High FOC Arrows

[sp-bow]

T-Bone had a good video on his arrow builds last week on the Bone Collector channel on YouTube. Waddy also had an interesting video on the arrow set-ups he used over the years.

[DRT]

Saw that.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[DRT]

Muddyfuzzy his physics isn't good physics. It's like Al Gore fuzzy math. He came up with the conclusions he set out to prove. That archery was a lethal means of game taking.
Just add a tad more powder space and get a few more feet per second tobthe round and suddenly the 5.56NATO is the adequate round the .223 wasn't and the rest is history. But is it really that much more lethal around for hunting? The .300 black out is bigger, heavier and slower yet in our experience more pigs run further with the .300 than the diminutive. 223.
I just look at it for what it was. Not like it was life altering. Bows have been killing long before Ashbey or you and I.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[enewman]

Podcasts and YouTube, what would we do without them…..


[emoji1662]

There would be no fairy.

[muddyfuzzy]

High FOC Arrows

Muddyfuzzy his physics isn't good physics. It's like Al Gore fuzzy math. He came up with the conclusions he set out to prove. That archery was a lethal means of game taking.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Again, it is obvious that you are fairly ignorant of the work that he performed, it’s intent and reasoning. I don’t mean that in an offensive or condescending way either, you seem like an intelligent fellow. But when you say “his” physics it’s pretty clear that you are missing the boat. Ashby strictly refers to the known text book definitions and formulas when delving into how they apply to archery. Terms like work, applied force over time, mechanical advantage, momentum and kinetic energy that he frequently refers to are not his brain children. These terms have existed in the world of physics and engineering and have been classically taught for centuries. We have guys like Newton and da Vinci to thank for those ideas. If these are the physics you are referring to then I don’t know what to tell you because in most civilized societies around the world these are pretty much accepted as fact.

I’ve done a lot of RCA (root cause analysis), failure mode detection and process auditing over the years, it’s what I do. From a purely professional standpoint as a 20 year Quality guy I don’t have any issue with how the data was collected or how it was published. The sample size for the testing was exceptional, the data was collected for All the factors that were committed to be examined and done in a impartial manner. All in all it was a pretty good stab at it and without question the most comprehensive lethality study done not only in the world of archery but as well as any legal means to the best of my knowledge. Again, this stuff isn’t for everybody….I stopped trying to convince folks otherwise. However, I completely disagree with anyone who says that Doc’s personal motivation substantially changed, swayed or otherwise skewed the study to suit his own agenda. Unfortunately it’s a common opinion from his detractors but a poor and weak argument at best.


[emoji1662] look

[Loneaggie]

Higher FOC is beneficial for penetration. That's just a fact. I don't think anyone debates it, the main argument is around when does it have diminishing returns for what your goals are. Shooting a 110# whitetail with a 22% FOC 600gr arrow, with a cut on contact head out of a 70# bow.... is diminishing returns IMO, why that size animal, you can break any bone in its body with a 450 gr arrow, 12% foc, and the RIGHT broadhead. As available energy goes down, FOC and mass of arrow get ever more critical. What's funny is neither FOC or arrow weight are the top factor in Ashby's penetration factors, and only one of them is in the top 3.... but they get the debated the most.

[enewman]

Higher FOC is beneficial for penetration. That's just a fact. I don't think anyone debates it, the main argument is around when does it have diminishing returns for what your goals are. Shooting a 110# whitetail with a 22% FOC 600gr arrow, with a cut on contact head out of a 70# bow.... is diminishing returns IMO, why that size animal, you can break any bone in its body with a 450 gr arrow, 12% foc, and the RIGHT broadhead. As available energy goes down, FOC and mass of arrow get ever more critical. What's funny is neither FOC nor arrow weight are the top factor in Ashby's penetration factors, and only one of them is in the top 3.... but they get the debated the most.

Over the years I have studied lots of things todo with archery. FOC is one of them.

Few years ago I stared talking about the center of gravity and the center of presser. Reason is that it what it is. FOC is nothing but a way to describe the amount of weight the arrow is past center. But all I got was it’s not a rocket. Haha

But for arrow flight stability we need to look at the center of gravity.

As far as FOC increasing penetration. For a trad bow yes. Why does it work? According to ashby it has todo with arrow flex and recovery.

In all of his testing there was never FOC testing done with a compound bow that I have seen.

With a compound bow with a release aid, as long as you have the correct spine, you will not see a benefit to FOC for penetration.

Now, I have not tested. Prolly will not. But Joel maxfield did a test. Now it was not extreme FOC. But there was no difference in penetration into a block target. Now of course the ashby people came out screaming that you cannot test in a target.

Most people don’t know because they don’t read ashby. But ashby in the 2008 updates talkes about arrow recovery and why it causes penetration problems. Why the FOC improves penetration and then tells you how to test. The test ashby tells you how to test is with a foam target. Funny part is I talked about this the otherday and quoted ashby but left out that it was ashby that stated it. I posted it as it was written by me. I was told that I as an idiot and had now clue. This is from people involved with the ashby foundation. When I showed that it was written by ashby they started backing up and making excuses.

Most people that talk about Ashby only regurgitate.

What I have seen, there is zero benefited to penetration based on FOC for compound bows. There is also no study on FOC for compound bows.to this date. There are some small testing that has been done, all of them show the same results. No increase in penetration from FOC.

I want to add, In the ashby studies it took a large increase in FOC to show a increase in penetration. In one study to gain 70%plus incresase in penetration it took 181% increase in FOC.

[SJP51]

I’m running 21% FOC at around 485 grains. They are lethal

I'm sure they are!

I'm running 14%. In one lung and out the other. Just as leathal. Whitle tails and hogs are just not that hard to kill.

[Sleepy]

I'm sure they are!

I'm running 14%. In one lung and out the other. Just as leathal. Whitle tails and hogs are just not that hard to kill.

Why sure. I did it like that for a long time. I don’t prefer higher FOC for penetration/killing. I prefer it for its flight and ease of tuning with large broadheads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tom]

FOC is subjective. There are people making comments that may have never shot them. I generally hunt in a high wind environment. I have found that heavy with high FOC fly much better. this is without question. As far as penetration?? who knows. I am spine'd stiff already so not sure how much it does for the flexing of the arrows on impact and am not really bothered either way. Gotta hit the target.

[Loneaggie]

Over the years I have studied lots of things todo with archery. FOC is one of them.

Few years ago I stared talking about the center of gravity and the center of presser. Reason is that it what it is. FOC is nothing but a way to describe the amount of weight the arrow is past center. But all I got was it’s not a rocket. Haha

But for arrow flight stability we need to look at the center of gravity.

As far as FOC increasing penetration. For a trad bow yes. Why does it work? According to ashby it has todo with arrow flex and recovery.

In all of his testing there was never FOC testing done with a compound bow that I have seen.

With a compound bow with a release aid, as long as you have the correct spine, you will not see a benefit to FOC for penetration.

Now, I have not tested. Prolly will not. But Joel maxfield did a test. Now it was not extreme FOC. But there was no difference in penetration into a block target. Now of course the ashby people came out screaming that you cannot test in a target.

Most people don’t know because they don’t read ashby. But ashby in the 2008 updates talkes about arrow recovery and why it causes penetration problems. Why the FOC improves penetration and then tells you how to test. The test ashby tells you how to test is with a foam target. Funny part is I talked about this the otherday and quoted ashby but left out that it was ashby that stated it. I posted it as it was written by me. I was told that I as an idiot and had now clue. This is from people involved with the ashby foundation. When I showed that it was written by ashby they started backing up and making excuses.

Most people that talk about Ashby only regurgitate.

What I have seen, there is zero benefited to penetration based on FOC for compound bows. There is also no study on FOC for compound bows.to this date. There are some small testing that has been done, all of them show the same results. No increase in penetration from FOC.

I want to add, In the ashby studies it took a large increase in FOC to show a increase in penetration. In one study to gain 70%plus incresase in penetration it took 181% increase in FOC.

I think one problem is most assessments are done on static media. Animals are anything but. Inconsistent and dynamic. As an animal moves on impact the arrow will be forced from its straight line to an angle. The more weight that is “at the back” is the more weight that is most out of line with the line of force that needs to be exerted to drive the broadhead forward. I’m not a physicist nor did I stay in a holiday inn express last night, but the above makes some sense to me.

Overall I do think it’s an overblown topic. As far as time spent, 99.999% would be better off just practicing more and learning what sharp is and how to achieve it.

[enewman]

I think one problem is most assessments are done on static media. Animals are anything but. Inconsistent and dynamic. As an animal moves on impact the arrow will be forced from its straight line to an angle. The more weight that is “at the back” is the more weight that is most out of line with the line of force that needs to be exerted to drive the broadhead forward. I’m not a physicist nor did I stay in a holiday inn express last night, but the above makes some sense to me.

Overall I do think it’s an overblown topic. As far as time spent, 99.999% would be better off just practicing more and learning what sharp is and how to achieve it.

One thing as compound bow hunters, our arrows are almost always too stiff. Because of this, we won't have the same amount of impact flex.

I do have some thoughts on how to test. But it won't be any time soon.

I agree with you on sharp. Picking the correct broadhead and having less impact resistance would also play a major role in cutting down impact flex.

There is a lot to what goes on, With lots of variables.

Now as far as testing. Animals are not a good test media for a scientific physics test. It takes an extreme sample rate to even get the variables close. As you stated animals move. So the outcome is not the same. We could shoot 10 same arrows same bow at 10 different animals and have 10 different outcomes.

Finding repeatable media are a good test to look at the physics of the test. But that is also very hard for people to understand. They only think about the hunting side of it and not the physics side of it.

[popup_menace]

From my experience, chasing FOC can lead to either extremely heavy arrows or extremely brittle arrows.

Focus on the game you’re chasin. A 60-70# bow with a 450-500 grain arrow and a good broadhead will kill just about anything in North America. If you’re only hunting Tx, you can build something 450 grains, have good speed, and blow through just about everything. A well tuned arrow will out-penetrate and poorly tuned one. A sturdy sharp broadhead will outperform a dull and flimsy one.

You’re slinging sticks through animals. The more you complicate it, the more complicated it will seem.

If you want a recommendation on a specific build, here is what I’m shooting:

Victory RIP 300’s
27” c to c
120 grain ethics insert/outsert
100 grain heads
4 fletch AAE 2.6 hybrids

I think total weight is just over 500 grains

I plan to kill a bison with this, and I’m not even slightly worried about penetration. My buddy killed one last year with basically the same setup and I’m actually shooting his old bow. If you can kill a bison with it, odds are you’re fine with anything else, lol. Heck, once that hunt is done I may go to a lighter insert to get a little more speed for longer distance shots