[sapcut]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #57448

Dabersold,
Isn’t all the Ashby reports, EFOC, single bevel, etc. MOSTLY if not entirely concerned with the shot that does not hit perfectly where intended? You know, the shots that we ALL make but never want to discuss. You know, the one’s that are not found in the “given” column that are associated with such cliches as “hit’em in the boiler room and you’ll be fine”.

What is so hard to understand about this never ending discussion that is so incredibly informative IF you are willing to improve lethality and recovery?

IT AIN’T ABOUT whether your 15% FOC arrow will actually make a deer dead or not. I repeat…IT AIN’T ABOUT whether your 15% FOC arrow will actually make a deer dead.

It is about increasing the death and recovery rate when the shot placement you WERE NOT intending to make actually DOES occur. And when doing so, the factual evidence in the Ashby reports will greatly increase your chances of accomplishing the objective.

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.

Then share your stories with us when the… “The arrow was going right where I wanted but the deer moved and I hit a big bone”… shot. Let us all know what happens so we can all learn.

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: MA, Turbulators, FOC penetration Effect, Etcetera #42510

I understand. I guess I will need to take a little weight off the front and settle for 32-33% FOC instead of 34-36% FOC.

[sapcut]

in reply to: MA, Turbulators, FOC penetration Effect, Etcetera #38441

To simplify…If my Ultra-EFOC arrow flys straight with feathers and broadhead does that mean it is “tuned” adequately for shooting an animal and expecting maximum penetration? Or is there another aspect or dimension that is being masked by the “straight” shooting arrow that will reduce penetration?

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: MA, Turbulators, FOC penetration Effect, Etcetera #37901

Richie, for me a “correctly bare shaft tuned” shaft will already be showing a very slight amount of ‘weak’ dynamic spine;..

Yea, that is what I’m talking about. Makes perfect sense to me.
With my three 4″ low profile banana feathers I may be loosing some speed that may be measureable compared to smaller feathers. But… due to their size and very little extra weight they do allow for the stabilization of more weight up from which allows for a few more percentage points of FOC…..which I strive for.

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: MA, Turbulators, FOC penetration Effect, Etcetera #36776

On an arrow that is already well tuned (correctly bare shaft tuned), using the minimum fletching required to overcome the wind shear created by the broadhead gives a higher FOC. As one approaches the level of Ultra-EFOC reducing shaft weight at the arrow’s rear becomes a major factor in the degree of FOC change you and attain.

But….your leaving FOC on the table. Using the bareshaft tuned arrow above, why not add a little more weight (50 gr.) to the front making it a little weak, then add slightly larger fletching (2-3 gr.). The end result is higher FOC and tuned perfectly with fletching. I think that is the way to maximize the FOC.

To me, the bareshaft tuning is almost irrelevant when the end result will be a fletched arrow.

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: BH weight #31697

You don’t HAVE to have EFOC to kill an animal…but an EFOC arrow is easier to tune, more forgiving with a much wider spine widow and it is much more lethal regarding penetration.

[sapcut]

in reply to: Ultra-EFOC Barely Above The Heavy Bone Threshold #52795

King,
You may be measuring differently, not wrong but different. I measure the total length to the end of the cut arrow. Not including insert, as per AMO standards in Dr. Ashby’s report.

My best so far is 978 gr. and 36.6%. That is 700 gr. up front including aluminum footings. I haven’t tried any heavier. That dude flys great too at 160 fps.

[sapcut]

in reply to: Ultra-EFOC Barely Above The Heavy Bone Threshold #50931

Glad to hear the info. Hope everything turns out spectacular with the medical test results.

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: El Grande flight tests #50513

I am confused on why you guys are taking so much metal off the new Grizzlys to get them sharp. I got both edges of one broadhead shavin, sticky sharp in about 13 minutes if I remember right and only took off 2 grains of metal. I mean real stinkin sharp. I must be missing something. What am I missing here even when the broadhead is shavin sharp?

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: El Grande flight tests #43625

Dave,
You must just like sharpening the hard way because it takes very little work to get the new El Grandes shavin sharp. But then again I don’t shoot mine in a pile of dirt first. That must be the difference.

[sapcut]

in reply to: The Silent Arrow #18943

Actually for my elephant arrows I thought I would try a baseball bat doughnut to up the total grains a bit.:lol:

[sapcut]

in reply to: The Silent Arrow #16249

I have only used one time around the arrow. I haven’t tried it with more but it will probably work better.

Although, I can’t remember the last time that I have heard my feathers in flight.

Richie

[sapcut]

in reply to: The Silent Arrow #16147

Below are the smaller versions of the above.

[sapcut]

in reply to: The Silent Arrow #16103

This is the turbulator I tend to go with. It also doubles as open ring sights.
However if you’re not careful it can iduce what us aerodynamic scientists refer to as EFC or erratic flight characteristics.

[sapcut]

in reply to: The Silent Arrow #15734

I am also using turbulators on my arrows in front of 4 inch nanner feathers. I am using an 1/8″ slice of arrow wrap material. Very cheap. You can make prolly 2 dozen turbulators with one wrap. I think it works fine.

I like the 4″ nanners instead of “small as I can go 4 fletch” feathers as Adcock and Ashby suggest. I have found that if you build your arrow that is flying perfectly with 2-3″ 4 feathers and turbulator you are leaving important FOC on the table.

For instance, if my arrow bareshafts and tunes perfectly with 2-3″ 4 fletch then I know I can add more weight to tip creating more FOC. Then the slightly larger 4″ nanners will stiffen the arrow just enough to allow for the increased FOC to tune perfectly. The feather weight increase might be a whopping 1-2 grains.

Then the difference in trajectory that the additional up front 50 grains USUALLY makes should be offset or flattened by the higher FOC.

I know that is “splitting hairs” but gotta get it right.

Richie

[Author]

Posts