Arrow comparisons

[handirifle]

#5543

I made up some Aluminum heavy arrows, and one carbon. The alums weigh 670gr as does the carbon. I hate to say, but I haven’t checked the FOC of both. The carbon, I believe was checked before and was at 31%. I can check the alum FOC tomorrow.

I made them up, after tuning, fletched with 5″ shield cut feathers. As a side note, the alums were using my heavy steel inserts, and only a 125gr field point, total weight 670gr.

The carbon is using the heavy steel insert (135gr) and a 280gr field point. Total weight, 667gr.

I was shooting at 20 and 25yds. The target is my 2′ x 2′ 2′ cardboard box, packed solid with plastic grocery bags.

I have to mention that this is in no way meant to discredit, or disagree with any other testing done on this subject, but is rather, just an observation, of MY experience.

After repeated shots, something in the range of 100 or more, I found that, at least in this medium, I could seldom see any difference in penetration. Maybe 1 shot out of 10 I might see the carbon sticking 2: deeper, on a few occasions, less deep than the alums.

This is NOT any type of scientific test, since the packing is most likely NOT consistent inside the box. Both types of field points, homemade and factory, had very similar profiles.

As Dr. Ashby had told me before, there was ZERO noticeable difference in arrow flight. At least out to 30yds, where I shot a few shots.

I wounder if similar tests were done on game animals? Sorry, I have NOT read all of the reports.

[handirifle]

#42738

OK I checked today, and the aluminums are at 22% FOC and the carbons are at 31%.

[Ed Ashby]

#47130

You need to make those penetration comparisons on fresh tissues. In the early days of testing I tried almost every synthetic test medium I could think of, from ballistic gel to all sorts of combinations of material. None correlate with the outcomes seen in real tissues. I’m not the only one to find that either. About eight or nine years ago a team composed of European forensic pathologist tried to find a test medium for arrow testing that would duplicate their findings in real tissues and also failed to find one. It’s simply impassible to duplicate the complicated matrix of blood suffused tissues having multiple-directional curved surface hard tissues imbedded within it.

Mother Nature designed the body to both absorb and redirect impact and penetration forces, but not to have strong pressure upon the shaft (shaft drag) by the soft tissues. In fact the blood lubricates the shaft, reducing friction. All artificial test mediums lack this feature and most targets are designed to stop arrows based upon shaft friction with the material.

Bottom line; the penetration seen see in fresh, real tissues is not the same as what is seen in artificial mediums.

Ed

[handirifle]

#49886

Yea I kinda figured that was the case. Wasn’t trying to cast any doubt on your studies (like I would even have anywhere near the qualifications for that) was just noting the target medium played havoc with the results.

[Author]

Posts