[Munsterman]

in reply to: Deer sent and Human urin #28820

Two years ago, my son and I were on a mock scrape kick ( yeah, they really do work!) We started several different scrapes, one with just human pee. After “freshening” it several times, the deer started to join right in. In fact, there was a natural scrape nearby that sort of went dormant once this one was opened up.

There was also a scrape near one of our stands… I had my son “freshen” it every time he left the stand. (Not a problem, kid always has to pee). That scrape became one of the primaries in the area (used primarily at night though – at least by the deer)

In years previous to this, I would have argued against these practices, but that season really changed my thinking!

[Munsterman]

in reply to: Staining a pattern #25117

I second D.P. ‘s thought on aniline dye. However, use denatured alcohol as your base ( make sure you’re buying compatible dye). It won’t raise the grain on the back of the bow like a water-based dye would.

[Munsterman]

in reply to: THE WEAK LINK #22194

mhay-

Didn’t want you to think I was trying to discourage you… If your going the plastic route, you may want to look at Nylatron. It’s a fiber-reinforced nylon product. Fairly hard, seems pretty tough, too. I’d actually spin you some inserts if we had bar stock (just to try), but the stuff we’re running uses 5/8″ sheets.

[Munsterman]

in reply to: Tents #19925

Many years ago in Montana, I and two friends were hunting the Bridgers. One of the guys got sick and decided to stay in camp this particular day. During the day, the temps plummeted and a storm blew in. By the afternoon, there was about 8″ of snow on the ground and the wind was howling. We got back to camp to find our buddy in his underwear, snuggled cozily in the wall tent stoking the wood stove ! The thermometer hanging from the ridge pole read 82 deg . !

There’s nothing like a good canvas wall tent and a wood stove!

[Munsterman]

in reply to: THE WEAK LINK #19913

Rep wanted to sell you something! Delrin and Lexan are definitely NOT the same, nor particularly similar to my knowledge. Like I said, I’m not a plastics guy, but we have machined Delrin many times. You’ve probably seen delrin already… many of the “plastic” washers used in the assembly of treestands (to prevent squeaks and rattles)are made of Delrin. It’s a rather slippery plastic. We used to machine “runners” for conveyor lines from it. It’s reasonably tough, but relatively soft. Lexan is a polycarbonate- it’s tough, but relatively hard (by comparison).

[Munsterman]

in reply to: THE WEAK LINK #18384

Steve Graf wrote: [quote=vintage archer]…STEVE and MUNSTERMAN Hardness probably is a contributing factor I agree with Munsterman hardening of adapters probably won’t get done…

Cost is relative. In small batches, I agree that the cost would probably be prohibitive. But in larger batches, it may not be. If I was in the business of selling inserts, I’d make a few phone calls, just to see. It doesn’t cost anything to ask: “where is your price break?”

I did a quick google search and found a couple shops offering a $75 min batch charge. For a 5000 part run, that’s about 1.5 cents/part (assuming that 5000 parts would be a minimum batch run). Plus shipping.

My experience with getting parts made is that it is cheaper to machine soft metal and then heat treat it, than it is to machine hard metal.

But like you say, there is always more than one way to skin a cat. What about a composite insert? Fill the end of an aluminum insert with lead? Get the weight of the steel inserts with the durability of the aluminum inserts…

I bet there is a community college near you that has the equipment to do a bending test on aluminum and steel inserts to definitively determine which is stronger…

$75 min batch charge is actually quite reasonable, but what they’re saying is they won’t do anything for less than $75. That means bring them one insert, it’s $75 ( at least). The reality is that something like this would likely add somewhere in the $.30 -$.50 per piece. The correct way to do this would be to heat treat the stock first and then turn it in the heat treated condition ( very do-able if not made too hard, which you wouldn’t want to anyway). Bottom line still is cost… most inserts are likely made from 1018 – not something that takes well to heat treat, so now you’re left using different (more expensive) steel.

The fact of the matter is, I believe you could build inserts to withstand the type of punishment we’re talking about, far more than aluminum would anyway, however, you will wind up shifting the “weak link” to another part of the arrow. In this case, likely the shaft just in back of the insert. Now you have to look at footings or other ways of distributing the stresses over a greater area of the shaft so that we don’t exceed the yield strength of the shaft at any given point. I believe this is why Mr. Ashby found a lower damage rate with wood than other types of shaft… woods ability to distribute these forces over a greater area (flex/or give at impact without breaking)as opposed to the “hinges” we create when joing the dis-similar items of shaft, insert, and point.

The above is one of the reasons I went with aluminum “outserts” on my son’s arrows. By tapering the aluminum over a great distance to a thin edge, I was able to prevent a “hinge” where shaft and internal insert met. (well, at least not as much of a hinge as I would have had with an insert that maintained full thickness/strength and then abruptly ended). The shaft actually extended up into the 5deg. point somewhat. So we had point,5deg ferrule and shaft tapering to tapered aluminum and shaft, to just shaft.Not perfect, but pretty decent. My son has stuck these in wood and bounced them off rocks at 3D’s and we’ve yet to have a break or bend at this point. He did have one that hit a large pile of rock that blew the nock off and shattered the shaft (carbon) slightly less than midway back and deformed the field point’s nose, but the attachment was ok.

I think this is what is needed… an insert/ point mounting system that is adequately strong and a means to distribute the force of impact over a greater area of the shaft. I believe Mr. Ashby accomplished this with tapered wood internal footings.

I also believe that heat treat or not, a 5deg. taper directly into a ferrule (inside like an insert or outside like an outsert) is a far better means of point attachment than the conventional screw-in type. – It’s just not as convenient.

I think Lexan/composite could have merit if it were adequately strong and accomplished distributing forces over a large area so things might give some but not break. This would likely mean a long insert. Expense? I don’t know – I’m not a plastics guy, but I bet composite might get pretty spendy.

[Munsterman]

in reply to: THE WEAK LINK #17371

Steve Graf wrote:

Heat treating is cheap and easy. 3Rivers and others should ask their manufacturer to heat treat steel inserts.

Sorry to post when I have a differing opinion ( as I don’t post much), but as a machinist and someone who works with steel and aluminum, etc. all the time , I felt I’d chime in.

Heat treating isn’t cheap or easy at all. In fact, it can add quite a bit of expense. Let me explain… not all steels are readily heat-treatable and some use more or less expensive methods of heat treat. So from a purely economic value, the possibility of using more expensive steels, adding heat treating ( shipping, another operation and the handling, too); de-scaling after heat treat and the inevitable loss of some parts due to deformation of heat treat would no doubt raise the price per unit quite a bit. The simple fact of the matter is, no one wants to pay what it’s actually worth to build such an adapter. I’ll grant you the guys here might, but let’s face it, we represent an infinitesimally small cross section of the market for inserts.

Years ago, I made some adaptors out of pre- heat treated 4140 CM steel. These weren’t screw-ins, rather a sleeve going into a 5 deg. taper. The pre-heat treat steel was only about 30 Rc. They were heavy and damn near indestructible ! Actually I don’t ever remembering damaging one, the shaft would always be what suffered damage. I used them on my stump shooting arrows with Judos. Point being, I’m sure there’s not a huge market for such an insert and therefore the cost would be sky-high.

I’ll post a pic if I can find one of them.

[Munsterman]

in reply to: The anser to all our problems! #23523

archer38 wrote: …Joke all you want but I have seen this unit work “first hand” and yes,it does work !!!

Funny, but on my way home from work this product actually came to mind ( saw it this weekend on a hunting show that my son was watching). What I was thinking is when is enough… well, enough. What ever happened to “fair” chase ? At what point do we say “this tilts the tables too far” ? Are we out there for the hunt or the kill? Let’s face it, we choose to bowhunt and shoot traditional equipment for a reason… be it challenge, simplicity, or just to maybe touch the past. Some how we put limits on ourselves and then we look for the latest gadget to make killing easier ? (scratching head) I guess I just don’t get it.

Keeping mind to the wind has always been a part of hunting. Sometimes the wind can cost you an animal. Oh well. Tip your hat to the animals’ great senses and chalk that day up as a win for the other team, so to speak. It’s ok to lament (a little bit) the lost chance, but be glad you had the chance!

Just because something works doesn’t mean it has a place in the hunting woods. Guess I’m just of a different mindset, but then I hang out here too.:D

BTW, Archer38, please don’t think I was singling your comment out. I used it only because you said “it worked” and I can believe that. My in-laws once had an ozone type air purifier and it really did seem to work…. my mother in law fried fish for a meal we had and within about 20 mins. after supper, there was no fish smell, so I believe it could work.

[Munsterman]

in reply to: AMAZING!!!!Thank You Mr. Ashby! #17734

handirifle wrote: … but how do they factor machine cost and wear and tear?

We have fixed rates for hours (actually minutes) a machine runs. In reality, they’re not fixed, but a close average over time of what it costs to run these machines. That with material, time, tooling and profit margin = quoted price. Then you cross your fingers and hope you don’t run into any unforeseen problems that blow your estimation out of the water.

When speaking of products like this, margins are low, so it’s important to be running them on the most efficient machines for the job. Numbers of parts plays a huge role in final price as well. You can make 10K parts a WHOLE LOT cheaper than 10 parts on a per unit basis.

Oh yeah… I don’t own these machines. I have owned a toolroom CNC before and I can tell you… they’re expensive if you don’t keep them spitting out parts.

[Munsterman]

in reply to: AMAZING!!!!Thank You Mr. Ashby! #16463

handirifle wrote:

Were those using the brass outserts?

No, aluminum. The brass would have made the whole arrow too heavy for a 40# bow woth 23″ draw. I did add some lead to the points though. Total point weight , if I remember, was about 220-230grs. ( that’s on a 360-392 gr arrow that’s 24″ long).

[Munsterman]

in reply to: AMAZING!!!!Thank You Mr. Ashby! #13304

Broadhead tuning was uneventful. Broadheads shot to the same point as field points for both spines and both spines shot to almost the same point( the heavier 630’s shot about 3/4″ – 1″ lower, but dead in line, no L/R difference at all).

These things really do penetrate though:

After this we put some space between the targets and it seemed to help.

Now I’m left with the decision of which arrow… the 700’s at 362 grs. and 33% FOC or the 630’s at 392 grs. and29.5% FOC. The 700’s are faster by 6fps and shoot extremely clean, but the 630’s shoot just as well I feel and definitely have the advantage of weight. I’m leaning toward the 630’s.

On a side note: I stood on the deck while my son shot… you really can’t hear the fletch of these arrows ! You can see in the photos that these have a slight helical ( didn’t have straight clamps – I kept them as straight as possible and still get good contact between fletch and shaft, but it didn’t seem to matter much on these short fletch). I went with 2.5″ 3 fletch ( not much room on these thin shafts for 4 fletch) with the hope it would be enough to stabilize the broadheads. In retrospect, I think I could have went with 2″… there were no stability issues whatsoever. Broadheads grouped right with field points which grouped with bare shafts.

[Munsterman]

in reply to: AMAZING!!!!Thank You Mr. Ashby! #12924

Ready for more testing today:

[Munsterman]

in reply to: AMAZING!!!!Thank You Mr. Ashby! #12311

He shot several more arrows and sometimes they would be stopped by the targets, sometimes not. Anything closer than about 25 yds. and they were going right thru.

The 630 shaft came in at 392grs. and 29.5% FOC . The 700 shaft came in at only 360 grs. ,but 33% FOC. Neither of them hit the 400 – 425 grs. I was hoping for, and the 630 didn’t quite make UEFOC 😥 . However, both fly like absolute darts:D . My son even commented that these bare shafts fly better than his 3D arrows.

We chronograph-ed both arrows and he’s getting 168 fps out of the 630 and 174 (if I remember correctly… we chrono-ed all of them) out of the 700’s.

Sorry for the long-winded posts, but to say I was impressed and excited is an under-statement. I know my setups will be changing for myself after seeing this. After talking with a buddy and telling him the results… I think his might be too!

Tomorrow it’s fletching and broadheads! May the best arrow win. ( I’m rooting for the heavier one)

On a side note:

Thank you Mr. Ashby for your life-long study and sharing that benefits us all. The bowhunting community truly owes you a debt of gratitude. It’s my fervent hope that more people will read your work and then try it for themselves so that they may be convinced of its efficacy.

[Munsterman]

in reply to: AMAZING!!!!Thank You Mr. Ashby! #12282

Both arrows passed thru the 11.5″ of styrofoam target and 2″ of ethafoam like it wasn’t even there! The “whump” we heard was the second arrow burying itself into the wood frame we have at the base of our target area. The penetration we were seeing was nothing short of amazing! I’ve shot both these targets before with conventional arrows in the 400-500gr. range out of a 59# bow and have NEVER got penetration like this. ( I should mention that my arrow flight was likely not near as perfect as his either). We kept walking back a fes yds at a time with the same results.

Finally, at 30 yds, the arrows stopped in the target. The 630 was the deeper one, penetrating the whole 11.5″ of styrofoam and 2″ of ethafoam with the point and outsert sticking out the back. The 700 penetrated the styrofoam and just the tip of the field point stuck in the ethafoam.

[Munsterman]

in reply to: AMAZING!!!!Thank You Mr. Ashby! #12274

I should mention… we shot thru paper from 10 yds. to 40″ away from the face of the paper. We had to keep moving closer because there just was no discernible difference in the tears! The above photo shows what we found when the paper was 40″ in front of his arrow. The 570 showed a slight wag to it (so we eliminated it), but the 630 and 700 look dandy!

I should mention at this point the problems we had with “containing” these little beasties. That first shot on the left went through 11.5″ of virgin styrofoam, 2″ of ethafoam, and 13″ of a multi-layer Cabelas foam target. The arrow finally stopped when it hit the 2nd to last layer of very dense, hard foam in the rear of the target. I should also mention that none of these targets are “shot out” (the ethafoam has been shot very little actually) and we purposely positioned the targets so he would hit away from the center and into virgin or less shot areas of the targets. Honestly, pulling arrows was a pain.

After seeing the tears with 630 and 700 arrows we walked back to 20 yds. We had the styrofoam set up with the 2″ ethafoam immediately in back of it. My son let loose with the 700 and all I saw was a slight flash of yellow (nock) and I heard the slight “thuk” of it hitting the styrofoam. I told him to shoot the 630… I heard “thuk” “WHUMP” ! What the heck ? We walked up to see this:

[Author]

Posts