came across a thread today...

[BT]

This made me think and you know what happens when I start thinking

The question was...minimum bow weight and what is an ethical weight to hunt with.
To me....this is a question that cannot be answered unless to say.... what is a bow weight that can be determined as a minimum across the board.
This question goes across the board to all equipment concerns but the weight of the bow is what is most commonly questioned along with the broadhead itself.

It always amazes me as I read through responses from board to board as to the lack of thought that goes into the answers to these questions
Over the years the responses have gotten better as it relates to questioning the person asking prior to answering , but the thought behind the answers hasn't..... IMO

What I mean to say is that the group mentality , status answer is what makes up the majority response in mass.
I doubt (and would be comfortable betting on) the outcome of any response as to how the answer for any given question is arrived at.
In short....people by and large rarely understand why they are saying what they are saying and therefore don't know what they are talking about
The outcome of this group knowledge is generally a recipe for disaster for some and success for others , as would be expected with a one shoe fits all mentality.

It seems a shame to me since unlike magazines....the web offers the ability to get into a one on one discussion which should be beneficial , provided knowledge is applied.
Knowledge is out there.....anyone can find it but understanding what you have found and being able to use that information seems to be the problem

The last question I came across certainly wasn't original and in fact has been stated thousands of times in the past....yet I found not one bit of common sense in any answers that were offered

One answer was that a person cleanly took a deer with 35# and while I do not doubt that....the statement would allow that 35# is sufficient for deer hunting.
Is that true?....depends on alot of things and the bottom line is that no....35# is not enough many times and not enough in almost any situation.
That being said....this fact was not said or implied

While this is a standard response as far as it states a minimum of information and a maximum of assumption...this is the thing that most exasperates me.
This is the kind of factual statement that shares no real facts and sets the beginner up for disaster

This is just one example of many statements that are at best....half truths
How many (all I am sure) have seen a thread which asks something like....what weight bow for my 13 year old who is going to be hunting with me this year?
Do the majority of answers state a weight and leave it at that?
How about answers that state weight and distance?
weight , distance and head?
The last (weight , distance & head) would be the best answer but even this answer stops far short of the correct answer simply because enough information has not been attained.
But are those three answers correct?....what are those answers based on?....personal experience?....common knowledge?

Here is how I break it down in my mind.....

You cannot know the weight minimum until you know the shot maximum
A arrow loses alot of energy as it moves away from the bow and in order to answer the minimum you have to know the maximum....and add 10 yards
I don't care who it is.....there are very few people that wont stretch their stated maximum
to find what we are losing we have to know what the flat flight potential of the bow is.
When speaking of minimums we could assume 15 yards flat flight.
We then need to add 1# for every yard past the stated minimum (+10)
So...that's the first thing to find out

Next is the head design.....
Add 3# for every blade beyond a single blade head (commonly referred to as a2blade)
Add 2# for each .5 beyond the 2.5 angle reduction pertaining to slope.
Add 3# for every 1/4" beyond 1" of cutting diameter.

Next is arrow weight....
If we are shooting within flat flight (doubtful , since within the 10yard rule , we would have to have a stated 5 yard maximum ) we need to add 1# for every 3 yards for any arrow which is 1 grain below AMMO standard that is traveling past flat flight.
That's 1# for each grain below AMMO
If you are 3 grains below AMMO , that's 3# for every 3 yards beyond flat flight potential.

Next we need to know minimum weight for maximum resistance to penetration which means scapula when aiming for the area of the lungs.
This becomes a question mark because the hidden question is....do we just care about killing it or do we need x-tra help from that shot I.E. : bloodtrail
If we need bloodtrail maximised (as I do) then we have to go back to the broadhead selected and weigh that against bow weight needed to maximise penetration.

As you can see....you can get 1/2 way through a calculation and have to go back and revise based on stated desire.
This is why many people get different answers from me as to what broadhead would be best for them as opposed to others which I have seemingly suggested different heads for while they both may share common set ups.

This is nearly all you need to know when suggesting a minimum weight but there is nothing here that will allow you to suggest a weight (correctly) without knowing.

Anyone believe that the common suggestions on these threads put any of these (or anything like these standards) into their answers to questions where the person really wants to do the right thing?
I don't

Back to how anyone determines fact.
Is it based on personal experience?....maybe combined with the experiences of others?
To me....this is not fact but rather knowledge....limited knowledge at best.
There are very few people who have shot so many animals that they have seen every situation enough times to have memorized outcomes.
I certainly am not standing here saying that I have that firm grasp on cause and effect
The man Ed Ashby...a medical doctor and bowman who has perhaps seen (for what it is) cause and effect more effectively than anyone is learning new things every year.
Ashby today is far wiser than the Ashby of ten years ago and I would suggest that the Ahsby that exists (god willing) ten years from now will know more than Ashby present.
So....whats my point?
Those that profess to know what they are talking about , rarely do

That's whats bugging me today

[hopesman]

BT, I won't pretend to understand all that you have said here But, people generally respond in these types of situations with their opinion which is generally just that, an opinion Everyone has one of these and they are generally cheap ;D Most are willing to espouse theirs without engaging their brains. In order to give an informed answer or make an informed statement one must be informed This takes an investment in time and effort usually combined with at least a modicum of practical experience Archery isn't the only domain that is plagued with this and the political arena is particularly polluted (now there's a hornets nest) I can certainly understand your frustration when you appear to me to have all of the afore mentioned tools to have the right to express an opinion in this area. Sooner or later, people learn who to listen too and who not to. Unfortunately, there are usually some casualties along the way Just my two cents worth.

[BT]

hopesman said:

BT, I won't pretend to understand all that you have said here .

Well....I do tend to go on a tangent at times
What is it that I am not making myself clear about?
I don't want to just leave it at that ...... we are not getting ahead that way

As to experience.....
I think that personal experience is the worse tool that most people could enlist as it pertains to bowhunting
There are those that have a pretty good background in cause and effect....generally the multi level bowman who uses all bows.
With this wide array of weaponry , bowmen of this sort sees very quickly what differences exist within the spectrum
That does not mean to say that the single level user isn't worth listening too .....that's not what I mean
What I do mean is that when you are shooting over the top of the realm of limits....your input is suspect at best.
By this I mean to suggest that a person who has shot a 70# compound all of his life at close range has a very limited base of knowledge as opposed to a bowhunter that moves over the scale between a 40# longbow and a 70# compound.
Add in a weight range of 30# over each category and a distance range of 40 yards from minimum to maximum and you have someone with a far better idea of what the possibilities are pertaining to possibilities within a situation.
Add to that 30+ years and you have someone that just cant be that stupid/lucky IMO

All that being said.....I think that on the opposite end of that is the beginner.
Now-a-days the bag limits are for the most part far more generous and the wealth of information far greater.
The beginner may also have the same flowing growth rate in archery as does the old veteran in respect to experience of the weapon itself.
My son for instance could have been such a person (if he hadn't relied on me for all his answers) by fact that he went over the same weight ranges and distance spreads in 1/3rd the time
The only thing the young archer is missing is the field experience then? ..... not necessarily
The young archer may well have a great deal of experience which is directly related to the equipment changes over the years of growth ..... provided that he/she has the liberal bag limits on which to build that experience.
Skipmaster is a perfect example of this cause and effect.
In ten years , skipmaster has acquired more knowledge of bow hunting than most people I know simply because he has had the most opportunity and has ran the scale from weight to bow types.
Skipmaster is about an amazing individual as you would ever meet and it is very hard to remember that he is more than 20 years my junior

Between these two extremes , I have found none that have the back ground knowledge needed to be a great informant and that goes fully to many who make their livings hunting for major corporations
I do not count myself among those that are masters ....I have mastered a few things and try to keep my comments to those things that I know.
(sometimes I forget and talk about things that I don't know that well .....so sue me ;D)

Anyway .... I think that the thrust of my point is that there are a whole lot of people who are more lucky than skilled and it irks me to see people like this helping some others toward failure.

[hopesman]

Well, when it comes to my understanding of the subject, I am such a rookie that I don't even know the questions to ask let alone any of the answers ;D I generally try to limit my comments on things that I have good knowledge of that is seasoned by a reasonable amount of experience relative to the subject area. If someone wants my input on an electrical engineering subject and I have knowledge and or experience in that area, I would be willing to give an answer. Otherwise, I tend not to speak Now, there are definitely subject areas where opinions have merit and they are usually hotbeds. A wise man usually doesn't venture there but then I have never professed to be that wise Having said that, I am looking forward to the hunting experience and the conversations that we will have, adding a little to my knowledge base so I can be better in practical hunting situations

[azslim]

Yea......what he said.

When I get asked I take the easy way out and tell folks the minimum legal draw weight of 40# for deer and to stick to shots 30 yds or closer. But I also own up that I haven't been archery hunting that long. I have a lot of nice guns and I really liked using them for many years.

[bigcountry]

First of all, bow poundage shouldn't be used as a gage to begin with. Kinetic Energy should. 10 different 40# bows will give you 10 diffferent results. I think that you have a pretty good idea of what you are trying to say but you don't seem to explain yourself very well. I also believe you are over analyzing this a bit. There are WAY too many variables involved in this situation and most can be covered with a simple minimum KE requirement.

[BT]

bigcountry said:

First of all, bow poundage shouldn't be used as a gage to begin with. Kinetic Energy should. 10 different 40# bows will give you 10 different results. I think that you have a pretty good idea of what you are trying to say but you don't seem to explain yourself very well. I also believe you are over analyzing this a bit. There are WAY too many variables involved in this situation and most can be covered with a simple minimum KE requirement.

I was hoping someone would jump on this
I tend to over explain things in hopes of covering the subject matter well enough for most to grasp.
It generally doesn't work out that way though....you'd think I'd give it up by now ;D

Anyway....

Although I agree that K.E. is a good point....most people cannot provide you with the facts that give K.E. and in a worse case scenario , they provide you with the wrong information.
While K.E. can be hard to arrive at....the flat flight trajectory is not since most people are very aware of where their impact is on point with their first pin.
This fact , along with arrow weight (which can be arrived at by brand/length/head weight) is enough to give relative energy with which to work with.
That being said....K.E. does not factor in such variables as head design whereas relative energy does.
That is to say that I cannot affix a K.E. reduction .... as you have pointed out.
(many same weight gives many K.E. values)
By contrast , flat flight does give an expression of energy where reduction/increases can be affixed to those things that effect change.
K.E. also is expressed at point of launch and impact is generally far from point of launch.
Again....flat flight expresses stored energy to the point of visible reduction and therefore we can now see what further effects are enacted over a greater distance.

The larger point in my mind is impact and the sheer value likely in a worse case scenario and what we need to have to override that obstruction to the point of clearing mass.
In a whitetail that is about 14" mid body.
This is when I have to look at K.E. in relation to distance as well as the forward momentum potential (if any) at the furthest distance stated.
Once I have that in mind I now have to add the resistance potential of the broadhead.

As I said.....depending on the minimums stated....it can get very hard to accurately determine outcome without guessing.

[Greg Krause]

I don't believe there is a "minimum" for all situations. I don't believe my "monster" 80# Vulcan is enough for all shots. The wrong head, wrong shot angle, misplaced shot........could all result in a lack of penetration and a wounded deer with anything less than a "Big 5" bow and arrow set up.
On the other end of the spectrum a 35# longbow with the right head, right shot selection and right placement is plenty to get a pass through a deer.

i beleive it comes down to the hunter more than the equipment. The right hunter can and will consistantly take game with a "light" bow and even the heaviest bow will result in lost game from a sloppy hunter. It's all about knowing your limitations and the limitations of your gear.

[BT]

Thats about it in a nut shell.
You can prepair for the worse case senerio and thats about it.
When prepairing for worse case , minimums go up and can only be reduced by lessening resistance factored in by the equipment that is being used.
Thats why I contend that minimums set as a standard are generally far less then what is needed at times .......while plenty enough on the flip side.
I dont like the flip side personally.....minimums allow more room for error and generally it takes a pretty steadfast person to stay within the range of limitations imposed by the bow itself.

[Greg Krause]

Your other 2 choices are to have no minimums which would allow people to go into the woods very under "gunned" or raise the minimums and possibly keep a lot of responsible hunters out of the woods because they can not handle the new minimums.