Interesting Read

[LBR]

In the June/July edition of Primitive Archer on "bird points".  It's about the very small knapped heads that hunters before us used.

Considering all the threads that come up about broadheads, speed/performance, penetration, etc. etc. etc. I thought that story might ease some troubled minds.

Long story short, with a 40@28 osage bow (no deflex/reflex, no backing, just a stick), sinew string, reed and rivercane arrows that weighed around 350 and 450 grains respectively, and arrow speeds of 140-something fps and 130-something fps, using flint heads, the author proved that this equipment would cleanly and quickly kill a mature whitetail deer, even when a rib was hit (both lungs were penetrated).

I don't plan to hunt with the same equipment, but it does show that a 900 grain arrow travelling 220 fps with an ultra laser sharp super steel broadhead isn't really required to kill a deer--as long as you can put the arrow in the right place.  :rolleyes:      

Chad

[Brian Krebs]

but but - can they shoot a 2 inch circle at 50 yards with it ?????  

[Jason R. Wesbrock]

Yes, but the front sinew wrap on the fletching acted as a tubulator.  

[Pat B]

Being able to hit a 2" circle at 50 yards is impressive but putting an arrow in the kill zone of a live deer at 15 yards is considerably more impressive to a hunting archer(at least to me it is).
   Well said, Chad.  We had quite a discussion on PA about Billy's article. Billy did a great job of setting up his experiment and went through the motions in a scientific manner. I have found quite a few "bird points" and wondered if they were in fact bird points or were they used for big game also. It doesn't take a very big piece of sharp flint or obsidian to create a lot of blood.     Pat

[buckeye_hunter]

[buckeye_hunter]

I can see the pot starting to boil already, this should be an interesting thread for a couple days.

Staying out of this one and watching.  

[Apex Predator]

Those "bird" points he used were hardly bigger than the shaft.  The deer used for testing had already been killed as well.  Many of us are more concerned with pushing a much larger broadhead than 1/2" for our hunting.

[Pat B]

Apex, I believe Billy's point was that these small points could be used effectively and probably were used by Natives on their hunting arrows for big game.  Back in their time they didn't worry about others opinions. Their main concern was to eat and to protect themselves. Most state archery laws would not allow such small points for big game hunting anyway...although, Georgia doesn't have a size reg on broad heads that I have found in the regs book.
   Pat

[Richie Nell]

"I don't plan to hunt with the same equipment, but it does show that a 900 grain arrow travelling 220 fps with an ultra laser sharp super steel broadhead isn't really required to kill a deer"-- Chad


I don't think any of the heavy arrow crowd is saying a 900 gr. arrow is a REQUIREMENT.  Nor is Ashby's reports saying it is a requirement.  We are just saying that the heavy arrow is gonna overcome the "less than perfect shot", and kill the deer, much better than a lighter arrow.

If we all did things along the minimum requirement lines just to get by, "progress" would not be a word.  

P.S.  Chad I realize you said you would not use that light bow/arrow setup you were referring to above

[Izzy]

I agree that it was quite an interesting article.It inspired me to put a 3/4" wide obsidian birdpoint on a 600 gn ash shaft and I can see it being used on game in the near future.

[Shawn Leonard]

Ya have to remember also that a small very sharp head would penetrate very well due to not having such a large surface to punch thru an animal. I have a bud who killed a 1600# bull moose with a 1" diameter head from a 60# recurve it sliced half a rib going in and stuck about 3 inches out the off side, double lung and the moose went 150 yards. Most game hunted here by the native people was fairly thin skinned and a well placed shot would kill most anything they hunted with fairly light bows. I myself shoot 50-55# bows with arrows in the 8.5 to 9gpp range with sharp heads and would hunt anything in NA with my set-up. Shawn

[pseman]

I hear alot about how heavier arrows will yield better results on  the "less than perfect" hits,  but other than a direct shoulder hit, what less than perfect hit will be any better? It certainly won't help a gut shot, a ham shot, or a shot that is too high or low. I think the article that Chad mentioned clearly shows that the all hunters should place most emphasis on accuracy and shot placement and then most any arrow/broadhead combo will be more than adequate.

[WidowEater]

Originally posted by Pat B:
 Back in their time they didn't worry about others opinions. Their main concern was to eat and to protect themselves.
   Pat

Kind of like lots of us today.

[Jedimaster]

Many years ago I placed a razor sharp three blade broadhead into the front shoulder of a mature whitetail doe.  With a heavy arrow and "fast" compound the deer was still not mortally wounded (she may have died later).  

My point is I don't understand the "less than perfect shot" ideology.  The primitive equipment described could have done a better job if the arrow was placed lethally.  There is only a killing shot, a wounding shot and a missing shot.  

I know sometimes circumstances get in the way and we try to give ourselves the edge but now, as then, I realize that the well placed arrow is the real deal.  I began shooting a recurve and most of my equipment was laughable by what people think now... but it was effective.  I guess that more modern ways are better but untold generations of existence by the natives proves the old ways do work.

[LBR]

The whole point, from my perspective anyway, was that a minimal performing bow, shooting a very light arrow, with a primitive point, did the job.

Yes, the deer was already dead.  It's chest cavity had been packed with ice until just before the tests (the vital organs were left inside the chest cavity).  I'm no scientist or doctor, but common sense tells me that this would make penetration even more difficult--the meat was stiff (rigor mortis) and cold (the test was a couple days after the deer was killed, and had been packed with ice since).

My point was for the folks worrying about not being able to afford the "best" equipment (using that term lightly, as I don't believe you always get more when you pay more), and/or not being able to pull enough weight to get X-amount of KE, momentum, etc.--you can do just fine with most any  reasonable set-up, as long as you do your part.

There's no substitute for an accurate shot with tuned equipment (although in the test he did get good penetration from one arrow that wasn't flying all that great).  If you want to spend 10 grand on a bow and a dozen hunting arrows, more power to you (please consider me when you write out your will)--but for the big majority of bowhunters who will never get to hunt anything bigger than a deer, the "latest and greatest" isn't a requirement to get the job done, and get it done right.  I don't remember who gets the credit for these simple words of wisdom--"dead is dead".

I'm not knocking more expensive equipment--just the idea that you have to spend a small fortune to be able to hunt.  Several years ago, that was how I felt.  Back when I was a newlywed and just getting into the sport, I felt like my equipment was inadequate because I couldn't afford "the best".  Took me a few years (and more dollars than I care to count up) to realize how wrong I was--just trying to help out anyone who might be in the same boat as I was.

Chad

[hill boy]

you put a sharp broadhead, reguardless of size! in the lungs,It can't go far.Every  breathing animal has to have oxygin.Anything outside of that is just trying to buy insurance.Which is ok because we don't always make perfect shots and thats when extra penetration,etc comes into play.