[David Petersen]

in reply to: cutting wood arrows #45389

It’s hard to know what length to have your shafts pre-cut from the supplier, though through trail and error, it’s possible. If they offer to taper for you, go for it since they use a sanding jig that does a cleaner job than you can with a little hand taper tool, and with woods harder than cedar you can get serious hand cramps after tapering 24 angles! For cutting shafts I used a bandsaw, rolling the shaft as I push it through. A hacksaw works well too. I buy shafts full length, often 32″, so that I can cut them back as necessary to increase spine. That’s very basic. Someone else here will be able to explain it better. Like most aspects of tuning wood arrows and stickbows, there are various ways to go about getting to the same place … no simple formula and that’s part of the fun.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Most Trouble Free Wood Shaft #45383

If you haven’t already, check out Steve McD’s post on comparative shaft-wood qualities.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Wisconsin Traditional Archers #44209

Tom — I attended the WI annual event/banquet a few years ago and really enjoyed the good folks there; big crowd. I especially appreciate their staunch stance against baiting deer. And nowhere, even here in the West, have I met a more elk-hungry tribe of hunters. They kept me up way past midnight talking about it, plying me with “refreshments” to keep me awake. 😉

So far as “supporting traditional bowhunting” — it’s amazing how different folks interpret that. For me, the best way to support, protect and assure democratic hunting opportunity in America is to do all we can to assure that we’ll always have an abundance of unspoiled, quiet, natural public wildlife and hunter habitat. So I’m a life member of Backcountry Hunters @ Anglers … not a trad bowhunting group per se, but a national coalition of “traditional values” sportsmen and women of all weapons choice. But I’ll bet if a poll were taken, trad bowhunters are a majority. Check ’em out at http://www.backcountryhunters.org

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Defining a Traditional Bowhunter #44200

When I use the word “traditional” as a modifier — whether “traditional archer” or “traditional-values hunters” (the latter to include all weapons choices but a similar worldview) — I am thinking and implying an attitude of “doing more with less.” More personal involvement, less purchased shortcuts. There are of course endless degrees of traditionalism, with the purest exemplified by what we call “primitive,” as embodied by Chad Sivertsen who builds his own selfbows and arrows and accessories and hunts with exceedingly strict personal “fair chase” rules. Is primitive, being the purest example of traditional, therefore “the best it gets”? Well it sure is for Chad and that’s all that counts! I’m somewhere in the middle and cut myself the slack to hunt more primitive or less, depending on situation and mood. I own two wood longbows I built myself, and two gorgeous Shrews. I shoot woodies and I shoot carbons. I don’t use blinds or treestand mostly because I don’t like sitting in trees and I don’t want anything I have to haul with effort and set up and take down and worry about leaving in the woods when I’m not there;and I’d rather spend what little money I have for hunting on travel than on gear. It’s more a practical than an aesthetical decision. Seems easiest, bottom line, to define “traditional” with a simple broad distinction between traditional and not: Traditional archers and bowhunters basically are do-it-yourself folks who want to invest as much of themselves as possible in our sporting passions … while non-traditionalists are seeking every advantage they can buy or hire, viewing the goal single-mindedly as “Success equals killing, period!” All arguments of “better” and “superior” aside, I am convinced of this much: We traditionalists have a lot more fun! :D:D

[David Petersen]

in reply to: For those of you that hunt with wood arrows #44186

Thanks, Dude. This will be good. I think that if everyone knew how easy it is to build arrows, how much fun, and how small an investment is required, finished arrow-makers would all but go out of business. While we can “build” alum and carbon arrows and that’s fun too, wood is the most fun, the most potentially creative and with po cedar, you just can’t top that heady good smell. I would provide a basic list of supplies and gear you’ll need but don’t want to risk robbing Dude’s demo. Myself, this snowed-in weekend, I’ll be building my first internally footed woodies. The adventure never ends! 😀

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Most Trouble Free Wood Shaft #43423

By golly Patrick, you’re quick! 😀 Dangerously so! 😆 Go careful now. Humor is my addiction … and generally, my downfall. But you seem to have it wired. Keep it coming! dave 8):wink:

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Newly Created: Wildlife & Hunting Heritage Conservation Council #43414

Patrick — I’m investigating this now. It’s premature to celebrate, believe me. It could be a good thing but more likely bad for those with traditional sporting values. It all comes down to which groups are represented, and which are left out, and it doesn’t sound good from here. The tendency is for quantity over quality, with “rights” and “access” groups running the show while ethics and conservation are pushed farther behind. To be worth anything it must be equitable in representation among groups. For every NRA, there must be a BHA, etc. With luck I’ll know something by tomorrow. (For the past 5 years, this has been my line of work. My last work day is the 26, though I’ll continue causing problems as an individual!) dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Most Trouble Free Wood Shaft #42033

Thanks for the lead, Patrick. Yes, interesting. Given they are lodgepole pine, I’m surprised they’re not heavier. But maybe that’s a false assumption that lodgepole, being so much hard, would be denser and heavier the POC. At $30 that’s a great price. Of course if you want tapered, which we do, that’s another $21 a dozen, and their “matched” service probly runs it up even more. Still, interesting.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: ML-14 #41082

Danny — can’t you track down the owner of the K-zoo bow? Or did he come to his senses and decide not to sell it? In any event, if you haven’t already, post a want ad in the classifieds here. Best luck in your hunt, dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Shoulder Shots 2 #40887

Steve — there are lots of options between 45 and 70, so why fixate on one or the other? It’s not either/or. Sometimes, midground compromise is the way to go. To back one of your points, I often tell the story of being forced some years ago by shoulder injury to drop from 64 to 55 … yet I gained 10fps because the new lighter bow had so much more efficient limbs. If a guy had access to a large weight range of bows of the type he wanted to hunt with, it would be as simple as starting at one extreme or another until you find your heaviest comfort zone. Overbowing is indeed a massive problem, esp. for younger stronger shooters. But the fix requires backing off only enough to attain total comfort and accuracy, not all the way from Z to A. And hey, I’m no longer even sure what we’re “arguing about” here! :lol::wink: Of course, we aren’t. dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Moving target plans #40870

Chad, old man — great to see you here. Be sure to check out our bowbuilding and Ashby forums as well. As I recall you know Milt Beens here in Durango; Wildcat Canyon Archery. 970/247-2894. Give him a call. He has a first rate 3d range set up in very convoluted terrain that includes a moving deer/elk target. Much as you describe. Rather than cable he uses heavy rope stretched as tight as possible, then hangs a pulley from that and a well-stuffed burlap bag target from that. The run top to bottom is only a few dozen yards but it moves slowly enough that a quick feller like you could likely get off two shots. If I recall correctly, there’s a smaller “drag line” attached to the pully so that you can pull it back to the top to save walking down every time. That’s the only such I’ve seen, and it worked dandy. For longer shots of course you need someone to release the target then duck behind a really big tree! 😆 dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Enough for Elk?????? #38099

Steve — I don’t believe anyone here is arguing that we should overbow ourselves. Your arguments are well made and well taken. d

[David Petersen]

in reply to: tungsten-footed woodies; considerations #38090

Mark said: “This is going to be fun.”
Bingo!!! It IS fun, which always leaves me shaking my head when folks comment “If you’ve got a system that works, why add stress and trouble your pretty little head with all this EFoC and Ashby stuff?” Of course, because “works” is a sloppy term that generally implies “all else being equal and luck on our side,” which in hunting it rarely is. If we enjoy building arrows, tuning and maybe building bows, practicing … why wouldn’t we enjoy this expanded opportunity to tinker with our gear toward better efficiency when we can’t be out hunting? Man, I haven’t had so much fun with archery in years, experimenting with all sorts of shaft materials, broadheads, purposely taking angled shots at hard targets (usually a big tree) … everything I can think of to test Doc Ed’s findings and demonstrate their worth to myself. It’s the ethical thing to do (decreases wound loss). It’s the self-serving thing to do (increases game recovered and thus success). It’s the FUN thing to do! 8) dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Center Shot ain't always good! #38078

ED — I asked: “or are you saying that with my near-centershot Shrew longbows I might get better flight and/or be able to get good flight with higher FoC on a given arrow without that arrow falling underspine — by building out the back of the rest plate?”
You responded: “Correct again. By building out the side plate on your Shrew you will be able to make a too weak spined EFOC arrow (caused by the added weight up front) tune correctly to the bow.”

Now, this may seem like a minor point at first glance, but considering how many archers comment that they would like to experiment with increasing FoC but love their current arrows/shafts and fear they will go underspine with more weight up front. Suddenly, with this new info/insight, next time I find my arrows starting to act overpowered as I add weight to the front, I may be able simply to add a layer of self-adhesive backing … and see what happens. Can’t wait to try this but frankly I’ve been amazed at how much weight I can put up front without hitting spine problems. At least with carbons. I’m now building up a dozen experimental footed woodies to see just how much EFoC I can get, and we shall see. Thanks again! dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Bow Tuning #38052

Real easy to check. Just nock an arrow on top the nock rather than below and see what happens, though it may not need to be raised that high. In general you are correct about shelt-shooting requiring a higher nocking point. If your shelf has padded rest and back and they join at the junctio of the L, use an Xacto knife to carefully slice out maybe 1/8″ of padding from bottom and back to provide better feather clearance. You want some of my snow, bring a train car and come get all you want! 😆

[Author]

Posts