Post by BT on Feb 11, 2009 15:23:26 GMT -5
I bring this testing from my individual journal for the benefit of those who come behind me 
_____________________
1-31-'09
Today I got a great start to the new season....just 8 months away now
My goal for this year is to overcome my inability to be cool on the shot.
Also....go back to the recurve full time till hunting season.
The Hoyt is such an easy bow to shoot that I wont need a week to have it tuned (if needed) and be back in form.
It's just that great.
However, that is not the case with the recuve, it is just very apparent that unless I plan to never hunt with it again....I must shoot it 100% of the time and no exceptions.
I will be setting the Bear 48 Mag. up based on the Ashby theory and guideline.
I look forward to this.
I also will need to re-set stands to accommodate a 15 yard shot range.
Big plans!!
_________________
2-1'09
I spent most of the morning working with the 48Mag....trying to find the magic.
To say that the Ashby rig was a disaster in the making would be an under statement
I have lots of bean poles now....but no great miracle waiting to be uncovered
I'm not giving up but it is something else
I finally had to just stop and start doing something else with the bow and arrow combinations.
Best (so far) is the GT 35/55 heritage @ 26" @ 52# w/125gr. head & 5" helical.
That was fun!...I shot that spot on for 1/2hr.
Next best was a 2213 w/5"helical @26" w/150gr.
The feathers kept the flight very well but bare shafting showed no great tune....good but not great.
Finished the day with 3555 shafts (8.9gpi) and a 150 gr/ head weight.
Ordered a dozen 1916 shafts to play with later.
Next comes weight forwarding these carbons
Found some Brass inserts and weight tubes and got the total up to 500+gpi
________________
2-2-'09
I hate epoxy!
Lost the insert and tip in the target after 5 shots
Up side...Spot on and no noticeable change in flat flight.
That said...I only got 5 shots and it will take more than that for me to see just what the truth is.
Got it all back together and found that there was o drop to 18 yards between the hollow shaft and the weight added shaft.
However, the weight tubes offer no real advantage in terms of usable momentum since the weight tubes are hollow plastic tubes and do not fit tight enough within the shaft to add stability on impact.
A common misconception is that the simple act of weighting a shaft will add punch on impact.
While it is true in theory, it can only be so in practice when the weight added is stable or part of the outer wall.
Aluminum within aluminum works because on impact, neither tube gives to the shock.
By contrast, plastic gives totally to impact and therefore does not translate that added weight through the target on impact.
SO....
I am now moving onto aluminum stuffed with carbon as soon as the 1916 shafts arrive.
__________
2-3-'09
Keystone got the order here next day
I used a AFC 2200 shaft (7.3gpi) inside the 26" 1916 and still have point of aim to 18 yards
I dont know what the total grain is because I cant find my grain scale
But it's around 250gr. added over the 1916 base weight.
No brass insert in the first arrow so I am guessing 575gr. total arrow weight right now.
The Aluminum does not have the control that the carbon shaft did but I believe it will be acceptable
Going out to fine tune now...as well as check penetration differences on the foam.
20 shots revealed that the weighted shaft is not outperforming the weight forward shaft.
Th pics below are the very best group which went in the same area...100% in the same area and on the same plane.
Foam had the same results.
Next, I will weight forward the aluminum and re-shoot.
Personally....it's gonna take a truck load of improvement to better the simple weight forward carbon shaft.
O.K.....that didn't work for crap ;D
Three shafts combined to make one super heavy weight, re-tune the rest...didnt achieve snot in terms of penetration.
Ridiculous! ... 600+gpi in combined aluminum, 180+gpi in carbon and 185gr. attached and all I have done is enhance my drop by minus 2 yards
Lets muse this one!
Alright...end of the day I think.
This is ridiculous!
I didn't even bother taking pics this time because at this point it is starting to sound like I have some agenda.
I took the standard carbon 35-55 and the weight forward version and again, shot them side by side.
Same results as the weight forward V.S. the weighted shaft.
The lighter shaft with 12% weight forward out performed the higher FOC shaft
It's not like I didn't know this about compounds but I did not believe I would have the same results with the stick bow at all
Hmmmm....
I'll wait till skipmaster and I get together and then he can confirm what I am seeing here.
______________
2-5-'09
Started with the taper shafts today.
Below are two pictures showing one measured against the other.
They are not cut to the same length so you have to know what your starting with before knowing which did better
Below is the result from the x-tra firm/dry impact area
Below is the soft/dry result
While the taper shaft has a larger diameter, it clearly out penetrated the standard carbon shaft which just yesterday outperformed all others.
This taper shaft is not weight forward (carries standard aluminum insert)
WHILE PENETRATION SEEMS TO BE MINIMALLY BETTER...CONSIDER THE DIAMETER AND IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT THE TAPER SHAFT WINS HANDS DOWN!
**Also...the taper shaft was not adjusted properly for nock fit, which would have further enhanced penetration
I have ordered a pack of taper shafts along with the brass inserts.
When these arrive and are assembled, I will do a ballistic gel test to decide which shaft I will use.
After this is determined, I will start ballistic testing with various heads and finally, I will also do an actual scapula and flesh impact test to determine real field results.
__________________
2-07-'09
Here are the results from the bucket test.
Pretty much in line with the other results to date with the Alaskan shaft outperforming the lightest shaft.
That said....
These are the best two shafts and they are close.
I wouldn't expect the heavy weight 1916 or 800+ 2312 to have made it through the bucket at all
Both shots were made within 15 seconds (or less) of each other and were shot at 10 yards.
Next is a shaft I didn't use last time (just built it) that follows Ashby's theory in weight and FOC
I used the same GT3555 with a AFC shaft insert (7.3gpi)
This shaft out performed the Alaskan and is (so far) the best of all.
Estimated 630grns. total weight & 24%FOC
What this series of tests is showing is that you cannot assume or do only one thing...you must follow every combination available to find what works.
The Alaskan shaft is already weight forward so all we have to do is add some weight to even things up.
That will be the next heads up.
** The shot seems low because it is.
The first shot was pulled and re-shot before the bucket could lose a significant amount of water.
Both shots were seemingly identical in penetration.
O.K.....H.S. was the first word that left my lips as the fletching was sheared nearly off the arrow wrap
If it were not for the fletchings...I am pretty sure the shaft would have just gone all the way through
There is no question to it at this point
The Taper shaft is the way to go under any method approach.
While extreme weight was the worst thing added, added weight to a certain degree worked very well
The GPP comes to 12 for this bow with this shaft which Carry's a 130gr. head
_____________________
I cut the Sitka shaft down to 26.5", added a 265gr. head and pulled Black Betty (70# Mamba) off the rack to see just what I could get out of this shoulder of mine
OMG'D!!....I AM STAYING WITH THIS!!
I set up my last bucket and shot the center and then went looking for my arrow ;D
10 yards beyond and buried to the earth below the snow.
Awesome!.
I will probably get the 314gr. Ashby head (2.75 ratio) and stick with this.
This will bring me up to the true Ashby standard @ 750gr.+ that I was originally shooting for.
While my flat flight is only 15 yards, I have no issue at all in hitting the spot at 20 which is max shot range anyway.
_________________
2-8-'09
Got a few shots off through the chrono this morning before the clouds started rolling in.
The average is 147fps which is down 10% in speed compared to the original 163fps with the standard 2413 and 130gr. Eskimo head which I used last year.
This is a 10% loss of speed from an approximate 50% increase in weight.
It has been my experience that this is in line with my findings that compounds lose 15%+ (normally20%) from the same percentage weight gains on the projectile.
The 147fps. means that the distance between the shooter and deer must not be over 8 yards or the deer can avoid fatal injury should it jump the string in a classical panic drop.
OR
Shots that are over 8yrds. must be made on deer which are observed to be unlikely to jump the string.
OR
Hunting animals that do not drop when startled...such as Pigs, goat, bear, elk, caribou and so on and so forth.
As soon as I receive all the parts to do the build on the official arrows for '09, I will do a break down on each components weight, length, assembly procedure and whatever else there is to say and show.
2-10-'09
After watching a new traditional DVD I had to get out there on the 3D range
Having shot this set up for 5 days there is one thing that is very apparent to me which is that it is far more suitable for my needs.
The size of the shaft and slower speed is really allowing me to see my shot so much better.
That is really making a difference because now that I can see it.
My brain is more able to start taking in accurate information with which to aid in an ability to shoot distance instinctively.
I had not realized just how poor my eye sight has gotten
Anyway.....it's working great!.
A few targets were down on the course but I was able to shoot a dozen or so from a distance of 15-20 yards with two 25-30 yard shots thrown in.
NOT ONE MISS!
It's like throwing a basketball ;D
I am (so far) very very happy with this set up
The observation is that my arrows are definitely penetrating better every time and it's funny to watch the target rock like it was hit with a baseball bat at times
Bottom line is that I am gaining alot of confidence with this set up and to be perfectly honest...I would go hunting with a few more days of shooting.....without worry as to wounding due to shot placement
_________
Fletched up three shafts and all are spot on.
With the grizzly sticks, you have to find the heavy spine side of each shaft but it is not at all what some people indicate (as difficult) by all the whining they do.
It is very simple and full proof and if you just read before you start cutting, the results are outstanding
It wasn't all that long ago when nearly all shafts had a finish line that would cause the shaft to be stiffer on one side.
Most people floated the shafts or more often than not, didn't even realize that their shafts were not tunes for spine.
You cant float a grizzly stick because it is tapered so you have to bend and roll the shaft between your hands, until the soft side revels itself.
Anyone who needs to see what I am talking about....just ask
Also, I went to 5" offset shields for fletching.
2 full rotations at 15 yards...
2-17-'09
I have had some real shooting time in on this set up now and here are my findings, as based on this experience.
**Flat flight (relative to point of aim) is 15 yards
**Drop out (based on point of aim to body cavity sized *Whitetail) is 20 yards.
(very easy to compensate for)
**25yrds. is very consistent and penetration is seemingly unaffected.
**30 yards requires a very good guesstimate to hold over and penetration starts to lag a bit.
**35 yards requires very good estimation but drop is steady and fairly easy to judge with penetration remaining relative to 30 yards.
** 40 yards is relative in terms of continuing gap for drop.
Penetration varies slightly with occasional penetration gains.
** 45 yards...Gap remains same and penetration is consistently better by perhaps 3%+
The Bow is very quite and nearly shock free compared to the 450gr. shaft which was used previously.
While range estimation was at first more crucial, it is now not nearly the handicap that it was.
The shooting errors in terms of miss distance are far less with a poor release while being less compact with proper release.
While groups average 3-4" at my best compared to 1-2" with the lighter/faster arrow, the overall average on the 3-D course is better with the heavier shaft in historical terms.
*I reason that this is the case due to the fact that I take chances on distance in a 10 yard lesser range comparison (40 t 30yrds) as well as the forgiveness added for release errors.
What I have related is with a shaft that carries a 265gr. head and not the 315gr. that is scheduled to be used for hunting.
hen I get the 315 heads....we will see what (if anything) changes.
_____________________
1-31-'09
Today I got a great start to the new season....just 8 months away now
My goal for this year is to overcome my inability to be cool on the shot.
Also....go back to the recurve full time till hunting season.
The Hoyt is such an easy bow to shoot that I wont need a week to have it tuned (if needed) and be back in form.
It's just that great.
However, that is not the case with the recuve, it is just very apparent that unless I plan to never hunt with it again....I must shoot it 100% of the time and no exceptions.
I will be setting the Bear 48 Mag. up based on the Ashby theory and guideline.
I look forward to this.
I also will need to re-set stands to accommodate a 15 yard shot range.
Big plans!!
_________________
2-1'09
I spent most of the morning working with the 48Mag....trying to find the magic.
To say that the Ashby rig was a disaster in the making would be an under statement
I have lots of bean poles now....but no great miracle waiting to be uncovered
I'm not giving up but it is something else
I finally had to just stop and start doing something else with the bow and arrow combinations.
Best (so far) is the GT 35/55 heritage @ 26" @ 52# w/125gr. head & 5" helical.
That was fun!...I shot that spot on for 1/2hr.
Next best was a 2213 w/5"helical @26" w/150gr.
The feathers kept the flight very well but bare shafting showed no great tune....good but not great.
Finished the day with 3555 shafts (8.9gpi) and a 150 gr/ head weight.
Ordered a dozen 1916 shafts to play with later.
Next comes weight forwarding these carbons
Found some Brass inserts and weight tubes and got the total up to 500+gpi
________________
2-2-'09
I hate epoxy!
Lost the insert and tip in the target after 5 shots
Up side...Spot on and no noticeable change in flat flight.
That said...I only got 5 shots and it will take more than that for me to see just what the truth is.
Got it all back together and found that there was o drop to 18 yards between the hollow shaft and the weight added shaft.
However, the weight tubes offer no real advantage in terms of usable momentum since the weight tubes are hollow plastic tubes and do not fit tight enough within the shaft to add stability on impact.
A common misconception is that the simple act of weighting a shaft will add punch on impact.
While it is true in theory, it can only be so in practice when the weight added is stable or part of the outer wall.
Aluminum within aluminum works because on impact, neither tube gives to the shock.
By contrast, plastic gives totally to impact and therefore does not translate that added weight through the target on impact.
SO....
I am now moving onto aluminum stuffed with carbon as soon as the 1916 shafts arrive.
__________
2-3-'09
Keystone got the order here next day
I used a AFC 2200 shaft (7.3gpi) inside the 26" 1916 and still have point of aim to 18 yards
I dont know what the total grain is because I cant find my grain scale
But it's around 250gr. added over the 1916 base weight.
No brass insert in the first arrow so I am guessing 575gr. total arrow weight right now.
The Aluminum does not have the control that the carbon shaft did but I believe it will be acceptable
Going out to fine tune now...as well as check penetration differences on the foam.
20 shots revealed that the weighted shaft is not outperforming the weight forward shaft.
Th pics below are the very best group which went in the same area...100% in the same area and on the same plane.
Foam had the same results.
Next, I will weight forward the aluminum and re-shoot.
Personally....it's gonna take a truck load of improvement to better the simple weight forward carbon shaft.
O.K.....that didn't work for crap ;D
Three shafts combined to make one super heavy weight, re-tune the rest...didnt achieve snot in terms of penetration.
Ridiculous!
... 600+gpi in combined aluminum, 180+gpi in carbon and 185gr. attached and all I have done is enhance my drop by minus 2 yards Lets muse this one!
Alright...end of the day I think.
This is ridiculous!
I didn't even bother taking pics this time because at this point it is starting to sound like I have some agenda.
I took the standard carbon 35-55 and the weight forward version and again, shot them side by side.
Same results as the weight forward V.S. the weighted shaft.
The lighter shaft with 12% weight forward out performed the higher FOC shaft
It's not like I didn't know this about compounds but I did not believe I would have the same results with the stick bow at all
Hmmmm....
I'll wait till skipmaster and I get together and then he can confirm what I am seeing here.
______________
2-5-'09
Started with the taper shafts today.
Below are two pictures showing one measured against the other.
They are not cut to the same length so you have to know what your starting with before knowing which did better
Below is the result from the x-tra firm/dry impact area
Below is the soft/dry result
While the taper shaft has a larger diameter, it clearly out penetrated the standard carbon shaft which just yesterday outperformed all others.
This taper shaft is not weight forward (carries standard aluminum insert)
WHILE PENETRATION SEEMS TO BE MINIMALLY BETTER...CONSIDER THE DIAMETER AND IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT THE TAPER SHAFT WINS HANDS DOWN!
**Also...the taper shaft was not adjusted properly for nock fit, which would have further enhanced penetration
I have ordered a pack of taper shafts along with the brass inserts.
When these arrive and are assembled, I will do a ballistic gel test to decide which shaft I will use.
After this is determined, I will start ballistic testing with various heads and finally, I will also do an actual scapula and flesh impact test to determine real field results.
__________________
2-07-'09
Here are the results from the bucket test.
Pretty much in line with the other results to date with the Alaskan shaft outperforming the lightest shaft.
That said....
These are the best two shafts and they are close.
I wouldn't expect the heavy weight 1916 or 800+ 2312 to have made it through the bucket at all
Both shots were made within 15 seconds (or less) of each other and were shot at 10 yards.
Next is a shaft I didn't use last time (just built it) that follows Ashby's theory in weight and FOC
I used the same GT3555 with a AFC shaft insert (7.3gpi)
This shaft out performed the Alaskan and is (so far) the best of all.
Estimated 630grns. total weight & 24%FOC
What this series of tests is showing is that you cannot assume or do only one thing...you must follow every combination available to find what works.
The Alaskan shaft is already weight forward so all we have to do is add some weight to even things up.
That will be the next heads up.
** The shot seems low because it is.
The first shot was pulled and re-shot before the bucket could lose a significant amount of water.
Both shots were seemingly identical in penetration.
O.K.....H.S. was the first word that left my lips as the fletching was sheared nearly off the arrow wrap
If it were not for the fletchings...I am pretty sure the shaft would have just gone all the way through
There is no question to it at this point
The Taper shaft is the way to go under any method approach.
While extreme weight was the worst thing added, added weight to a certain degree worked very well
The GPP comes to 12 for this bow with this shaft which Carry's a 130gr. head
_____________________
I cut the Sitka shaft down to 26.5", added a 265gr. head and pulled Black Betty (70# Mamba) off the rack to see just what I could get out of this shoulder of mine
OMG'D!!....I AM STAYING WITH THIS!!
I set up my last bucket and shot the center and then went looking for my arrow ;D
10 yards beyond and buried to the earth below the snow.
Awesome!.
I will probably get the 314gr. Ashby head (2.75 ratio) and stick with this.
This will bring me up to the true Ashby standard @ 750gr.+ that I was originally shooting for.
While my flat flight is only 15 yards, I have no issue at all in hitting the spot at 20 which is max shot range anyway.
_________________
2-8-'09
Got a few shots off through the chrono this morning before the clouds started rolling in.
The average is 147fps which is down 10% in speed compared to the original 163fps with the standard 2413 and 130gr. Eskimo head which I used last year.
This is a 10% loss of speed from an approximate 50% increase in weight.
It has been my experience that this is in line with my findings that compounds lose 15%+ (normally20%) from the same percentage weight gains on the projectile.
The 147fps. means that the distance between the shooter and deer must not be over 8 yards or the deer can avoid fatal injury should it jump the string in a classical panic drop.
OR
Shots that are over 8yrds. must be made on deer which are observed to be unlikely to jump the string.
OR
Hunting animals that do not drop when startled...such as Pigs, goat, bear, elk, caribou and so on and so forth.
As soon as I receive all the parts to do the build on the official arrows for '09, I will do a break down on each components weight, length, assembly procedure and whatever else there is to say and show.
2-10-'09
After watching a new traditional DVD I had to get out there on the 3D range
Having shot this set up for 5 days there is one thing that is very apparent to me which is that it is far more suitable for my needs.
The size of the shaft and slower speed is really allowing me to see my shot so much better.
That is really making a difference because now that I can see it.
My brain is more able to start taking in accurate information with which to aid in an ability to shoot distance instinctively.
I had not realized just how poor my eye sight has gotten
Anyway.....it's working great!.
A few targets were down on the course but I was able to shoot a dozen or so from a distance of 15-20 yards with two 25-30 yard shots thrown in.
NOT ONE MISS!
It's like throwing a basketball ;D
I am (so far) very very happy with this set up
The observation is that my arrows are definitely penetrating better every time and it's funny to watch the target rock like it was hit with a baseball bat at times
Bottom line is that I am gaining alot of confidence with this set up and to be perfectly honest...I would go hunting with a few more days of shooting.....without worry as to wounding due to shot placement
_________
Fletched up three shafts and all are spot on.
With the grizzly sticks, you have to find the heavy spine side of each shaft but it is not at all what some people indicate (as difficult) by all the whining they do.
It is very simple and full proof and if you just read before you start cutting, the results are outstanding
It wasn't all that long ago when nearly all shafts had a finish line that would cause the shaft to be stiffer on one side.
Most people floated the shafts or more often than not, didn't even realize that their shafts were not tunes for spine.
You cant float a grizzly stick because it is tapered so you have to bend and roll the shaft between your hands, until the soft side revels itself.
Anyone who needs to see what I am talking about....just ask
Also, I went to 5" offset shields for fletching.
2 full rotations at 15 yards...
2-17-'09
I have had some real shooting time in on this set up now and here are my findings, as based on this experience.
**Flat flight (relative to point of aim) is 15 yards
**Drop out (based on point of aim to body cavity sized *Whitetail) is 20 yards.
(very easy to compensate for)
**25yrds. is very consistent and penetration is seemingly unaffected.
**30 yards requires a very good guesstimate to hold over and penetration starts to lag a bit.
**35 yards requires very good estimation but drop is steady and fairly easy to judge with penetration remaining relative to 30 yards.
** 40 yards is relative in terms of continuing gap for drop.
Penetration varies slightly with occasional penetration gains.
** 45 yards...Gap remains same and penetration is consistently better by perhaps 3%+
The Bow is very quite and nearly shock free compared to the 450gr. shaft which was used previously.
While range estimation was at first more crucial, it is now not nearly the handicap that it was.
The shooting errors in terms of miss distance are far less with a poor release while being less compact with proper release.
While groups average 3-4" at my best compared to 1-2" with the lighter/faster arrow, the overall average on the 3-D course is better with the heavier shaft in historical terms.
*I reason that this is the case due to the fact that I take chances on distance in a 10 yard lesser range comparison (40 t 30yrds) as well as the forgiveness added for release errors.
What I have related is with a shaft that carries a 265gr. head and not the 315gr. that is scheduled to be used for hunting.
hen I get the 315 heads....we will see what (if anything) changes.
