I feel the need for speed

[enewman]

here is the paper.

I want to add something. a lot of what I do and others. is not needed for most archers. we strive to take things further. for people that are killing with there setups, most of this is meaningless. it's for people that have had problems or are just wanting to dive deeper into it.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1511/1511.02250.pdf

[antiparadigm]

here is the paper

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1511/1511.02250.pdf

Awesome I'll look it over.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

[antiparadigm]

Haha I see what you mean about the last paragraph!! Lol.

For those that don't want to read this. (Although I recommend it highly)

"Physics is an exact science, but archery, as a whole, is not. The shooting of an arrow has many aspects that are too complicated to be easily attributed to a dominant variable, or it may be difficult to devise measurements that link a hypothesis with an observable phenomenon.

Consequently, there are many topics in archery that lend themselves to endless speculation, for instance the mysterious concept of dynamic spine, or the relation between FOC and lift, or the effect of non-straightness of an oscillating and rotating arrow on its flight. It might be
worthwhile to devote future research to some of these topics."

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

[Rat]

Rat. What if we took some cardboard, make it several inches thick. And then use a blunt tip. Now build some arrows low and high foc. See if there is a difference.

And shoot it while it is moving, it doesn't have to be moving fast. I think 10 gauge steel would be better, with either ballistic or sand behind; that would more closely mimic a rib shot.

A high speed camera to capture the impact and scale the degree of impact deflection would be nice as well. If I ever win the lottery I'm going to do all this...

[antiparadigm]

I am the kind of person that has to understand how it all works. I like to see how the gears turn. Thanks for sharing that. It basically proved what I have been saying for a long time, that there are many many factors or variables here that can't be figured out so simply in a calculator, or in a hypothetical situation.

To tie it in to the OP's question, that last paragraph is good guidance in the sea of recommendations. I have seen people and companies claim a lot of things about all of the arrow flight and penetration factors. There is a lot of noise out there. It just warrants more tests. It's all about what your goal is.

Just like Eric said, it's all about the purpose, or intent of the hunt. If you want a fast flat shooting rig, I'm guessing you are shooting small fast moving deer, and at longer than 30 yard distances. It should work fine in my view. Good luck



Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

[enewman]

Haha I see what you mean about the last paragraph!! Lol.

For those that don't want to read this. (Although I recommend it highly)

"Physics is an exact science, but archery, as a whole, is not. The shooting of an arrow has many aspects that are too complicated to be easily attributed to a dominant variable, or it may be difficult to devise measurements that link a hypothesis with an observable phenomenon.

Consequently, there are many topics in archery that lend themselves to endless speculation, for instance the mysterious concept of dynamic spine, or the relation between FOC and lift, or the effect of non-straightness of an oscillating and rotating arrow on its flight. It might be
worthwhile to devote future research to some of these topics."



Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

it is crazy how people look at things. im working with a a guy with a Ph.D in chemistry. he is trying to prove that dr ashby is using phyics wrong, but the data is good. hes a nice guy but he only see's things on paper and not in the real world. i sent him this a few weeks ago with a question. " what do you think about this paragraph written by a physics departmant of indiana university" still waiting on his responce. hopefully we will have this paper completed in a few months. but it is kicking my ***. the amount of research im having todo. i sure wish i would have taken some physics in school. hahahaha

[antiparadigm]

And shoot it while it is moving, it doesn't have to be moving fast. I think 10 gauge steel would be better, with either ballistic or sand behind; that would more closely mimic a rib shot.



A high speed camera to capture the impact and scale the degree of impact deflection would be nice as well. If I ever win the lottery I'm going to do all this...

Lol.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

[cbd10pt]

I had great success with a monster6 set@ 72# i was shooting 349grain arrows @ 343 fps.
I used a rocket 75 grain mini blaster 1.25 cut.
Penetrated very well actually

[txoutdoorsman24]

not even close. small animals every day. but when you look at capes, most PH tells you above 700 or its a no go. people that hunt elephant hunt with above 1000gr.

Yea no joke. I would never believe or go by the info that is given off of Realtor.com lol. I turned in a bunch of other disgust and it all said the same crap

[RJH1]

An update: After much consideration, i ended up going with the slower, heavier option. A 450 grain arrow at 278fps. I did get some expandables to try, but my fixed blades are hitting with my field points so it is not a big concern. I have a setup i think will be fine for just about everything now.

Thanks for all the input

[jds247]

Talk about a high Jack.. OP glad you were able to get it set up like you want it..

[Loneaggie]

An update: After much consideration, i ended up going with the slower, heavier option. A 450 grain arrow at 278fps. I did get some expandables to try, but my fixed blades are hitting with my field points so it is not a big concern. I have a setup i think will be fine for just about everything now.

Thanks for all the input

Good deal, nothing in NA is un-huntable with 400-500 gr out of the right draw weight and a wise broadhead choice.