50# not enough...really?

[Andy Cooper]

Quite a thoughtful post, Slasher.  Thanks!  

(not that the other replies were unthoughtful...all are appreciated!)

[DIAMONDBACK]

Andy,50#s is enuff,a good tuff sharp bh is crucial,shot placement is of course priorty.B confident with your set up,I have horns 2 prove the sceptics different.

[Hookeye]

I'd go 55# min on elk.

Never shot an elk though, just a few deer with 55 and 57# rigs.

When I get back on my feet I'll get another 'Widow with 2 sets of limbs, 50-52# for deer, 55-58# for elk.

[Hookeye]

I do agree.....that dead is dead, but making things dead faster (and where you can easily find it) is better.

Lots of stuff comes into play, IMHO a little insurance is a good thing.

If one can shoot 50# well, fine. They might be able to shoot 55# well too with maybe a bit more work/practice (Just trying to counter possible comfort zone rationalizations-if there are any).

With some work and practice we often can extend our options and abilities.

[Hookeye]

Slasher.......

That "believe in yourself" stuff isn't always of merit.

Look at the TV shows "America's Got Talent" and "American Idol"          

Like you said, ya gotta be honest with your self.

[Ratatat]

Guns or bows, don't matter...  It ain't what you throw, it's how you throw it.
my 2 cents.

[Ray Hammond]

That sounds like a voice with experience.  How many elk or moose have you taken, sir?

[Slasher]

Originally posted by Hookeye:
Slasher.......

That "believe in yourself" stuff isn't always of merit.

Look at the TV shows "America's Got Talent" and "American Idol"              

Like you said, ya gotta be honest with your self.

I agree... It was more about the hard work and sacrifice that goes into Knowing what you can do and what you can't do... I know my limits and don't take a shot I don't know I can make..

I have no idea how the original poster can or can't shoot on the range or in the field... But I am sure that they do... Thepoint I was attempting to make with the quote is it surely is enough if you MAKE THE SHOT!!! Making the shot is the difference in most of these discussions over 4 pages of discussion...  If you put in the time, you know what you, your bow, and a your arrow can and can't do... you will believe in yourself... enough to wait for the shot you need to make a clean ethical kill...

No matter what anyone on here says... if the guy is a good shot and a good hunter 50# is plenty... CO required 35#, MT 50#... I don't believe that false feel good "believe" stuff is even in the same conversation...

But if you doubt going in 99 times out of 100 you will fail.. If the poster was unsure because his abilities... then definitely 50# isn't enough... However, if the same guy is no confident because someone EXPERT SAid he needed 70# wheelie bow, then that doubt is probably worth less than the time anyone spent on posting here....

       Only the OP will know fer sure... But if it was a choice between a 20yd shot broadside with a 45# or a 30 yd shot with a 60# bow, I'd take the first and pass on the second... why? Because I know what shot I can make... I am more accurate with a 45# bow than with a 60.... Also at 20yds a lot less can go wrong than at 30yds...

[Hookeye]

I too think confidence to be a key item in making for success.

Even if we try to limit things to being as close to ideal as possible (which is a moving target of its own, as we don't know all that factors into an event)......well I just never saw the critters walking through the woods reading my script.

   

My concern is for when things don't go as planned.

There I think deeper is probably better (just my .02).

Will add that confidence from practice can allow for some folks to make shots of which others might be condemning.

[Hookeye]

FWIW I knew a guy who was pretty clueless in many aspects. His limited abilites he thought to be the benchmark for others.

Up until his enlightenment he reeked of over confidence. And then he missed a chip shot.

Ego's dropping from treestand height make for a cool sound.

I was thinking about him when I read the "believe in yourself" stuff. I don't think he was fully dishonest, part of it was just from a coddled upbringing (liberal "feel good about really not having really achieved" nonsense).

I do see some of that to lesser extent working in a sporting goods store. When I do a good job of keeping my big mouth shut my halo seems to glisten  

That is why I added my post before.......people really do need to be reflective and honest with their selves.........not just in bowhunting/archery.

If that kind of thing ever catches on, well we ought to have a lot of new shining faces in government LOL.

[Tsalagi]

Hookeye said:

"Look at the TV shows "America's Got Talent" and "American Idol""

 Do I have to?    :D  

 I can honestly say I have never seen either of those two shows. Probably because I haven't had a television since 1996. Because of that, I believe in what I can do, not what others tell me I ought to be able to do, should do, or aspire to be. I alone decide those things. Using bows in the 50 pound range.    :D      :D      :D

[Ray Hammond]

Hookeye doesn't need me to speak on his behalf, but what I think I hear him saying is that no matter how hard we try to have things work out to our script, and while confidence is a good thing, realism about your equipment and your capabilities is just as critical if not more so.

Confidence, in and of itself, is not going to bring about the clean death of an animal unless we know ourselves and our equipment better than we know our friends.

I've seen tons of grown men with lots of confidence and time in the woods shoot over/under/and through the bad parts of hogs and deer at under 10 yards.

A man who's killed as much or more game than most of the people I know shot the ground between the legs of a 380" elk at 10 feet- bad stuff happens to good people...and while shooting 5 or 10 more pounds won't kill the elk if you shoot between its feet, it MIGHT help you do more damage if you make a marginal hit on a big boned animal, and get you two holes and a blood trail instead of an entrance wound and no happy ending.

I just watched a guy from essentially out of nowhere- 160 lbs and only 5'10" tall hit 330 yard drives and beat the pants off of Tiger and a slew of other guys bigger and stronger than he was to win the British Open.

If he'd done what most 160 lb guys 5'10" tall do, and shoot tee shots about 250 yards- I doubt he would have won today. Instead, he knew what it took to win- and practiced and tinkered with his equipment till he could do what was required-he didn't work backwards to hit only as far as necessary- he wanted to clobber the heck out of the ball and beat everyone - with distance and accuracy- and that's what he did.

But the trend now seems to be to work backwards to where we shoot the lightest possible equipment we can get away with in bowhunting, and that's where lives are at stake.

If any of us were out of work, and there was a job throwing 50 lb sacks off a railroad car, I guarantee you we'd take that job, but we wouldn't try to then get 'em to pack the sacks with 40 lbs...we'd learn how to throw 50 pounders.

I'm just sayin'.... if you even need to ask other's opinions about whether your equipment is too light for an elk or moose, aren't you sort of answering your own question?

I've seen firsthand what can happen even on light boned critters like deer and want to do everything I can to make marginal hits work for me.

[Tsalagi]

I understand what you're saying, Ray, and I agree with a lot of it. Around the region I live (and I'm not talking about traditional bows, just to be clear), the trend isn't the lightest equipment possible. It's actually finding a way to try and make technology make up for time spent in front of a target. Some people here like the racks, but not target time.

My point is, every game animal on this continent has been taken with 50 pound bows in the hands of skilled bowmen. If a person shoots a 65 pound bow and likes it, I say more power to him. I think that's great and I think people should like what they shoot. There's guys in the UK shooting English longbows upwards of 90 pound draw weights just for the pure fun of shooting war bows. But where I draw the line is someone saying that you HAVE to have a 65 pound bow to shoot a Snuffelufagus or what-have-you when we know a 50 pounder can and has done it and will continue to do it.

And, just sayin', I don't think we really need to delve into socio-political reasons for something (i.e. "...liberal "feel good about really not having really achieved" nonsense...")as it really detracts from the conversation. Points can be made without armchair sociology.

[Slasher]

[DesertDude]

Originally posted by Ray Hammond:
Hookeye doesn't need me to speak on his behalf, but what I think I hear him saying is that no matter how hard we try to have things work out to our script, and while confidence is a good thing, realism about your equipment and your capabilities is just as critical if not more so.

Confidence, in and of itself, is not going to bring about the clean death of an animal unless we know ourselves and our equipment better than we know our friends.

I've seen tons of grown men with lots of confidence and time in the woods shoot over/under/and through the bad parts of hogs and deer at under 10 yards.

A man who's killed as much or more game than most of the people I know shot the ground between the legs of a 380" elk at 10 feet- bad stuff happens to good people...and while shooting 5 or 10 more pounds won't kill the elk if you shoot between its feet, it MIGHT help you do more damage if you make a marginal hit on a big boned animal, and get you two holes and a blood trail instead of an entrance wound and no happy ending.

I just watched a guy from essentially out of nowhere- 160 lbs and only 5'10" tall hit 330 yard drives and beat the pants off of Tiger and a slew of other guys bigger and stronger than he was to win the British Open.

If he'd done what most 160 lb guys 5'10" tall do, and shoot tee shots about 250 yards- I doubt he would have won today. Instead, he knew what it took to win- and practiced and tinkered with his equipment till he could do what was required-he didn't work backwards to hit only as far as necessary- he wanted to clobber the heck out of the ball and beat everyone - with distance and accuracy- and that's what he did.

But the trend now seems to be to work backwards to where we shoot the lightest possible equipment we can get away with in bowhunting, and that's where lives are at stake.

If any of us were out of work, and there was a job throwing 50 lb sacks off a railroad car, I guarantee you we'd take that job, but we wouldn't try to then get 'em to pack the sacks with 40 lbs...we'd learn how to throw 50 pounders.

I'm just sayin'.... if you even need to ask other's opinions about whether your equipment is too light for an elk or moose, aren't you sort of answering your own question?

I've seen firsthand what can happen even on light boned critters like deer and want to do everything I can to make marginal hits work for me.

Hey Ray,  Just what I was thinking but couldn't put it to words.

[swampthing]

I've watched 585g, efoc with 190g grizzlys, arrows slide right through a 380# sow from a 52# Hill. Also watched 3 other ones go in barley 7" on the bad hits, same hog.

[Hookeye]

I think one could sacrifice a little accuracy for enhanced penetration/shorter time of flight.

Accuracy accuracy.....indoor IFAA stuff, what is considered acceptable accuracy? (lets just use that as an example/measuring stick).

To the guy going for the state title, I bet a 240 would be a crappy score. His using an arrow tip as a sight, lower #, he might shoot well closer to 300.

But what about Mr.240, or even Mr.200?

The end score may not be fully reflective of his ability, accuracy alone. He might have great accuracy (or at least decent) up to a point and then fatigue set in and drop his score.

Like trap shooting, there are some folks who shoot a good short string. My ego bud (of previous mention) shot a 25 one day on my local trap range. I have never shot a 25. I've shot a few 96's though..........and my bud can't break 90.

But by golly, he got a 25.

I think a guy who shoots a little heavier bow, to usable good accuracy, but maybe not super fine accuracy, to still have a decent and maybe even better hunting set-up.

My indoor 220-240 scores proved relative to field experience, I nailed 5 deer in a row without a miss (one trotting by at a good clip too). No I won't win state, do OK at local shoots (make for a less than embarrassing display most times    

But back then I was shooting around 58-61#.

Injury, healing has dropped my whitetail # to 50 or a tad over. I'll work my butt off and maybe get to 55+.........for my elk hunt of the future.

If I can't.........I'll take a .35 Whelen.

To each his own.

Cheers,

[Don Stokes]

I would never, ever, sacrifice accuracy for more pounds of draw weight. Arrows kill by hemorrhage, not force of impact. One should not rely on force to make a bad shot good. Recipe for disaster.

[Andy Cooper]

quote:    

[Hookeye]

Don,

Please define "accurate".

Nobody has attempted to do so (from what I've read on this thread). So far there's only been the general terms stated or implied of "accurate" and "not accurate".

Rattling shafts in the X, golfball sized groups, baseball sized groups, being able to hold a certain group for so many arrows without deterioration ?????????

Unless people are Robin-Hooding their X ring arrows one after the other, there's a loss of accuracy.

What expansion of group size, due to increased performance, is acceptable?

Nobody has said.

But many have said, or implied, that any degradation is unacceptable.