[David Petersen]

in reply to: I picked a team today… #26669

Dan — Ironically and poetically, the “team” you have chosen is “Team Independence.” dave p

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Great Northern Bows #24123

I’ve shot them at Kalamazoo and talked to owners. They make fine bows at a good price.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Waterproofing feathers?? #24121

I’ve used the powder for many years. I think it’s called Fletch Dry. You plunge the feathered end of the shaft into the container and spin it around a few times, then tap off the bulk of extra powder on the inside of the container. Gently rub the powder into each feather, working front to back with the grain. Finally, tap the arrow against your finger or such to knock off any remaining extra. Even so, when you shoot the arrow a cloud of powder will fly off. I find the powder to work well for a while but after enduring a prolonged hard rain it needs to be redone. Like others I’ve also experienced good arrow flight with soaked, limp feathers but don’t like the loud “snap” a wet arrow makes when shot or the cold shower of water in the face.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Woody Weights #19914

Tucson — I apologize for my earlier sloppy and rushed response. I’ve edited it a bit for clarity so try again if you wish.

John — Until recently I had one of the overpriced jigs for drilling out a wood shaft and inserting a nail (real dumb idea as no nail is likely to weight significantly more than the wood you remove to accommodate it), lead wire (increases weight but not strength), titanium rod (increases weight and strength but is obnoxiously expensive)or whatever — available from 3Rivers and eleswhere. Frankly, they just don’t work. Impossible to keep the drilled hole centered in the shaft. To do it right, especially to do it deep, like 3″, which I’ve found necessary to make any measureable diff in foc, you need a professional jig which few of us can afford. Fletcher/The Feathered Shaft, has one and probly other arrowsmiths I don’t know about. Good intentions all around, but I’ve been there and trying to save others a few bucks and disappointment. dp

[David Petersen]

in reply to: EFOC FOC??? #19614

Mark — good question. FOC stands for Forward of Center balance. Somehow the B got deleted. It’s the point that an arrow balances along the shaft ahead of the linear center point of that shaft, expressed as a percentage. EFOC is Extreme foc, generally considered 20% and above. You may also encounter UFOC, or Ultra, 25% and higher and darn hard to attain. For a simple way to calculate FOC see the conversion chart in the Ashby Library on this site. The buzz about FOC is the recent revelation from the ongoing Ashby Study that it’s among the most important aspects of gaining good lethal arrow penetration (along with overall arrow weight and broadhead design). Another bonus is that optimized FOC provides a higher percentage gain in penetration with lighter bows than with heavier bows, which is good news to younger and older shooters and petite women. Scan through the Ashby Library, looking at the more recent study updates and you’ll find a wealth of great info. Ashby has also contributed several articles on the topic to TBM with more on the way. Hope that helps, dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Woody Weights #19601

Tucson — those are hex pine shafts by Whispering Wind, footed with a very heavy wood but I don’t recall what. Also tapered, and with a head in the 190-200 category. I experimented with inserting as much as 3″ of titanium rod up front but even that couldn’t get us past 19%. Read some of Fletcher’s posts regarding his preference for lighter stronger woods than cedar for getting good foc. Fletcher/Rick Stillman/The Feathered Shaft is also experimenting with lead wire inserts.

I see two reasons that a WW setup is more prone to fail than a solid point the same weight: First, the metal-metal joint between the weight and the head ads an additional potential weak spot. Second, the overall head length with WW provides a longer lever-arm thus more pressure against the shaft just behind the head with angled hits to hard objects like bone, or in my testing, a tree trunk. Believe me I have nothing against Woody Weights and celebrate them as a bold experiment and step in the right direction. I just don’t trust them, after my testing, for hunting elk, which is what I mostly do. We now have a 200-grain broadhead glue-on in the El Grande and I predict an ongoing increase in glue-on head weight availability. Combine this with the extra strength and slight increase in forward weight of a footed shaft and that’s about the best we can do, for now, for efoc with woodies. I often look at the old English bodkins and similar “antique” heads and wonder if the lengthened metal collar extending an inch or more down the wood shaft could be a solution to both increased efoc and lessened shaft breakage. Someone smarter than me will have to figure that out. dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Woody Weights #18899

Tucson — With woods, spine is always a bit of a mystery even with the same woods. I’m hoping that Fletcher, and others, will chime in here to be more helpful than I would ever pretent to be. I reluctantly will say that I got really hot on the WW’s when they first came out a few years ago and tested them hard … and was disappointed. Bottom line is that wood is wood and nothing moreso than cedar so far as breakability. You add more weight to the front, esp. when you lengthen the point, and the tendency to break just behind the head increases. And then you have two joints, one between the WW and field or broadhead, which also can break and does. So while I love the idea and live for the day that someone comes up with a way to get around 25% foc with woodies and increase shaft strength rather than the opposite, I won’t personally use or recommend them for hunting. If you look at the cover of the current TBM you see a couple of “antique” heads with lots of obvious “mecha nical advantage” problems in light of today’s arrow penetration and lethality knowledge. But what they do have is long extensions onto the shaft, which distributes the head’s weight and decreases likelihood of breakage. To go back even farther, the old English bodkins had very long “shaft socks.” For now, it seems to me that’s our best hope for getting efoc on woodies without reducing overall arrow integrity. Bottom line imho: If you want an arrow ststem that penetrates lethally even with unfortunate shot placement, go for overall arrow weight, around 650, and a good single-bevel broadhead. The fewer pieces we have in a unit, the less the chance of failure. That said I applaud the farmer-hunter who invented the Woody Weight, trying best he could to get lethal efoc to wood shafts. One step at a time … dp

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Please introduce yourselves, I'll start #18893

Pilot — did you get your chopper training originally in the military? In any event anyone who flies those buckets of bolts for 28 years and survives is equal parts damn lucky and damn good! I felt really blessed to make it through 5 years and never wanted more, at least not as a civilian pilot, as the military let us hot-dog to no end and called it training. 😛 Welcome here, dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Grns. per inch #18535

What Fletcher says is right on as mins in my and most other shooters’ books. For larger game the Ashby Study has shown 650 grains — at any bow length or weight — is minimal to assure killing penetration on heavy bone hits (and only then with a good solid head). That’s what I strive for all around as I find it increasingly difficult to get consistent accuracy with heavy arrows for elk, lighter for deer and prongy, lighter yet for turkey etc. My eye-brain coordination just can’t keep up with it any more. Right now I’m shooting around 680 with 25%+ foc with carbons, and a little over 700 with around 15% foc with woods. If you can handle 650 grains with accuracy that’s what I would shoot for, personal preference. dp

[David Petersen]

in reply to: 1ST TRAD KILL!!! #18529

msarcher — you describe the feeling perfectly. And the best part is that with traditional it never goes away! The more of ourselves we put into anything, the greater the rewards. Big congrats. dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Please introduce yourselves, I'll start #17818

Vermonter1 — few have said it nearly as well in many more words! Great to have you here. dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Supper Kodiak #15118

Can you send close-up pics of the grooves? I’d be careful. You can buy any number of excellent used bows for that price. Aside from that, does it give you everything you want by way of draw weight, length, shooting qualities, aesthetical satisfaction? Sounds overpriced to me but I’m no Bear expert.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Need info for WV deer hunt #12986

Thanks Duncan, I’ll see if I can get a link to the property on google earth. It’s refreshing to be the one getting advice rather than getting it. Learning, or in the case re-learning a “new” game species is fun. Elk will always hold top place with me but I’m downright excited to have a couple of whitetail hunts coming up, East and West, this winter. Thanks to all, dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: EFOC comparison #11052

Bruce — Clearly, aside possibly from Doc Ashby himself, we can’t be of much help in directly answering your question, I suspect because such direct comparison doesn’t exist. To try and compare all the possible variations would expand geometrically to quickly become impossible. However you might learn what you need to know buy reading Ashby’s latest study updated, posted here in the Ashby Forum. Basically, the gains in penetration increase by a greater percentage in lighter bows as FOC goes up, than in heavy bows. I think that may be as precise as we’ll get without specific setup-to-setup arrow setups. To restate the bottom line in all of this: Ashby’s research demonstrates that the “minimal heavy bone penetration” weight is 650 grains if you’re looking to have a foolproof setup. That comes first. Beyond 650 total grains the more of it up front, that is the higher the FoC, the better the penetration. Perhaps another member here can clarify my muddy attempts to help. Best luck, dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Small Game Heads #11044

Duncan — Don’t your find the large size of the rubber blunts to interfere with aiming? I do, else I’d use ’em for stumping because they slip right over field points, fast and easy. But I can’t imagine they can kill as efficiently as a hard steel point. Not arguing, just curious. dave

[Author]

Posts