[David Petersen]

in reply to: Clay Hayes new book! #57101

I too will never own a Kindle etc. and differing from Bruce, I think a print book is more than just a container. That being said, the format in which we choose to read books is pretty far down any list of important issues in life. I don’t know what Clay has decided on print books but we talked about it some last night and I reversed my original encouragement for him to put in print and now recommend that he not go to that expense since the book is small, only about 20,000 words plus photos. He would not be able to put much of a cover price on it and maybe never regain his production costs (self-publishing, which is really the only route for books like this right now), some of which are the same no matter the size of the book. Also, the lowest “media” or book rate postage rate, under one pound, is $2.38 which the buyer would have to absorb. So in this case both Clay and readers come out best by far with electronic. If any of my own books ever go electronic, it will be after I’m gone. At my “stage in life” there are just some places I don’t care to go, including electronic books, Facebook, Iphone, etc. The reason you can’t teach new tricks to old dogs is that we just aren’t interested in learning them. It’s tough enough maintaining the old tricks.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: proper treatment of new bow #57089

If not used for months you might unstring it. Or not. No well-made glass-backed bow can be harmed by leaving it strung so long as it’s not exposed to direct sunlight or other heat sources. Strung or unstrung, hang from one peg vertically or two pegs horizontally. Never leave it sitting on the floor with the weight on one tip. Get the boy doing push-ups and you’ll speed his muscle development and keep it from getting lopsided. Bet he’s excited.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Reply To: No Elkheart?!?!? #55134

Thanks, Forager, for noticing. After three issues without my byline in the magazine, I was beginning to wonder if all those years of effort were wasted. 😳 Thanks also Paleo and Mike for your kind words and support.

Truth is, TBM and I indeed have split the sheets; I no longer write for the magazine. It was a great and productive run, those several years, but all things end. I had gotten to the point that pretty much all I wanted to write was Campfire Philosopher columns, being a guy who, as my wife has always complained, “thinks too much.” When Doc Dave left that column I looked forward to having six rather than three opportunities a year to help fellow thoughtful hunters confront the toughest questions surrounding hunting. But the editors decided to bring in some new voices to the column and it’s their magazine and they likely know best. So yes, there is turf and ego involved in this little drama, on both sides, and I finally decided that it was best for all concerned, especially our exceptional readers, to just disappear.

But no one should confuse my no longer contributing to the magazine as a divorce from the good folks who run it. We all remain friends and comrades in the good fight to preserve the best of hunting and to weed out, or at least to publicly expose and humiliate, the enemies of hunting from within.

But you’re not plumb off the hook, so don’t start celebrating just yet. All the thoughts and rants that would have gone into Campfire Philosopher in the foreseeable future are in the book I’m grinding away on now, and more, since length restrictions are removed. Also, with Robin’s continued support I intend to hang in here at tradbow.com and continue to stir fear and loathing when possible. 😈

This is the best hunting website in the universe, because it has the best people and the best moderator with Web-mom, just as TBM is the best–meaning the most honest and ethical and dedicated to readers and the sport rather than profit–commercial hunting magazine I know of. And YOU are responsible for both. Without your support and input neither of these bold experiments would have worked. I am a privileged man, thank you. Dave Petersen

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Coffee Mug Thread #53835

Jim, I had no idea you were so young!

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Coffee Mug Thread #53776

I doubt it …:oops:

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Coffee Mug Thread #53642

Yep, we sure got cabin fever now. But since you asked and it’s rarely out of my hand this time of year …

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Anything Positive @ This Winter? #51774

Paleo asked: “What keeps y’all from losing your minds this time of year?”

Well, I permanently lost my “mind” decades ago, so I hardly notice the seasonal difference. This winter is amazingly mild so far (I’ll worry about drought next summer but not prematurely). The tourists are all gone. Restaurants and pubs run some great “locals appreciation” specials. Gas prices drop from outrageous to merely obscene. And there’s always good food, good booze, good smoke, good friends and best of all, good books. We don’t have TV so we don’t get distracted and all worked up by mobs of giant millionaires tossing their balls around. The only hard part is the long nights and we combat that with the luxury of “oversleeping.” For a decade I lived in SoCal where there are no seasons, at least on the beach. I frankly never missed them. But too many others felt the same way so we had to go, and no regrets.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: A selfbow for Molly #50372

Good stuff, Tail! I don’t recall having seen a selfbow with that elaborate a handle design before–usually it’s a straight handle with a small shelf, “Hill style.” I hope it lasts forever. I’m getting the urge to try another ‘selfie’ myself, and am really taken with the limb design of the Holmegaard. If it worked with elm it should work with osage.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: The Trad Knife Thread #49265

Nice job on that antler handle, Larry! Looks real comfy.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: brush button? #48504

Wow, a blast from the distant past! Pothunter confirms my first reaction, which is “Geeze, I haven’t heard of anyone using brush buttons since mid-century!” When I first took up archery and bowhunting, many long moons ago, it was traditional to weight bow strings down with brush buttons as well as silencers. For one thing, recurves were all the style then (early ’60s, let’s say), and they do present more opportunity for brush to snag between string and bow tip than do longbows. Still, it seemed obvious to me through experience, even as a kid, that brush buttons were counter-productive. For one thing they slow the string, and for another, in my experience, they worked marginally at best. So my advice would be to forget about them slipping and just get rid of ’em. I have to stop and pull a limb from my bow/string maybe once or twice a year, and that’s many weeks of hunting that involves a lot more than sitting in a tree. But perhaps you have a particularly brushy hunt area and hunting style. Shorter bows help with this also! Best luck …

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Update on Larry Fischer vs The Bastard #45066

Larry — Get Some!!!:!:

[David Petersen]

in reply to: recurve bows #43751

eids– just what everyone needs: an off-road garbage truck! Maybe it follows along after the ATV crowd to collect up all the trash they have no problem hauling in but can’t manage to haul back out (not unlike cowboys in that real).

Recurves: I have never cared for recurves with massive midsections, either aesthetically or functionally. It’s a waste of nice woods, extra weight to haul around and of use only if you fall out your canoe and need a life raft. For the most in a small functional and lovely package google Java Man bows. Even his take-down recurves are streamlined.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: CO BHA shoots down drones! #42751

I’m with Duncan and his Snaro sentiments, or better. With unmanned drones we can morally object to their rude misuse in a way we cannot morally object to ORVs in the wrong places … we can shoot the bastahds down. No matter the price, I guarantee that should I ever be on public lands or private that I own or oversee and one of those jaybirds scars my sky within range, and I have the 12-bore in hand, it’s going down in flames, its remains then recovered and run through a crematorium bone grinder. It’s an essential statement that must be made. 😈

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Cedar shaft availibility #41411

Codger– I second Kevin on POC shafts being gradually phased out by improved knowledge in arrow performance and lethality. If we’re doing it as well (that is, as lethally) as possible, we’re sticking increasingly heavy heads on lighter shafts, demanding more and more from them in that way. No softwood can handle it and I’ve spent a small fortune in money and time proving that to myself of late. If you plan to shoot an old-school setup with medium-weight bow and medium to light (125) heads, cedar works, though even then I’ve found other softwoods to be superior to cedar in general (Sitka spruce for one). But if gearing up for an Ashby-quality arrow, it’s pretty much hardwood or carbon. Then we hit the fix of hardwood being heavier, and heavier shafts diminish FOC. But of the two, I personally put overall weight first. Pleasant smell and what Gramps shot are nice sentiments, not a good basis for hunting-arrow engineering.

Turkey — Those are nice looking plain Jane arrows, the way I like ’em. I’m curious why the sinew wrap in front of the feathers? A style statement, or have you found a utilitarian value for it? I always just put a drop of glue on the front of each quill to smooth out the bumps and keep them from peeling up. Just curious???

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Arrow length as substitute for more FOC #40418

Hmmm, this sounds like a Physics 101 professor’s “logic trap”, to wit: All else held equal (and in tune), (A) increased FOC increases arrow flight stability thus accuracy, and (B) a longer lever arm (longer arrow with same point weight) increases effective head weight thus FOC, therefore (C) a longer shaft, all else held equal, increases flight stability thus accuracy.

Alas, it ain’t quite that simple since at some point of length no amount of realistically achievable shaft stiffness can canx the increased flexibility of the shaft. But then, ALL arrows, even the shorties, suffer archer’s paradox yet still are accurate if well tuned.

So, a real good question for which I have no answer but share your curiosity. Hoping EA and some of our resident physicists will clue us in.

What I do know is that I like around an inch of extra length between front of bow and back of head, and use the heaviest heads I can arrange, and have never had a problem. So, assuming that several inches of extra shaft length provides no real benefit (since we can more easily achieve EFOC by increasing head weight rather than shaft length), and given that overly long arrows have other problems (like projecting beyond the bottom of the bow when in a bow quiver, complicating placing the bottom of the bow on the ground … or if in a back quiver, sticking up high and getting snagged on brush, etc.), I guess my bottom line is “What’s the point?” for extremely long shafts? We can now buy first-rate broadheads up to 300 grains and add more yet with shaft sleeves, WoodyWeights, etc. Still, it’s a good question and good questions are always good fun. 😛

This line of inquiry becomes more pertinent when thinking about spears and atlatl “darts,” and it so happens I plan to build and learn to use an effective atlatl system this year.

[Author]

Posts