Home Forums Friends of FOC wood v. carbon

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • Ptaylor
      Member
      Post count: 573

      For some of you folks that understand the FOC concept better than I would like to hear your opinions (and correct me if I state anything wrong):

      Wood shafts are stronger than carbon upon impact, and converts more energy into penetration on impact. But-

      Carbon allows for higher FOC and therefore better penetration.

      So which (carbon or wood shafts) allow for more consistent performance and therefore more consistent kills?

    • Doc Nock
      Post count: 1150

      This should be good… too bad I don’t eat popcorn anymore.

      I’m going to sit back and watch this unfold… 😯

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Ptaylor wrote: For some of you folks that understand the FOC concept better than I would like to hear your opinions (and correct me if I state anything wrong):

      Wood shafts are stronger than carbon upon impact, and converts more energy into penetration on impact. But-

      Carbon allows for higher FOC and therefore better penetration.

      So which (carbon or wood shafts) allow for more consistent performance and therefore more consistent kills?

      First, it is ONLY the hardwood shafts (hickory, laminated birch, purple heart, ipe, etcetera) that are more durable than carbon shafts. The more commonly shaft woods are NOT more durable than carbon, they are about the same level of durability.

      Second, there is nothing inherent in wood shafts that allow it to ‘convert more energy into penetration’. The ability to convert arrow force into penetration is dependent on the arrow’s transfer efficiency, and there are several penetration enhancing factors that affect transfer efficiency. That’s what the penetration factors are all about, and the degree of FOC the arrow carries ranks at number three in overall importance, right after total arrow integrity and quality of arrow flight.

      If the choice is between the commonly used shaft woods and carbon shafts then carbon offers the potential for much higher FOC; ergo, carbon would offer the potential for greater penetration.

      Not certain if that was what you’re asking but I hope it helps a bit.

      Ed

    • Ptaylor
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 573

      Thanks Ed, yes that does help. So if your arrow is going to break then you want a hardwood shaft because it is stronger than carbon and arrow integrity is #1. But if the arrow doesn’t break then the other penetration enhancing factors (which can be achieved better with carbon) should be used.

    • David Petersen
      Member
      Post count: 2749

      I think you have it right there, PT. You interpreted what Ed said just so. I doubt that many have spent more time and money than me trying to make woods work for EFOC, because I just really prefer shooting woods. But once again and for now I give up. While I have never bought in to the BS we hear from compounders that “it’s more humane thanks to the technology” (it could be if they shot real arrows with real broadheads at real bowhunting distances, which darn few do), I do buy in that an arrow of the perfect weight for the game, with at least EFOC (20%) and the right broadhead for the animal … now that truly is a case of “humanity via technology.” If I never hunted anything but deer, etc. I wouldn’t worry about it as much as I do and a heavy hardwood shaft with a good head, with or without EFOC, I think would get the job done. But I hunt elk almost exclusively so I always embrace Ed’s logo, “There’s no such thing as overkill.” It’s always great to hear from folks like you who are concerned about doing it the best, that is most consistently lethal and humane, way possible, rather than wishful lazy thinking and denial of past failures.

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.