Trad Gang

Main Boards => PowWow => Topic started by: bmb on July 06, 2010, 10:24:00 AM

Title: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: bmb on July 06, 2010, 10:24:00 AM
so yesterday i decided to do a little test.. nothing real serious....i had just bought a brand new, never shot block 4x4 target. i took 3 arrows, arrow #1 is a beman ics 500 full length with a 150gr. head, total weight somewhere around 460grs., arrow #2 is a 27" 11/32 45-50 cedar with a 200 gr. head, total weight is 530grs....and arrow #3 is a 28" 2018 with a 150gr. head, total weight is a tad over 500grs.

so i shot each arrow 5 times and everytime the carbon won??!! the aluminium came in second everytime and the cedar was always last?

the bow i shot was my hoyt dorado at 45#( at the clicker)...so what do you guys think?
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: 30coupe on July 06, 2010, 10:42:00 AM
Do you mean the carbon penetrated farther? That's not surprising. The carbon is the smallest in diameter, which helps penetration. Were you shooting broadheads? If so, were they all the same? How far were you from the target? Carbon arrows recover quicker, so penetration is often better at close ranges compared to wood or aluminum. You could have lots of variables going on here.

What you are seeing has been pretty much the case for me every time, both on foam and critters. That's why I use Beman ICS Bowhunter 500s myself.  I also tend to shoot them more accurately.
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: bmb on July 06, 2010, 10:45:00 AM
yeah the carbon penetrated better. no broadheads just field points. and i shot every shot from 15 yards.....and yes lots of variables:)
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: Bill Carlsen on July 06, 2010, 11:06:00 AM
In my experience carbon surpasses all arrow materials I have shot for penetration...both in targets and game. You can even improve on the penetration by adding weigh to the point end. I like 220-225 grains on the front of my carbons and they go thru everything I shoot. My wife shoots 9nl6 45# 26" and I set up her arrows  the same way. She always gets two holes or a pass thru.
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: bmb on July 06, 2010, 11:11:00 AM
yeah ive been shooting carbon for 2 years after shooting aluminium for years. even though i only shoot a 150 gr. head i have never had trouble punching thru both sides of a deer or hog. i will still probably try out the cedars on deer. this is my first experience with wood arrows but carbons will always be my go to material.
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: Ragnarok Forge on July 06, 2010, 11:28:00 AM
Skinny shafts can trump higher mass arrows for penetration.  That super skinny shaft makes a big difference.  Put more weight up front and shoot a skinny carbon and an aluminum or wood at the same weight and you will really see a difference.
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: Arrow4Christ on July 06, 2010, 11:56:00 AM
You also have to take into account tuning...if all the arrows aren't tuned equally (which would be quite a task to achieve shooting off the shelf) you aren't going to get accurate results.

Craig
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: bmb on July 06, 2010, 12:03:00 PM
all these arrows are tuned to perfection. especially well since i use a clicker.
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: LBR on July 06, 2010, 12:07:00 PM
Targets aren't animals.  Foam grabs; flesh separates and blood, water, and fat lubricate.

Like most everything else, there's a ton of variables to consider.  There's no magic arrow, just like there's no magic broadhead, or bow, or string.

All things equal, carbon may out-penetrate on an animal--if it does, it won't be nearly as dramatic a difference as you see on a target.

If you get a chance, watch Fred Bear's "Mozambique Game Trails", and/or read "Fred Bear's Field Notes--The Adventures of Fred Bear".  Mr. Bear killed a bull elephant with one arrow, pulling around 70#.  He didn't have a carbon arrow, or a single bevel broadhead, or a "super" string, or a "super" bow.  Elephant was just as dead.
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: Don Stokes on July 06, 2010, 12:15:00 PM
Foam and animals are totally different. The test is academically significant, I suppose, but it has nothing to do with killing animals. As long as I still have to pull my fat hardwood shafts out of the ground on the other side, I won't worry about it.
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: smoke1953 on July 06, 2010, 12:16:00 PM
Myself I'd like to go to a heavier wood and up that weight by at least 150gr. and take it to some flesh and bone and see how we do.  But that's just me and the Northern Mist that loves that kind of arrow.
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: bmb on July 06, 2010, 12:25:00 PM
i totally agree with you guys. thats why i said im still gonna use the cedars this season. im going hog hunting sunday and i think im gonna put at least 2 cedars in my dawgware quiver..along with my carbons. and even though my target isnt flesh and bone, you have to admit that, the carbon is doing something good, if its going deeper:)
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: Arrow4Christ on July 06, 2010, 12:36:00 PM
They may look like they're flying the same, but I highly doubt that variety of arrows is all tuned perfectly to your bow. You'd have to bareshaft or paper tune them to be sure. Are you shooting off the shelf?
I agree, good carbon makes an awesome arrow, and it's much easier to make up a good, reliable carbon than it is a good, reliable wood arrow  ;)
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: bmb on July 06, 2010, 12:39:00 PM
they are all bareshafted and paper tuned.
Title: Re: theory-not working like i thought:)
Post by: ronnyg on July 06, 2010, 08:16:00 PM
Carbon arrows recover faster upon impact, which also aids in penetration