|
|
Post by Doegirl on Mar 16, 2009 19:16:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BT on Mar 16, 2009 19:25:03 GMT -5
OMG!~KARL !! ;D SO we have a combination that is relative to equal penetration. Yes?.... That is more in line with my previous observations which would confirm that the 2.25 Radial is superior in as much as it supports mass to penetration rates superior to that of the 2.75 straight incline. Or they are both the same head  |
|
|
|
Post by Doegirl on Mar 16, 2009 20:14:47 GMT -5
Both the same head. The bucket test I did before had the modified grizzly, I didn't think it necessary to retest the grizz. The Grizzly:  Today's test-two Zwickeys:  |
|
|
|
Post by BT on Mar 16, 2009 20:43:48 GMT -5
O.K....same thing.
Obviously, the better head would be the zwickey for the added cut area.
I'll be doing the same test later this spring.
|
|
|
|
Post by stilllearning on Mar 17, 2009 9:45:04 GMT -5
The snow is finialy starting to melt here and I figure by July it should be gone. Man we still have 3 feet in the back yard. I can't wait to get out and test this baby out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doegirl on Mar 21, 2009 0:31:42 GMT -5
I think, after April's hunt, I will be done with the Ashby experiment.  The momentum arguement is just not logical and is full of flaws. Why does almost the entire archery industry rely on Kinetic Energy? Some might argue that fast bows sell, and there's truth to that. But, let's give those engineers and bow designers some credit, they have some sort of grasp on physics. I think a lot of bowhunters intuitively deduce that because heavier arrows penetrate better, it must be because of momentum. Never occurs to them that a heavier arrow better conserves kinetic energy. Or the effects of friction on arrow penetration. What did I do when I went to skinny Axis arrows and a 2 blade head? Reduced the amount of friction working against the arrow, that's what. I'm not saying that heavier arrows don't have their place. Saving wear and tear on a bow, quieting a bow down, making a bow easier to tune and shoot, and maximizing downrange KE are all good reasons to bump up the arrow weight. But there is such thing as too much of a good thing. Ashby's recommendation of a minimum of 650grains is just ridiculous for most compound setups and for most situations. Plus, this is getting really expensive. Luckily some of the components, like the zwickeys, can be used with my recurve. But what the heck am I going to do Axis FMJ 340's cut to 26.25"? You know, about $140.00 a dozen. Plant stakes I guess. I guess I'm bitter because I've realized I'm just chasing windmills.... |
|
|
|
Post by BT on Mar 21, 2009 6:32:19 GMT -5
I think, after April's hunt, I will be done with the Ashby experiment.  My findings as well....until we get talking about traditional bows. I think the super majority rely on the words of others. The problem with this method of education is that when you commit to a philosophy without research, you do not gain education.  The people who know what works are the people that have done everything, soup to nuts and bottom to top in order to come to a conclusion.  I remember when you came here...you said you were confused and aggravated by all the people on the other sites (who were mouthing suppose facts) and telling you to do things that seemed nonsense to you. Ashby was/is just another one of the talking heads that gets enough credit to lure you right back to where you were I haven't updated my own penetration thread yet but I can tell you that after nearly two months of working with the high weight forward theory (on various bows) that this too is bunk Now where have I heard that before I didn't bother trying to dissuade this test format because there was a chance that you were going to find something worthwhile that perhaps I had not. For instance...I have never gone super heavy weight with a bow like yours. While you have come to the conclusion that the theory is nothing more than that...you have supplied a wealth of information to those who are to come behind you.  There will always be sacrifice when attempting to advance. |
|
|
|
Post by Doegirl on Mar 21, 2009 6:54:54 GMT -5
It seems like I'm ending my side of the fight (momentum) before it even started. But I just don't see any point in moving forward. I hope I showed the members just what a huge pain in the butt this venture was. I hope that I showed, at least with compounds, that going extremely heavy doesn't really do diddly squat for you. Chances are, when Stilllearning finally gets to dig out of his igloo, he's going to be blowing through buckets with his new setup. I know he will....  |
|
royden
Senior Board Member
Posts: 1,349
|
Post by royden on Mar 21, 2009 10:04:39 GMT -5
I can't say I blame you for throwing in the towel. Sometimes the only way to truly find out is to do it - twice! (Just to make sure you know!) Your right - this has been expensive on your part; but the info gained has been very valuable. Personally I am a little disgusted with your shop - you didn't need 12 of everything to do a test - 3 would be fine at this point  Don't make 'em into plant stakes what do you have at this point that is extra? ebay might get rid of 'em for you, or ask your shop if they have some young kids that want some stump arrows.
|
|
|
|
Post by BT on Mar 21, 2009 15:08:47 GMT -5
Bring those arrows to the hunt next month and I'll try them out on the light bow. If I can use them, I might be able to give you something rather than nothing. Maybe we can make them work for you on the traditional?. I know they are heavy and stiff but I might be able to make them work for your stick bow. Dont give up yet  |
|
The results were inspected and verified by Karl, as seen in the bottom pic 
