[sapcut]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #21963

“don’t worry about it, it happens”.

Where did you get that quote? Who said that?

[sapcut]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #20100

What I’m saying is this: if we’re going to have an appropriate discussion about reducing wounding losses, we should stop accepting behavior that needlessly lends itself to those situations (taking bad shots) and stop simply blaming our equipment for the rest.

Ok…Everyong please stop taking bad shots. It will no longer be accepted.

Now that is out of the way and all hunters are no longer needlessly lending themselves to bad shot situations.

Hypothetically, now the hunting public is very ethical and responsible (for a lack of a better way to describe them.)

But for some reason arrows STILL continue to hit animals in spots that are unintended. That is and always will be fact. What do we do now?

I know…what about make the preparations that we know will work BEFORE the unintended shot takes place? After all, what would be a reason not to?

[sapcut]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #19392

We can talk and hash out solutions all day, at our leisure, for people who have intentionally decided to make notsogood shot decisions. We can also do the same for people who decide to not drive a 4WD truck when hunting. These are decisions based on things you have complete control in a unlimited amount of time.

The discussion about being prepared with your hunting equipment is about being prepared for what we CAN’T control. Things happen while hunting after we release arrows. There is a span of time that occurs between the release of the string until the arrow stops…somewhere.
During that time period we have ZERO control of the situation. We just hide and watch. Also, during that span of time is when we: 1. will be glad that the arrow traveled the intended route, got the penetration desired with a recovered animal as a result or, 2. Wish we already made better preparations for the unintended travel route.

[sapcut]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #18300

Here is the book mentioned. Holy pricey book Batman.

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Tracking-Origin-Science/dp/0864861311

[sapcut]

in reply to: New Ashby Study update posted. #17131

Good stuff as usual. Really enjoyed adding a little more to the thinker.

[sapcut]

in reply to: EFOC without the IF? #61321

It is actually a .300 spine but I am not sure what the bow weight it is technically designed for. Although, I would guess it is a pretty large weight range.

I would think the GT Ultralight Entrada 400 would work for your 60 lb. bow. I use the 500 size for my sons 50 lb. bow. I load up the front on that as well, so the 500 starts off stiff for 50 lbs.

If interested I can let you know the best place I have found to get the Entradas.

[sapcut]

in reply to: EFOC without the IF? #61309

MontanaFord,
The arrow pictured above is as follows:
Shot from Black Widow PSAX 71@31

Gold Tip Ultralight Entrada 300
262 gr. 31″ from nock groove to cut carbon
210 gr. Grizzly El Grande
200 gr. adapter
100 gr. brass insert
30 gr. 2.5″ 2117 footing
27 gr. 2″ 2317 footing
9 gr. nock (after cutting 1/8″ off male portion)
6 gr. 3 – 4″ nanners
8 gr. glue

852 gr. 34.07% FOC

All my arrows are not identical but basically have the same blueprint.

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: EFOC without the IF? #59609

No I haven’t but I also haven’t had enough shots in general to find out a lot of answers. I do know that I have made some hard hits and the arrow stood its ground.

For example…My arrow was about 820 grains. It had the double external footing like in the picture. It was traveling at 175ish fps out of my 71 lb. Widow recurve when I hit an iron man target made of 1/4 in. steel. The field point shaft broke off inside the brass insert and the insert collar was bent a small bit. The arrow was fine.

I feel sure without the external footing that I would have really shattered that arrow.

I really really like that type of setup.

[sapcut]

in reply to: EFOC without the IF? #58770

The aluminum external footings work extremely well. I have now eliminated using anything inside the shaft other than the insert. I have found that I can do all the strengthening and increasing front weight from the outside getting it closer to the tip. Closer to the tip, the more FOC you get.

[sapcut]

in reply to: Good news from the Doc! #22195

….weight is falling away as exercise become possible again

Are you suggesting Dr. Ed is less FOC now?

[sapcut]

in reply to: EFOC comparison #12717

Why would good shot placement ever be a concern with almost any arrow?

It is the bad shot placement that cannot always be controlled. It is the bad shot placement that is what needs to be the concern and what needs to be prepared for. If it is NOT addressed and prepared for then all the other “givens” like COC sharp broadhead, well tuned arrow are for naught.

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: EFOC comparison #11079

I may be wrong here but I think the last couple of reports from Dr. Ashby suggested (based on real research, of course) that the 650+ gr arrow with 30+% FOC would penetrate as good as the heavy 800+ arrows with average FOC.

I don’t think that he has tested heavy 800+ gr. arrows with also having 30+% FOC. That has to be the most lethal. Having the best of both worlds of arrow lethality.

Please correct me if the above is not accurate.

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #59408

Ireland,
Very good information. Thanks for the reminders.

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #57833

Did I say that? Naaa

Make sure you tell us the bone collision stories. We all know what happens when the perfect shot is made.

[sapcut]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #57551

“If you DO choose to use the bow/arrow weaponry that is factually shown to NOT be the most lethal then say that, like you mean it.”
Should I have said it like this. I’M SHOOTING MY #50 RECURVE WITH 500GR.,15-20%FOC ARROWS, AND DOUBLE BEVELED HEADS AT DEER DANG IT!

And..
Dang it!..and I will disregard the bad shots where I know I will not get penetration. I will just chalk those up as “oh well maybe next time” shots.

Then tell us what actually happens when you hit a bone.

From a well tuned bow/arrow combination, that’s all you need. History has proven that many, many times. Shot placement and a well tuned arrow with a sharp broadhead will trump anything else every time.

ok now I am screaming this one….CORRECT, IF YOU HIT THE DEER IN RIGHT SPOT. There are wrong spots as well.

Another thing, why do so many people who are not interested in high FOC heavy arrows assume that you can’t have one that is tuned properly? Of course they can be. As a matter of FACT, the high FOC arrow is easier to tune than an average FOC arrow. That is the main reason it penetrates better.

However, there are SOOO many things that can go wrong with a shot after you release the arrow that I think I will just do my best to pick my shots, put the arrow where it is supposed to be, and hope the animal cooperates.

That is precisely why the Ashby reports are so valuable. To learn and do what we can to come out of the “notso” good situation with a recovered animal as much as possible.

Any bow hunter can…. be proficient in the back yard with their bow just as good as the next one, use a shavin sharp broadhead, do their best to pick their shots, put the arrow where it is supposed to be and hope the animal cooperates…. with a less lethal arrow OR a more lethal heavy high FOC arrow. There is ZERO difference in the two except when it hits the bone you didn’t want to hit. Then its a huge difference.

When the collision does occur I personally will be glad I’m driving the Land Cruiser rather than wishing I never bought that stupid Prius.

But thats just me..Dang it!

[Author]

Posts