessing because of the height and angle. Cut them down to 5/8″ and quiet.

[Ed Ashby]

#60871

You might want to try them at the ‘standard’ A&A pattern height of 1/2″; increasing the length a bit, if necessary. At that height we found them quieter but, more interestingly, virtually impervious to being wet. This appears to be a factor of the relative ‘stiffness’ of the 1/2″ high fletching. We were able to soak them in a bucket of water for a full 30 minutes, remove them and, without even shaking the water off, have them shoot to the same point of impact as when the fletching was dry (with a 190 grain Grizzly BH) at 40 yards.

Ed

[Author]

Posts