So there is always talk about "is this bow enough weight for..." Or "will this arrow be good for..." I was shooting some broad heads with a new bow today so I stacked up some pieces of cardboard to shoot at. It got me thinking. What if we could set up a standard of penetration based on amount of equally spaced cardboard?
Yes I understand shooting cardboard isn't the same as shooting at live animals. That's a given. What I'm saying is Your setup can't make it through a single pizza box (pretty simple way to get equally spaced cardboard) then you probably shouldn't hunt deer with it. If it can make it through 3 pizza boxes at a specific yardage then your ok at that distance for deer.
I know it's not iron clad but it seems reasonable. Anyone willing to test it out? Take your favorite hunting bow and see how much card board you can go through before your fletching gets stuck in the last box.
Anyone ever played around with this idea?
You can research the net for a formula for ballistic gelatin. Fill gallon jugs with it, stack them one in front of another and have at it. If you have access to a hide or leather for the face of the first jug, even better.
Sadly too many variables on animals to make an exact standard test, but the gelatin jugs will allow you to test out different rigs that you have or even your set up against you buddy's.
I think the cardboard would be cheaper and easier to get similar results from different people.
This isn't a way of telling people what to shoot or whose setup is better. I'm not saying that "if you can make it through two pizza boxes you will blow through any animal ( even if there is a point that becomes true)". I'm saying if you can't get through x amounts of cardboard it's safe to say you probably shouldn't hunt with that bow or arrow configuration. Just a standard entry test anyone can try at home with minimal skill.
Phonebook was used for years but I'm sure that's out dated too!
Lots of variables with pizza boxes. I won't even begin to get into the grade of cardboard discussion. I will leave it to the amount of grease in the bottom. If you eat a meat lovers from Greasy Grady's your box may be easier to punch through than a box that had veggie delight on thin crust in it.
Just sayin'
Actually, I think it would be a blast to punch some holes in pizza boxes, and not a bad way to build confidence in your set up! Plus it makes folding up those pizza boxes to go into the trash alot easier.
I like testing penetration on animals. Anything less then a hole in and hole out is poor penetration.
"I like testing penetration on animals. Anything less then a hole in and hole out is poor penetration."
This is where you need to listen to the people that have been there done that. Also Ashby's report is very through.
Too me pizza box testing just doesn't do it.
Mike
Problem with testing on anything other than the real thing, is you may not be testing the same parameters that matter in the real thing. Fact it. . more than likely, you aren't.
So, if you want to go hunting pizza boxes, or ballistic gel, or plywood, or concrete blocks, they make perfect studies, but for deer. . maybe not.
ChuckC
I'm a little surprised that there are no takers for a standardized penetration test. I can see the benefits of testing your setup and comparing it to results of proven setups. All of the penetration issues would come into play, arrow mass, speed, FOC, broad head design, skinny shafts, etc, and you would have a way of actually comparing your setup to others that have worked on the same game species. It might also be a good way to find out if you have your arrows perfectly tuned (Are you getting expected penetration for your setup). Seems like a good way to expand Ashby's results.
I understand that there is no substitute for real world experience, but this could be a good way for some people to gain confidence in their setup, or come to the realization that they should not be using it for their intended quarry.
Now standardizing the test would be difficult, and I agree that pizza boxes may not be the best testing medium, however I see the point of using something cheap and easy to obtain that is consistent across the US. It would also be impossible to mimic the real thing, and as many of us have experienced, it is almost impossible to mimic a shot even on the real thing (Did you hit a rib, angle of shot, etc). Even with proper shot placement, funny things happen with penetration. You will likely not be able to replicate a real world shot without actually doing it, but over time we would be able to provide examples like "I was able to shoot through 15 pizza boxes with my setup and I had a complete pass through, cutting ribs on both sides."
As with any test, there will be some setups that do better on the test, but worse on game (potentially needle point broad heads) but
when there are inconsistencies, they will be discussed and analyzed.
I think there is merit to a standardized penetration test, although I agree that without real world experience validating it, it does not do much good. :archer:
There is just no suitable medium in my opinion! Attributes that may add to penetration in a critter could impede it in a dry medium. We have all seen it with 3d targets etc. A rig that shouldn't out penetrate another rig does. Just go with what should work and it probably will! Like long length to width broadheads for instance!
Small, empty USPS flat-rate shipping boxes.
Plastic gallon milk jugs filled with water, stacked in a row. (Then again, this one might not work so good!)
Those two would be consistent and easily accessible to all here in the US. That would give us a way to compare amongst ourselves.
Flesh is mostly water so the water jug idea may have promise in comparison to dry media? How bout water with 35% instant oatmeal added for thickening?
I use fresh cow shoulder blades that I pick up from the local butcher for a buck a piece. I think that is about as real world, although worse case scenario, as you can get.
The actual medium would not mater as long as the results are in relation to real world results in the field on pray. 12" of penetration on this test medium gives you a pass through 90% of the time on this game animal when hit broad side (no shoulders involved) and so on.
I think this test would be fine if simply comparing one set-up against another.
My main practice butts are field logic layered foam. The stuff is quite consistent and I shoot unshot sections with different arrows, such as Axis Trads and FMJ Injexions, the Injexion always penetrates a bit further (2" or so -- about 15%).
Since I know from real world hunting results that the Axis Trad arrow will produce two holes in whitetail deer, I also know the FMJ will.
I realize this type of analysis has limited application. The first being if I'm wanting to hunt a different beast (moose) than I've hunted before, I have no comparison. Although, I can identify the best penetrating set-up from those I want to test this way.
Then I'm left with advice based on the experience of others. Of course that is also highly limited because of countless variables.
I'm sure the intent of the original post is to suggest a way to compare among ourselves, not to measure actual potential penetration on a deer, kudu, or water buffalo, etc.
I think it's an interesting idea.
It's an interesting idea, Nightowl, and one that could really prove useful. Cardboard is pretty tough and fairly consistent. I'd think starting with about 12" and working thinner from there until you find the thickness that gives the penetration you think would be appropriate might just work.
QuoteOriginally posted by Archie:
I'm sure the intent of the original post is to suggest a way to compare among ourselves, not to measure actual potential penetration on a deer, kudu, or water buffalo, etc.
I think it's an interesting idea.
X3 :campfire:
Exactly. Like WTpops said The medium doesn't matter. I'm not tryin to replicate flesh but find something that can be consistent, cheap and accessible. A hypothetic example Would be... If you can make the broadhead through 6" of cardboard then that is the same amount of penetration as most other bows that consistently make pass throughs on deer.
I do not have enough experience on large game animals to be able to set this up myself. I've only killed a few hogs and a bucket load of small game.
That's why I was hoping we could put our heads together and decide on a medium and then start working on it. It will take a large amount of data to come to any conclusion. I think cardboard would be the easiest. Let's decide on a medium and then anyone interested can play with it and post results.
I agree that shooting into cardboard does not indicate how much penetration you will get on live game but it will give a consistent comparison of different arrow combinations that is useful. An arrow that penetrates deeper into compressed cardboard is most likely to penetrate deeper in game.
It also give a chance to compare some variables such as shaft diameter, total weight, FOC between different arrows that is nearly impossible for most of us to compare on live animals.
On the other hand. . . what difference does it make how much penetration we get on cardboard or foam, I'd actually like very little, so I can pull arrows easier. Penetration only matters on game animals.
Other substrates. . cardboard, layered foam, sand, and similar things provide different stopping parameters that I am pretty confident flesh and bone won't.
I saw a video of a fella shooting blunts thru a piece of plywood. The broadheads wouldn't go thru because the wood rubbed the blade and shaft, but the blunt knocked a hole in it large enough for the shaft to slide thru. Does that mean blunts may be better than broadheads ?
Chuckc
Absolutely...for shooting through plywood ;)
There is a big issue with the what is used because friction favors KE while water based favors momentum which is why KE is such a poor indicator of animal penitration.
Chuck and Benbow, it's all relative. Friction will happen on foam or cardboard targets to the same degree on each shot from various arrows. In my view, these tests don't show how far an arrow will penetrate but they do show how well they penetrate compared to each other.
I'm sure that an arrow that penetrates well in foam or cardboard will also penetrate well in an animal. The bone component is different only in the ability of the arrow to smash through. But in deer and elk ribs shouldn't be an issue.
In real life there may be a difference when considering momentum or KE but I'll bet the difference is slight.
I think chuck and Ben are thinking along the same lines as me. Shooting a dry medium, a small diameter light arrow may penetrate farther than a normal diameter slower and heavier arrow just because it generates more heat due to it's speed and melts the glue in the cardboard for example which would reduce friction. Nobody wishes more than me for there to be a definitive way to test penetration that was cheap and easy. I think ballistics gel is probably the best idea but I don't know it's cost and don't know how easy it is to make and use.I personally just go with theory and that says a properly tuned arrow with an appropriate shaped broadhead and you will be good to go on penetration
No offense to anyone but I know that this concept can work. Im not really asking for validation just help getting the details worked out. I'm not trying to compare cardboard to deer, but a simple comparison of bows that are capable of taking deer. There is a difference. That's as simple as I can describe it I think.
If you don't think it will work, that's fine. Participate and your results will help that determination. This will take more than 10 minutes of thinking to figure out. I want experiments not theoretics.
If your willing to try it, follow up on this thread.
Go to a pizza place and ask or buy a few boxes. Take your favorite bow from a distance you have cleanly killed deer at (and not a step farther) an see how many you can get through before the arrow isn't laying on the other side of the boxes.
I expect to there to be changes and this to take time. Maybe just PM me if you want to try it. And help me work out the details of these experiments.
Ok, I have not shot a deer with this bow/arrow combo and my test is a little different as pizza boxes are not readily available...
BOW: Hoyt Dorado 45# at 28 (known for being 2 # more then stated at 28) I draw 27 3/4.
ARROW: Cebela stalker extreme 45-60's, 31" long 125 grain points with 4" feathers. Total arrow weight is 395 grains.
OTHER: 16 strand FF string, 2 everlast string leach silencer's, I shoot with a flipper rest 2 and a plunger button, I use a NEAT glove and shoot 3 under.
DISTANCE: both shots are from 10 yards
TARGET 1: 6 layers of cardboard that = 7/8" thick
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b593/stdugo/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps2d779a5e.jpg) (http://s1293.photobucket.com/user/stdugo/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps2d779a5e.jpg.html)
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b593/stdugo/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsd1564fbb.jpg) (http://s1293.photobucket.com/user/stdugo/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsd1564fbb.jpg.html)
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b593/stdugo/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps3bfefb24.jpg) (http://s1293.photobucket.com/user/stdugo/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps3bfefb24.jpg.html)
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b593/stdugo/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps54edad61.jpg) (http://s1293.photobucket.com/user/stdugo/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps54edad61.jpg.html)
TARGET 2: I decided to double the cardboard, I folded it in half and now it was 12 layers that =1 1/2" thick
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b593/stdugo/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps6d4b426d.jpg) (http://s1293.photobucket.com/user/stdugo/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zps6d4b426d.jpg.html)
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b593/stdugo/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsf366f65a.jpg) (http://s1293.photobucket.com/user/stdugo/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsf366f65a.jpg.html)
(http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b593/stdugo/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsc73a557b.jpg) (http://s1293.photobucket.com/user/stdugo/media/Mobile%20Uploads/image_zpsc73a557b.jpg.html)
Now put a broadhead on and try it! Maybe it would be better test to have pizzas in the boxes, see if you can kill your supper;-) I'm not tying to be a buzz kill bro, I just see this as giving somebody false confidence or perhaps false doubt depending on the outcome!
maybe I am looking at this too close minded. As you can tell from my earlier posts, I don't think this is a real good indicator of what is gonna happen in a deer, BUT, as just a test to compare apples to apples (but apples wearing different kinda broadheads) I can see your point and yes, I think this would show something. Another twist. . try a sharp vs a not sharp head (CoC).
ChuckC
I would say use a broadhead also. The only constants needs to be material, it's thickness an the setup to be a hunting setup.
No buzz kill old goat because you need evidence to prove your point. If you find that you can get a 20lb bow to perform as well as a reliable hunting setup you would have a point. Until then it's all just an unsupported hypothesis.
That's a great start though 2bird. What you did would probably be easily repeatable. Slide a broadhead through there now from 10-15-20 yards and see what ya get. And we will log the numbers down. I wish we could standardize how to consistently secure the cardboard in place but not sure how to work that yet.
Y'all want to go with layered cardboard like that?
So hypothetically if you shot 3 deer with a certain set up from 10-15 yards and you buried the arrow up to the fletching on all 3 deer and you consistently penetrated 25-28" at 10 yards of a particular cardboard target you would say that's a invalid test???? No one is comparing cardboard to deer, you can't even really compare deer to deer if you want to get technical. But a general idea is totally obtainable with this idea, not wether or not you will get a pass through or not but remember you only need 6" of penetration to kill a whitetail, I believe you could determined kill or no kill with this type of test. My 2cents
I agree with the broadhead but i didn't have much time to shoot today...
I vote for making a wood stand much like a field goal then use C clamps to secure the cardboard onto the frame, I will make one up this week and try again with broad heads.
Also I think 20 layers should be the standard to compensated from heavy bows/arrows and shorter arrows etc...
Sounds good to me. I'll make one up this week and start some shooting. I just don't have any proven bows in my possession anymore to grab real data. Just bows that "should be" capable.
So if you want to participate, make up a c frame with wood that's 12 or 18 in square and put 20 layers of cardboard attached with clamps. The layers may be altered after more testing but we have to start somewhere.
Shoot a hunting setup with broadheads at 10 & 20 yards. Let us know what your typical results on deer are and what your penetration in inches is for each distance.
I think this will be intereting. I know I got a pass-through on a whitetail with my 50# recurve and 2117s with Zwickey Delta. I got total penetration (but not pass through) with my 43# 'curve on a 275# hog - 3555s with same BH.
I can't really compare those two shots - different animals, different angles, etc. But with a standard target medium, I could say I get 20% more penetration out of the 50#er than the 43# bow. Not much use to anyone else, but will tell me what to expect from my different bows with different points (2 vs 3 blade) and different weight arrows. I think this may be a lot of fun and I will learn something from it too.
Looks like you have quite the collection of bows to try with too. Haha
Wasn't there a dead cow test here abouts a few years ago?
Don't know. But doubt that can be the same thing as we are trying here. There is no way to standardize that medium.
This is a great excuse to order more pizza. Can we incorporate beer boxes into the standard as well?
Beer box does bring up a good point... Beer boxes and cereal and the similar are really thin, we need to find a consistant cardboard thickness.
Several years ago before ballistic gel, some "experts" used wet newspaper to shoot handguns into. I think they would get day old newspaper bundles, soak it several hours in water, let it drain until the water stopped dripping and then shoot into it with different handgun loads. You could then separate the paper and examine the length of the wound track, the diameter, etc. Something else ya'll might consider...
Lots of great ideas on here where someone else does all the work...if it's such a good idea go ahead and do it yourself and tell the rest of us your results
DDave
Thanks 2bird, great detail and excellent pictures
I think I can pick up a lot more scrap cardboard than dead cows, too!
In kenjutsu, we used wet tatami mats rolled around green bamboo to simulate limbs. I'm noticing a trend here of wet media, as the inside of an animal is wet as well and firing into a wet medium is a far better gauge of penetration on a live creature.
I know how to mix ballistics gel, but it's a question of did we all mix it properly or not. There are several formulas online that use easily gotten materials, but it would add up in price over time. Wet newspaper is the best idea I've seen thus far. Cardboard is not all created equal.
I know of a case where a cow was tested, a fellow with a low fifties Hill longbow was given a dry cow. His arrow went through the cow and into the hog pen. If I remember right it was a Hill head on a cedar arrow.
The way the current test facility is designed, tape holding it in place from the bottom is going to allow a large amount of movement, which WILL hinder performance, as well as hinder it in increments ; the higher (away from the tape) the hit, the more likely that cardboard is to flex; the more you hit the cardboard, the flimsier the connection to the base unit. we need something that won't flex and won't change.
ChuckC
lol I think we should put Chuck in charge of QA
Based on what everyone has said, I'm going to make up my frame this evening after work with a method of securing it like you said, Chuck. If I have time to go to the grocery store, I'll grab some cardboard too. Hopefully shoot some tomorrow and pics by wednesday with my measurements.
I'm not worried about mimicing the flesh by having it more liquid. Its far more important to have a consistent medium. There are too many variables with saturating paper to get consistency between everyone's trials. Ambient temperature, amount of water vs paper weight, length of time... Let's settle on dry cardboard for now.
Bladepeek and 2bird correct me if I'm wrong but if there is any validity to this the end answer would end up as follows:
A bow with X amount of penetration at 10 yards has X +/- the amount of penetration as another bow. That is all that can be determined. The larger the sample size and the more proven hunting setups we try we should find a range of penetration in the target medium that can have a correlation to an adequate hunting setup. Not a threshold of lethality but a threshold of confidence.
That is all I'm saying. Simply applying the scientific process.
yep pretty much. I spoke to my brother and he shoots a 45# recurve also, in fact his arrows are within 20 grains of mine, he draws 26" and I draw 27 3/4", we both will use the same broadhead for testing purposes and it should make for an interesting comparison.
2 bird, I retired from that stuff, get someone else !
hehehe
ChuckC
I dont see how testing on a live animal is standardized? Muscle density, hair/fur density, is bone contacted, angle of shot, moving or standing and 100 other variables might effect results? My broadhead arrows never fully penetrate my dirt pile, and seldom are they burried to the exact same depth.... but I am not worried about what they will do on any N. American Game Animal.
QuoteOriginally posted by killinstuff:
I like testing penetration on animals. Anything less then a hole in and hole out is poor penetration.
Unless you peg the off shoulder :D :D :D
As a Special Education Teacher I am against all forms of standardized testing. :smileystooges:
That just made my day. :D (I'm also a teacher)
That just made my day. :D (I'm also a teacher)
Water jugs cheap and realistic unless you have hard water :knothead: :deadhorse:
I am with others that have posted that the only way to choose a broadhead is after seeing how they do on real game. I like penetrations as much as anyone else but for me I like to see what the BH does as it cuts through the animal. You see very little discussion about Wound channel which I thnk is very important. I have shot deer with a bunch of different BH's and some just seem to cause more bleeding and quicker kills. The last couple years I have shot VPA three blades. The wound channel from them seem more like a hole that a smooth cut.
When you guys run out of boxes and can't eat any more pizza, just send it to me via overnight USPS.
I promise I will return the empty boxes for you to play with, so long as you don't mind a few holes in them.
:biglaugh: :archer2:
I agree with others cardboard does come in different methods of construction. Trying different cardboard boxes over the years I have found that some types will peel apart at the edges even if they are compressed. Now I mostly use Styrofoam boxes a co-worker's $6,000-a-dose medicine comes on. They are around 12"X6"X8", the insides having a rectangular pocket 1" deep and 4X4". I tape the lid shut with two-sided tape. Putting two boxes front - to - back works really well with field points but broadhead tipped arrows usually blow through when using my heavy weight bows. Shooting through the sides of these boxes yields much less penetrationr as the boxes are more solid. And the higher the foc the greater the penetration, such as with a 2117 fronted with a 260 grain field point.
after I learned about all the kills by people using 40-45lb bows and 8 to 10 gpi arrows I pretty much fell back in the chair realizing I can pretty much use any set up I want with my gear and I'm good to go.
its the arrow flight with those broadheads that should be the big concern because there are a lot of people out there that get crappy flight with their once field pointed arrows that now have broadheads for deer season and they either don't correct it and try to make it work or they just figure they have a "best or #1" arrow that seems to hit pretty good so they'll shoot that first and the other arrows are pretty much in the quiver to look good.
you guys know where I'm going with this but if anyone takes penetration seriously then arrow flight and perfectly matching shafting to your bow is key to not only consistent arrow after arrow accuracy but KE or what I call Pass thru Potential is at its highest,,,, then of course keep em sharp and pick a spot is part of the recipe also.
sadly I really can't pay any attention to penetration anything threads because I'm too close to deer season,,, this is all said with a smile but I can't be 2nd guessing my gear right now I'll be shooting Ace Broadheads on snag arrows that fly like lasers out of my Morning Star or Vixen both 56# if I don't see a pass thru I'm coming back to this forum and show a video of me breaking those two bows over the bridge of my nose......
as for pizza if it isn't all spoken for I'm a big fan of Garlic & Feta or Anchovy with Roasted peppers (what can I say I grew up in Boston) along with a frozen 22oz mug of Sams Summer Ale.
I got a compete pass through on 16 greasy pizza boxes and shot the neighbors cow at the same time... :rolleyes: I think i'm good to go on penetration and just bought enough beef for a year from the neighbor..... :eek:
:biglaugh: :laughing: Kirkll enjoy that beef :laughing:
Ok guys. It would be awesome if mystical magical forces governed the laws of archery that deem all things to be immeasurable. Would make shooting a bow that much more fun. But they don't and all parts of archery can be measured including penetration and predictions can be made off these findings. If you do not believe that I can't help you any further.
If I could consistently shoot a broadhead through 60 layers of cardboard no one would doubt its lethality. If I couldn't penetration a single layer there is no way I would hunt with it. Simply trying to find the point in between that maintains a correlation.
If you don't want to admit that. That's ok. I'm not here to change your mind. I simply want those who are interested to join in. I made a frame tonight and will get boxes tomorrow to breakdown and shoot. 3 kids and two jobs makes spare time rare!
We use to shoot broadheads into cardboard before they made broadhead targets.A lot of guys on here would learn things if they tried it.
I did another test yesterday. I tried 2 different broadheads, shot both into 15 layers of cardboard (that's all I had not 20 sorry). The penetration was fairly consistent +/- 1" or so. here are my averages from 10 - 20 - 30 yards
Equipment
Bow: Hoyt Dorado 45@28 I draw 27 ¾, with below arrow with 125 grain field points it chrono's 198 fps.
Arrow: Easton Stalker Extreme 500's 31" with 4" feathers. 265 grains with no point.
Broadheads
Zwickey Eskilite w/5/16" bleeders 135 grain, total arrow weight is 400 grains.
Magnus Snuffers 125 grains, total arrow weight is 390 grains.
both broadheads were sharp enough to pop rubber bands/shave hair.
10 Yards
Zwickey, 24.5"
Snuffers, 19.5"
20 Yards
Zwickey, 23.5"
Snuffers, 18.25"
30 Yards
Zwickey, 10"
Snuffers, 5"
FYI I use the cardboard flats that cans vegetables come on. Also I will be using the Zwickey this year, the Snuffers sounded like a wiffle ball in flight.
Not trying to be a wet blanket, but I am not sure any realistic test can be made on these artificial targets that will show much about performance on live big game. It will, however, give a relatively good comparison of various sets of equipment on a similar medium, but that does not necessarily translate well to a discussion of elk, deer, hogs, etc. This comparison may be useful, though, even if it is just a confidence booster.
Nor do I think it is necessary. If you have a reasonably powerful bow matched up to well tuned arrows and place the arrow well, the animal is going down. (This is intended to place emphasis on hunting skills).
I wonder if the Indians got so carried away with discussing and testing all this stuff, or if they just went hunting.
"It will, however, give a relatively good comparison of various sets of equipment on a similar medium"
For me that's all this is about, comparing equipment.
On the other hand ballistics don't lie! If you get more penetration with one arrow then the other in a test like this it's sure bet you will get more penetration on an animal, how much more? Who knows there are way too many variables to account for but if I shot a relaxed deer of equal size and at the same distance with the snuffer vs zwickey I would put money on it I will get better penetration with the zwickey. it's not a mystical unanswerable question, it's simply ballistics, people have been using ballistics to measure lethality of weapons for hundreds of years. I don't get why it's so hard for you guys to understand that????