[David Petersen]

in reply to: Wood and FOC #35774

Kirk — Yes, you are right. The shaft is 29.5″ Sitka spruce, with 4×2″ fletching and a 300grn Tuffhead glue-on. Best I recall it came in about 21.5% FOC. I don’t think it can get much higher due to spine restrictions. I’m shooting a 53# longbow and the shafts are 85# spine. I believe I can shoot through elk just fine with that setup and plan to try and prove it this Sept. But a heavier bow would push the spine requirements beyond the limits of all but the heaviest wood species, and you also want the lightest wood you can find, so that’s the pinch. My personal bottom line is that yes, if you try hard enough you can get just barely into the EFOC category with woods, but for serious EFOC and UEFOC carbon is the only way to go. I shoot both, depending on mood. Also remember that 650 grains “minimum heavy bone threshhold” has priority over FOC. Get that and a good two-blade head and a bow with respectable poundage and speed and you’ll do fine. Years ago when I first started down the Ashby road of personal experimentation, I shot completely through a bull and the next year a cow, using the exact same arrow both times: 740+ grains of hickory with a wimpy 125 double-bevel Wolverine head. The next year I hit a bull in the shoulder with the same set-up and the head broke in half about halfway from the point and bounced out of the elk. Of course the Wolverine at that time was a single leaf of steel all the way to the tip and should never have been on the market for dummies like me to try and use on elk. That’s another advantage of the current generation of heavier single-bevel heads: they are thick and the steel is hard and they’re darn near industructable. Sorry to get long-winded …

[David Petersen]

in reply to: new to archery too #34563

Hi GBlue and welcome to tradbow.com, the friendliest hunting site in the known universe. I saw the same thing Joe mentions — your arm is high. It also appears that you may be torquing the string sideways at full draw, which could be a result of the high arm. So check those aspect of your form first. Beyond that it could be a release problem … we all go through phases where we just get sloppy. And too, there’s bow tuning. Since you’re new, do you have anyone who knows stickbow set-up to check it out? Brace height, string nock position, and matching arrow to bow all can mess you up. Since you were shooting OK and now are not, it could be that the string has stretched and the brace height is now too low. In order to get consistent accuracy with a stickbow there are certain elements that function basically like front and rear sights on a gun. Those settings have to be checked once in a while for consistency. I’m sure you’ll get lots more and better advice here soon enough. You’ll get it worked out, no doubt. A great backyard hobby. I would shoot even if I didn’t hunt. Dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: @#&^%*$ Bear! (Update: Bear wins) #34550

Well Justin, I think you have the bear psychology fitured out pretty well. 😛 A friend here used to keep a huge 3d range in a wild place outside town. It was frequently visited by bears and lions. Oddly the most-attacked targets weren’t deer, elk, pig, or sheep … but coyote. The bears would knock the targets down and tear them up helter-skelter. The lions were much more methodical, ripping out the spine on the back behind the neck and under the throat. We figured they were young predators getting in some 3d practice. 😯

[David Petersen]

in reply to: HOW MANY HAD TAG SOUP AFTER TURKEY SEASON/ #34543

I also plead guilty. Worst turkey year here in SW CO in 25 years or so and very first season (which is still on but hot and windy and pointless) that I didn’t even see a tom, didn’t hear a single gobble, and didn’t even find a mature tom dropping or track … while in the woods hunting. We had a lone hen almost in the yard, and I’ve seen dozens and dozens alongside the roads morning and evening. All the formerly good public lands spots are overrun with shotgunners, all the birds have deserted my hunting territory and moved to private land where very few get access and I’m not one of them. Along the same line, I found just one morel (and left it alone) and zero antler sheds. Only thing that’s been productive so far this spring is bear pics on the trail cam,and it’s the same big young male that keeps showing up and I’ve posted pics of here before. Bottom line, I could have been packing a full-auto comba shotgun and still not gotten a shot at a bird this year. And my Shrew is a whole lot lighter to lug around. 😀

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Flowers and other blooming' things #32436

Bruce — Identifiable flowers in order of appearance:

Larkspur

Tent caterpillars (the opposite of flowers and great for shotgun practice; have no mercy)

Serviceberry blossoms, aka June berry, saskatoons

Richardson’s geranium

If the photo of the Mystery Turds was higher res and more close-up, maybe I could venture a guess. Almost appear to be porcupine droppings–cylindrical and woody–in some sort of goop, like a fungus of some sort.

I’ll be there in less than two weeks, heavy into morel-hunting mode. Great fresh in omelettes with white wine or filthy mimosas. 😀

One of my two favorite MT artists, Monte Dolack, shows below how I feel when in Glacier country.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Flowers and other blooming' things #31884

Nice, Bruce! We’ll be heading up your way and points beyond NW in a couple of weeks, returning to grizzly country after a long enforced absence. These photos get me even more fired up. Don’t rejoice overly much on the blocked ATV trail. Unless there are physical barriers sufficient to stop them, the idiots will go around. Here, there’s a massive gate across a FS road into bighorn habitat that over the years has been pulled off repeatedly–they bring up a muscle truck and yank it out. But it’s a start!

I see you have a Badlands pack. I just got one, a Diablo, and so far it’s far and away the best I’ve ever owned.

And those mysterious droppings … Bigfoot! Here’s a recent photo of Him from my game camera …

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Hunting Bigfoot in Texas #30043

Hiram — Got this shot at one of my elk ambush spots almost exactly a year ago, 2:15 in the afternoon (game cam), about a mile from the cabin. Sure would be a shock to see in person at that time of day. Got nocturnal pics from the same spot and that’s not surprising. But the few lions I’ve seen here all were at the edge of dark, that good spooky Big Butt time of day. Two nights ago was an exception when I saw a lion running full-out across an open meadow, a few hundred yards sprint, late afternoon but in full sun. Yes, they are spooky but I figure they’ll get my wife or dogs first, who spend as much time in the woods as I do (except hunting seasons). 😛

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Grizzly broadheads, redux #28854

The problem with the old Grizzlies was not only that they came very crudely ground with prominent tool marks, but also the bevel wasn’t what it should be for a single-bevel. Add to this a predictable inconsistency in steel hardness, and it was a mess. Lots of filing was required to correct the bevel to 25 degrees and get rid of the tooling marks, before you could even think about actually sharpening with a stone. In my own experience, across a couple dozen Grizzlies, I wound up with a huge discrepancy in weights due to the need to file more off some than others to get bevel and sharpness. And all that filing tended to make a very narrow head; too narrow for me. So, lots of work for an unpredictable and in my case generally unusable outcome. If you’re an incurable Grizzly fan and can afford $32-$34 bucks for a half dozen of the new Zipper heads, I’d use the old ones for rabbits and such. Two things are becoming fairly standard among the with-it single-bevel makers, and they are a 25-degree bevel, and hardness 52-54. I personally will no longer buy any heads beyond those specs, but then I guess I’m particularly picky that way. 8) Some folks say so.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: broadheads #27961

Steve – Uh oh, portents of another massive topical side-trip here. Sorry, Andrew, but I simply must take Steve’s bait. 😀 In fact I have nothing whatsoever against fair chase black bear hunting. I don’t personally view baiting, of anything, as hunting. I like to keep the “hunt” in hunting. And with bears, at least out here in the RM West, they’re so embarrassingly easy to find if you just study their habits a bit, that to kill one over bait would be for me an admission of imcompetence and/or laziness, and with dogs, and shooting a treed bear, even worse. IMHO. But that aside, I’ve eaten (fair chase) bear and it tastes real good; just a bit of “mouth feel” difference, maybe “graineness” is the word, to get used to, but no biggie. I just don’t care to hunt bears myself, since if you have a chance to “get to know them” in the wild as I have, they quickly start seeming almost human. And the nonhuman part is a big dog. But again, I have no problem whatsoever with those who hunt black bear fair chase. Despite the rumors to the contrary, I don’t have a “My way or the highway” outlook, but just informed opinions. Like the song says, “I haven’t said enough, I’ve already said too much.” How about this: “Good luck on your fair chase hunt!” 😀 Dave

[David Petersen]

in reply to: broadheads #27568

Steve, I may be misreading you, but afraid I can’t agree with your presentation here, which seems to be confusing data with scientific theory. You are absolutely correct that the latter depends on replication of results. But Ashby’s study is not a theory–wherein you propose something and try to disprove it. Rather than his data proving (or not proving) a pre-projected theory, his thinking evolved from testing results … he really had no preconceptions going in. And so far as replication is concerned, from my readings the Ashby study is rife with it.

Also–and this seems so simple and straightforward I am left to wonder why anyone would argue against the Ashby results without seriously trying it for themselves–I was early among those to use the Ashby study to start running experiments of my own. And the results are nothing less than amazing. And consistently, repeatedly so.

A final point your make, with which I must respectfully disagree, is that arrow penetration dynamics are species specific. If a heavier arrow with EFOC and the right broadhead consistently performs better on massive animals, where is the physics suggesting it won’t also perform better on lighter animals? Only the opposite would be true: an arrow set-up that works fine on deer won’t necessarily work fine on heavier game. For me the bottom line has been spoken often in these conversations by others, to wit: While the “old” ways may work, the “new” way consistently works better. I don’t care that much what people shoot at deer and grant most trad shooters the experience and smarts to figure out through experience what works and what doesn’t. But I care a bunch about what people shoot at elk and other big animals, and frankly (and I don’t mean to be smug but this fits within our discussion here) few trad bowhunters have had the opportunity I’ve enjoyed to have shot elk almost annually for more than 30 years, experimenting with all sorts of arrow set-ups and testing every element of Ashby’s studies that I can. The old ways failed to work with consistent reliability, while the Ashby ways deliver pass-throughs almost every time.

And as a sidenote, I humbly suggest that this whole thread should be on the Ashby forum.

[David Petersen]

in reply to: New to the EFOC idea #27549

Handi — This won’t answer your question directly, but is another approach to the same end: If you want EFOC, use carbons. For the most part you can’t get brass inserts for aluminum shafts, thus you are limited in weight up front to what you can get from the head itself. Aluminums were a great tool in their day, and lots of folks still use them, primarily due to price. But if EFOC is your goal, carbon is the way to go. Not only does it allow more ways to get weight up front, but the more slender shafts also contribute a bit to penetration. IMHO

[David Petersen]

in reply to: where are the heavier bows at??? #26779

I suggest four reasons for an overall shift to lighter bows among trad shooters:

1. Aging of shooters

2. Injury among shooters

3. Better materials and tech available to bowyers, so that lighter bows today are faster than heavier bows yesterday (in many cases)

4. The increasing awareness among shooters that heavier arrows and FOC shot from lighter bows generally provide better penetration than lighter arrows from heavier bows.

In sum, some of us can no longer handle heavier bows, being old and beat-up, while others of us have figured out we don’t need a lot of bow weight to get the job done well, and prefer the ease and comfort of a bow we can easily handle. IMHO

[David Petersen]

in reply to: ABOUT PBS #26777

I too am a member of PBS, but really wish they’d change the name. I know this is an old topic, but I’m betting they could double membership in short time with a more appropriate name. “Professional” has a distinct meaning with no room for roaming. It just doesn’t fit here and has a negative feel to it among lots of folks. Can’t count the times I’ve heard this from others, as well as saying it myself. IMHO

[David Petersen]

in reply to: weasels #25773

Kelly — are you sure they were weasels? Or could they have been baby Bigfeet? 😀

[David Petersen]

in reply to: Hunting Bigfoot in Texas #23200

Scout — didn’t think for a moment you were a “bender,” and was referring to a few folks who contacted me when that story first came out in a magazine probably mid or late ’90s; I don’t recall. Nor was it a criticism of anyone, but merely a comment on an obvious and major aspect of human nature. In any event the massive wildfires of 2002 here, 110 square miles, fried to ash anything that couldn’t run real fast and find a safe place to run to, or fly away. Bar-b-qued Big Butt! Bet it tastes just like chicken. 😛

[Author]

Posts